FINAL REPORT

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF NUTON JIBON PROJECT

Study Team

Monzur Hossain Kazi Iqbal Tata Zafar

Submitted to: Social Development Foundation

Prepared by The Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies

September 30, 2013

2

Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................... 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................................................ 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 1:  INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 11 1.1  Background ................................................................................................................ 11 1.2  Study area .................................................................................................................. 12 1.3  Project Components and Subcomponents: ............................................................... 12 1.4  Scope of the Current Assignment/Survey .................................................................. 13 1.5  Objective of the Impact Study .................................................................................... 13 1.6  Organization of the Report ......................................................................................... 14 Chapter 2:  METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 15 2.1  Introduction ................................................................................................................ 15 2.2  Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 15 

2.2.1  Questionnaire Design......................................................................................... 15 2.3  Determination of Sample Size ................................................................................... 15 

2.3.1  Sampling Procedure........................................................................................... 16 2.3.2  Sampling Frame ................................................................................................. 16 

2.4  Methods of Analysis: Mixture of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches ................ 17 2.5  Quantitative Approach ............................................................................................... 17 

2.5.1  Descriptive Statistics .......................................................................................... 17 2.5.2  Multivariate Regression Analysis ....................................................................... 18 

2.6  Qualitative Approach .................................................................................................. 18 2.6.1  Focus Group Discussions .................................................................................. 18 2.6.2  Key Informant Interview ..................................................................................... 19 

2.7  Fieldwork Design ....................................................................................................... 20 2.8  Quality Control Measures .......................................................................................... 20 2.9  Data Management and Editing of Interview Schedules ............................................. 20 2.10  Data Processing and Analysis ................................................................................... 20 Chapter 3:  SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS: ........................... 21 3.1  Socio-Economic Profile .............................................................................................. 21 3.2  Educational Status of SIPP Beneficiaries .................................................................. 22 3.3  Livelihood Options ..................................................................................................... 23 3.4  Land Ownership ......................................................................................................... 24 3.5  Summary .................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 4:  LOAN AND IGAS: TYPES, USES AND RETURNS ..................................... 26 4.1  Institutions for Loan and Savings ............................................................................... 26 

4.1.1  Sanchay Sangrakhan Committee (SSC) ............................................................ 26 4.1.2  Village Loan Organization (VCO) ....................................................................... 26 

4.2  Types of loan and recipients ...................................................................................... 26 4.2.1  Shabolombi Loan ............................................................................................... 26 4.2.2  Avvontorin Loan ................................................................................................. 28 4.2.3  Skill Development Loan ..................................................................................... 28 4.2.4  Youth Employment Loan .................................................................................... 29 4.2.5  One Time Grant to Vulnerable ........................................................................... 30 

4.3  Use of Loan and investment in IGAs ......................................................................... 31 4.4  Reported problems with SDF loans ........................................................................... 36 4.5  Summary .................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter 5:  IMPACT ON INCOME, EXPENDITURE AND QUALITY OF LIFE ................ 38 

3

5.1  Income Status of the Households .............................................................................. 38 5.1.1  Household Income ............................................................................................. 38 5.1.2  Sources of Income ............................................................................................. 40 5.1.3  An assessment of PDO of income ..................................................................... 41 5.1.4  Econometric Results .......................................................................................... 41 

5.2  Household Expenditures ............................................................................................ 43 5.2.1  Changes in Food Consumption Pattern ............................................................. 44 5.2.2  Econometric Results .......................................................................................... 45 

5.3  Non-land Asset Ownership ........................................................................................ 46 5.4  Savings Behaviour ..................................................................................................... 48 

5.4.1  Housing, Sanitary, Drinking Water ..................................................................... 49 5.5  Health Status and Illness ........................................................................................... 50 5.6  Summary .................................................................................................................... 51 Chapter 6:  WOMEN EMPOWERMENT AND SOCIAL CAPITAL ................................... 52 6.1  Impact on Women Empowerment .............................................................................. 52 

6.1.1  Econometric Results .......................................................................................... 54 6.2  Impact on Social Capital ............................................................................................ 56 

6.2.1  Econometric Results .......................................................................................... 56 6.3  Summary .................................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 7:  INFRASTRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT..................... 59 7.1  Impact on Infrastructure Development ....................................................................... 59 7.2  Village Level Institutional Development ..................................................................... 60 7.3  Disaster preparedness and coping strategies ............................................................ 62 7.4  Summary .................................................................................................................... 64 Chapter 8:  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................ 65 Appendix-I: Additional tables and figures ......................................................................... 71 APPENDIX-II: Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 84 

4

List of Tables Table 2-1:Distribution of samples (households) ................................................................................... 17 Table 3-1: Household profile of the respondents .................................................................................. 22 Table 3-2: Education level of the family members (Percentage) .......................................................... 23 Table 3-3: Occupation status of the family members (percentage) ...................................................... 23 Table 3-4: Occupation status of the NJG members only (Percentage) ................................................ 24 Table 3-5: Land ownership (percentage) by the respondents (Last 1 year) ......................................... 24 Table 3-6: Types of Land owned by the households (percentage in last 1 year) ................................. 25 Table 3-7: Amount of land (decimal) owned by the households ........................................................... 25 Table 4-1: Number of loans (and percentage) and the recipients ........................................................ 27 Table 4-2: Characteristics of the different types of loan ....................................................................... 28 Table 4-3: Skill Development Loans and its Uses ................................................................................ 29 Table 4-4: Youth employment loans and its uses ................................................................................. 29 Table 4-5: One time grantee who took Shabolombi loan ...................................................................... 30 Table 4-6: use of credit by types (average amount invested/spent for all credits and cycles) (Taka) .. 32 Table 4-7: Use of loan (Shabolombi and Avvontorin) by types (percentage share in total uses) ......... 33 Table 4-8: Length of participation and use of all loan (number and percentage of loans) .................... 34 Table 4-9: Loan cycle and size of loan (Taka) by SIPP-I and SIPP-II (only Shabolombi loan) ............ 35 Table 4-10: Rate of return of the investment from loan (percentage) ................................................... 35 Table 4-11: Problems with SDF loan .................................................................................................... 36 Table 5-1: Percentage distribution of annual income of the households .............................................. 38 Table 5-2: Sources of annual household income [Last 1 year] ............................................................. 40 Table 5-3: Increase of annual income of households (SIPP-II) across districts ................................... 41 Table 5-4: Impact on income ................................................................................................................ 42 Table 5-5: Annual family expenditures (average Taka and % share) of the households ..................... 43 Table 5-6: Annual family expenditure pattern of households (percentage) .......................................... 44 Table 5-7: Annual expenditure (Taka) on food items ............................................................................ 45 Table 5-8: Impact on consumption expenditure .................................................................................... 46 Table 5-9: Non-land asset owned by Nuton Jibon households (in %) .................................................. 47 Table 5-10: Non-land asset ownership of household members ........................................................... 47 Table 5-11: Savings pattern of the households .................................................................................... 48 Table 5-12: Status of housing, sanitary, drinking water and others ...................................................... 50 Table 5-13: Status of health and illness ................................................................................................ 51 Table 6-1: Extent of women’s decision making (percentage of households) ........................................ 53 Table 6-2: Decision making regarding livestock and poultry (percentage) ........................................... 53 Table 6-3: Social mobility...................................................................................................................... 54 Table 6-4: Impact on women empowerment (decision making) ........................................................... 55 Table 6-5: Social capital of the households .......................................................................................... 56 Table 6-6: Impact on social capital ....................................................................................................... 57 Table 7-1: Infrastructure development and respondents’ perceptions .................................................. 59 Table 7-2: Assessment of the village institutions .................................................................................. 61 Table 7-3: Assessment about second generation institutions .............................................................. 62 Table 7-4: Disaster related information ................................................................................................. 63 Table 7-5: Disaster coping strategies ................................................................................................... 63  Figures: Figure 4-1: Percentage of number of loans used in right purposes (IGAs and training) ....................... 31 Figure 4-2: Credit use in terms of volume of credit ............................................................................... 34 Figure 5-1: Lorenz curve and income inequality ................................................................................... 39 Figure 5-2: Percentage share of sources of household income ........................................................... 40 Figure 5-3: Percentage of house having wall made of items ................................................................ 49 

5

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

SDF Social Development Foundation BIDS Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies SSC Sanchay Sangrakhan Committee SAC Social Audit Committee VCO Village Credit Organization IGA Income Generating Activities SIPP Social Investment Program Project VDRRF Village Development and Risk Reduction Fund PDO Project Development Objectives CDD Community Driven Development HIES Household Income and Expenditure Survey BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics CP Community Professional FGD Focus Group Discussion CF Cluster Facilitator NJG Nuton Jibon Group NGO Nongovernment Organization UP Union Parishad LG Local Government

ACKNO

I would like DevelopmenNuton Jibonproject inteproject bene

I thank Mr.Monitoring, (Manager, Mstudy. I pardata collecti

I express mthe prelimincomments o

I thank Mr. and Robertenumerators

Finally, I excooperation

Monzur HosTeam LeadeBangladesh

OWLEDG

to thank thent Studies (n Project”. Trventions oneficiaries.

A. Z. M. SEvaluation

MEL) and otrticularly thaion stage.

my sincere thnary findingon the prelim

Paritosh Cht Shuvro Gs for their go

xpress my n.

ssain, Ph.D. er

h Institute of

GMENT

e Social DevBIDS) the re

The objectiven income, e

Sakhawat Hand Learn

ther staffs onk field leve

hanks to Mr.s of the st

minary finding

akraborty fouda for theood field wor

sincere tha

Developme

velopment Fesponsibilitye of this studemployment

Hossain  (Actning), Mr. Mof SDF for thel staffs of S

M. I. Chowtudy. I am gs of the stu

or his suppoeir research rk.

anks to my

nt Studies (B

6

Foundation (y of conductdy is to mak, quality of

ting ManagiM.I.M. Zulfiqheir cooperaSDF to prov

wdhury, Chaithankful to

udy.

rt in statisticassistance

colleagues

BIDS)

(SDF) for asting the studke an in-dep

life and ov

ng Directorqar (Managation and suvide support

irman of SD workshop

cal analysis. e and super

and staff o

ssigning Bandy titled “Imppth assessmverall povert

), Mr. Abduger, MIS), Mupport in diff

to our enum

DF for facilitaparticipants

I also thankrvisory work

of BIDS for

ngladesh Inspact Assessent of the imty alleviation

ul Momen (DMr. Lutfor Rferent stagemerators du

ating a works for their v

k Mr. Moynuk. I am tha

r their supp

stitute of sment of mpact of n of the

Director, Rahman es of the uring the

shop on valuable

ul Hasan ankful to

port and

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The present study is conducted to evaluate the impact of Nuton Jibon project, a program for livelihood development of the poor and hardcore poor households, which was initiated in 2007 and previously known as Social Investment Program Project (SIPP). The broad objective of this project is to lift the rural poor, hardcore poor and vulnerable people out of poverty through a participatory approach popularly known as Community Driven Development (CDD) in 16 north-western districts. The Phase-II of the project, also called SIPP-II, became effective since December 2010 and is expected to be closed in 2016.

The project broadly aims at improving livelihood, quality of life and resilience to climate vulnerability, natural hazards and other shocks of the rural poor, especially the left out poor and vulnerable households. The specific objectives are: (i) empowering the poor and strengthening local governance by developing sustainable, participatory and accountable rural community institutions; (ii) reducing vulnerability of the poor to risks, in particular those associated with natural hazards and climate variability, (iii) increasing employment opportunities by enhancing skills, supporting the start up or expansion of income generating activities and strengthening access to markets and financial institutions; and (iv) supporting small-scale demand-driven community investment sub-projects that are prioritized, implemented and managed by the rural poor. The aim of this impact assessment study is to assess how much the project objectives are fulfilled.

The impact assessment study was conducted during July-September, 2013. A total of randomly selected 1636 households (1134 program households and 502 control households) were interviewed across six districts of Nuton Jibon project: Barguna, Bagerhat, Gaibandha, Kurigram, Jamalpur and Mymensingh. A mix of both quantitative and qualitative analysis has been applied to assess the impact.

It is observed that the project has made decent progress in achieving its development objectives, some of the performance indicators have been already achieved, while others are in the right track. Using the national poverty line (BBS, 2010), it has been observed that 27 percent of the “hardcore poor” and 31 percent of the “poor” who were classified as poor are now above the poverty lines more likely due to project interventions. About 35 percent of the households have been able to increase their incomes by 40 - 50 percent which is very close to the project target i.e. 50 percent at the end of the project as mentioned in the Project Development Objectives ( PDOs). About 83 percent of village institutions are functioning in a transparent, inclusive and accountable manner against the project target of 75 percent at the end of the project that means the PDOs are fulfilled. Major sources of income of the households are livestock and poultry, business, agriculture, and salary/wages, which accounts for about 90 percent. Incomes from businesses and livestock and poultry are significantly higher in project areas than control areas, and this higher income is attributed to project interventions. This is confirmed by both mean difference tests and multivariate regressions. Income inequality is higher in control areas than project areas. The results show that both membership and length of participation have positive and significant impact on household food and non-food consumption expenditures. Project beneficiaries are now more capable of buying protein/nutrient food. It has been observed that about 56 percent of vulnerable households from SIPP-I and 40 percent from SIPP-II have graduated to hard core poor and have been able to start savings and undertake small scale IGAs.

8

The community financing programs of ‘Nuton Jibon’ project are an integral part of its holistic development a p p r o a c h . The project has four community financing programs--‘Shabolombi’, ‘Avvontorin’, skill development loan and youth employment loan. ‘Shabolombi’ is the main loan component. About 80 percent of the number of total Shabolombi loans and 76 percent of the number of total Avvontorin loan are found to be used for income generating activities. About 97 percent of the respondents reported that they did not encounter any problems in taking the loan. This is a significant feature of the community financing programs of ‘Nuton Jibon’ as these two most important loans are mostly used for productive purposes. Close monitoring by the fellow group members who are most likely to be her neighbours might have resulted in higher productive use of loan. The rate of return from livestock and poultry and small businesses was estimated to be more than 50 and 60 percent, respectively which is very much comparable to the national statistics. Almost 100 percent of target households save money against about 64 percent for control households, of which about 90 percent of the households in the project areas save in the Nuton Jibon project. I t i s o b s e r v e d t h a t the amount saved last year ( a b o u t Tk. 730 on average per household) is higher in project areas than in control areas. The borrowers take loan and invest, their income increases, and they become capable in handling larger loan and investment in larger project. This is an indication of some kind of graduation from smaller-loan- handling capacity to larger-loan-handling capacity. The use of other two loans, namely skill development loan and youth employment loan is also found to be well targeted. About 90 percent of skill development loans are used for various training purposes, such as sewing/tailoring, driving, motor mechanic etc. About 10 percent loans diverted to other purposes. About 56 percent of the youth respondents entered into regular employment process with a start- up capital ranging between 5000 - 7000 taka. This estimate would have even been higher, had the team be able to interview the youth who left the village for wage employment. Most of the infrastructural works are earth works, building culverts, setting up tube wells and repairing school building. About 50 percent of the respondents mentioned that earthwork and culvert construction improves roads/transportation system in their localities. Perception and works done are found to be highly correlated with Participatory Vulnerability Analysis (PVA). This is an important progress towards infrastructure related PDO. More than 50 percent HHs are now taking advantages of infrastructure built by the project as against the project target 80 percent at the end of the project as mentioned in the PDO. Members of the NJG are found to be more empowered than the non-participant, especially women. The results suggest that 89 percent of women have role in decision making upon joining NJGs against only 48 percent at baseline. Women are not only taking loans, they are also the decision makers even on issues related to investment such as livestock and poultry. Results also indicate that women of NJG are more connected to markets than the non participants primarily because of their greater involvement in market. Econometric analysis also corroborates these findings. A large number of participant women reported that now their husbands and relatives valued their opinions, suggestions, decisions and comments more than before. They have now some ‘say’ in family matters such as buying and selling properties, schooling decisions of children, medical treatment, etc About 18 percent of the households with NJG members took initiative to motivate the villagers to meet to resolve any problem and the similar percentage of households provided voluntary labor for the development of the village. This indicates the success of development of leadership and group

9

based solution to individual problems. The corresponding figures for control are only 3 and 2 percent respectively. It has found that Nuton Jibon Group (NJGs) are engaged more in community/social works than the non-members. Gram Samity has earned the reputation of 'problem solver' as 40 percent of treatment households have reported that they would go to Gram Samity first for any kind of help. This also reflects the extent of trust Gram Samity has acquired by its members. While village institutions are familiar to majority of the respondents, second generation institutions are found to be less familiar as they have been introduced only recently (Jamalpur and Gaibandha). Regarding transparency and accountability of the institutions, more than 90 percent of the respondents gave positive response. From sustainability perspective, it is important to introduce gradually the second generation institutions in all the project districts and build their capacity. More than 50 percent households are now taking advantages of infrastructure built by the project, (80 percent by the end of the project). About 60 percent of the respondents now use sanitary latrine, while only about 28% of the poor and hardcore poor had used sanitary latrine in 2010 (according to the Baseline 2010). Almost 100 percent of the respondents in the project area took medical treatment for diseases against 92 percent in control areas. While project members consult a doctor about 7 days after the disease onset, it takes 15 days for control area respondents to see a doctor. This indicates that project members are more concerned about health and diseases and they are more capable of taking formal treatment than those of control groups. According to the PDO, about 70 percent village institutions should take decision based on PVA. Although that kind of appropriate institutional analysis was not done here, based on outcome indicators it can be argued that decisions on IGAs, infrastructure and livelihood options are based on PVA. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project is in the right direction in achieving its development objectives.

Some specific recommendations:

1. Although income of the project households has increased significantly over time, this could be

enhanced by helping them establish market linkages as major sources of income are livestock and small businesses. One of the ways for this is to establish tele-centers in project areas so that project members can get market information from the centre with minimum cost. It is thus recommended to expand e-upazila initiative to whole project areas from its piloting phase in Jamalpur district (see the Baseline Study conducted by BIDS in 2011).

2. Youth employment generation: 56 percent of the youths got employed. A greater emphasis

should be given on how to make best use of skill development loan, particularly to transform it into employment. A data-base of youth (age between 18-35 years) of all the beneficiary households can be updated and constantly monitored by the village institutions for their employment and skill development. Some strategic recommendations for generating more youth employment are made below:

a. Young people are attending various technical institutes in large numbers. This can be seen in

the information and communication technology sector, which has experienced a huge inflow of

10

IT-skilled workers. Thus, E-upazila initiative could be an effective means of capacity building and employment generation in the IT sector. Moreover, e- centre can be used for labour market information.

b. A collaborative strategy can be developed with the SME foundation and other relevant government organizations to help targeted youths to develop their own enterprises.

c. A database of various job opportunities can be developed at the SDF’s headquarter, which later can be communicated to the village institutions for selecting appropriate candidates.

d. Organize sessions at the Upazila and Zila (district) level to raise awareness and discuss youth unemployment issues with representatives of private sector, civil society, youth and government.

3. Second generation institutions are not equally known to the members and necessary steps

should be taken to improve their effectiveness and expand their coverage to more districts in order to build up the foundation for ensuring the sustainability of the program. Thus, members should be made more aware about the institutions (both new and old) for its sustainability after phasing out of the NJ project. It is also recommended to expand second generation institutions in more than two districts so that further improvement of these institutions can be made for its sustainability.

4. SDF has at least one paka or semi-paka building in all program villages. These facilities can

be rented out to earn revenue for the ‘Gram Samity’ for social occasions such as wedding, birth-day, etc. Moreover, these establishments can be used for establishing tele-centers for its commercial uses including computer-related training purposes.

5. Various outcome indicators indicate that PVA has been playing an important role in making

right choice of investments and livelihood in project areas. An overall summary of risk factors associated with IGAs and livelihoods across regions could be instrumental to better outcome of the project.

6. For final impact evaluation, the same households of this mid-term impact study need to be

revisited and the difference-in-difference technique should be applied to assess the impact of the project during the mid-term and final impact evaluation. Moreover, baseline studies, if needed further, should follow the same techniques of analysis and reporting format of indicators. Otherwise, it would be difficult to compare estimates of baseline studies with impact studies. It is also important to note that for an impact evaluation the time period should be not less than six month.

11

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background The present study is conducted to evaluate the impact of Nuton Jibon project, a program for livelihood development of the poor and hardcore poor households, which was initiated in 2007 and previously known as Social Investment Program Project (SIPP). The SIPP-I has been implemented by SDF since 2003 as a pilot CDD (Community Driven Development) operation in two north-western districts, Gaibandha and Jamalpur. Empowerment and Livelihood Improvement (“Nuton Jibon”) project (Project ID: P 073886), popularly known as SIPP-II became effective since December 2010 and is expected to be finished in 2016. The project aimed at improving livelihood, quality of life and resilience to climate vulnerability, natural hazards and other shocks of the rural poor, especially the left out poor and vulnerable households. The objectives were to achieve through: (i) empowering the poor and strengthening local governance by developing sustainable, participatory and accountable rural community institutions; (ii) reducing vulnerability of the poor to risks, in particular those associated with natural hazards and climate variability, (iii) increasing employment opportunities by enhancing skills, supporting the start up or expansion of income generating activities and strengthening access to markets and financial institutions; and (iv) supporting small-scale demand-driven community investment sub-projects that are prioritized, implemented and managed by the rural poor. The project places local community and institutions as focal point of development strategies and thus uses a collective demand driven method, popularly known as Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach. The project aims at achieving its overarching goal of livelihood development through four components: i) Community and livelihood development at the village level, ii) Institutional development and livelihood promotion at inter-village level, iii) capacity development and partnership building from cluster to national level, and iv) project management, monitoring and coordination. In essence, this project develops a model of effective financing and institutional arrangements that improve the access of the rural poor to livelihood and employment opportunities through the project activities. The key outcome indicators to measure the achievement of the project development objectives (PDO) are: (1) At least 75 percent of village institutions function in a transparent, inclusive and accountable manner and implement activities as per project (COM) guidelines; (2) At least 50 percent of target households increase income by at least 50 percent against base year through employment and self –employment ; (3) At least 80 percent of targets households benefits from improved community infrastructure and social service like performance indicators to be tracked include: (a) At least 70 percent of target households have increased savings and have access to inclusive financial service; (b) At least 70 percent of village organizations have applied participatory methods for risk and vulnerability analysis and implemented risk reduction and preparedness plans; and (c) At least 70 percent of community organizations are graded as “A” or “B” in their performance (indicating attainment of key inclusion and accountability indicators and beneficiary satisfaction). The project covers 16 districts (9 new districts and expansions in the 7 existing project districts) and 1500 villages, benefitting about 300,000 target households, with about 3 million populations, directly and indirectly. The project would also further strengthen the on-going village organization and community groups supported under the current program; and would help them from networks of

12

federations and producer groups (so-called second generation institutions). In total, it is expected that phase 1 and phase 2 will benefit approximately 800,000 target households and about 6 million people directly and indirectly.

1.2 Study area SIPP-I was implemented in 7 districts in 1587 villages. SIPP-II has been scaled up to 16 districts including 7 old districts in 51 Upazilas and 266 Unions covering 3262 villages. The ongoing and new villages are categorized in 9 different batches for standardization and uniformity for identification and monitoring. The project intervention areas are shown below. Region District Nuton Jibon Project (SIPP-II) Total villages # Old village

(Phase-I) # New villages (Phase-II)

Rangpur Gaibandha 480 - 480 Rangpur 10 210 220 Nilphamari 10 180 190 Kurigram 10 180 190 Dinajpur 10 150 160 Naogaon - 180 180

Jamalpur Jamalpur 513 30 543 Sirajganj 50 180 230 Mymensingh - 180 180 Sherpur - 220 220 Sylhet/Sunamganj - 60 60

Barisal Barisal - 90 90 Borguna 251 - 251 Pirojpur 104 30 134 Patuakhali 100 - 100 Bagerhat 49 85 134

Total 3362F

1.3 Project Components and Subcomponents: Component A: Community and Livelihood development at village level

A1. Development and Strengthening of Community Organizations A2. Village Development and Risk Reduction Fund (VDRRF)

Component B: Institutional Development and Livelihood Promotion at the Inter - Village level

B1. Development and Strengthening of Inter - Village Organizations B2. Business Promotion, Livelihoods and Market Linkages and Partnerships B3. Creating Conditions for Employment Generation

Component C: Capacity Development and Partnership Building from Cluster to National Level

C1. Capacity Building of SDF and other Relevant Agencies

C2. Supporting Innovations

Component D: Project Management and Coordination

D1. Coordination and Management D2. Monitoring, Learning, Evaluation and Communication

13

1.4 Scope of the Current Assignment/Survey The main objective of the assignment is to conduct the Impact Assessment of the Nuton Jibon Project. This exercise will provide a concise history of the project from its inception to middle stage and assess project performance and compare the achievement with the qualitative and quantitative objectives laid down in the log frame and appraisal report both at the level of inputs, outputs and also at the level of achievements of the project objectives (i.e. impact). The survey will identify the problems and deviations, if any, and reasons for such deviations occurred in the process of implementation and management of the project.

• To assess the income, equity, employment and poverty alleviation impact of multiple loan cycle under SF and other funds of the project in the beneficiaries HH

• To assess the size and adequacy of the loan and sources of additional fund in different cycles or repeated loan

• Assess and estimate the number of loan cycle and/or amount of loan required for moving the poor and hardcore out of the national poverty line.

• To determine the trend of assets accumulation and diversification comparing with the initial stage

• To examine the beneficiaries’ capacity in establishing linkage with service providers in procuring inputs and selling products

• To assess the accessibility to market information for various sources and taking decision based on the information

• To assess the benefits of targeted HHs from improved community infrastructure or social services sub-projects

• To determine the population directly and indirectly benefited by the project • To assess the improvement in the quality of life of the project beneficiaries • To assess the extent of achievement of the empowerment of the rural poor and hard core poor

communities. • To determine the impact of the project on social attributes like empowerment, social status,

cohesion, social network and beneficiary assessment • To assess the implementation of business plan and Participatory Vulnerable Analysis (PVA) in

undertaking income generating activities. • To find out the constraints faced and make recommendation in the way of rural poverty

reduction.

1.5 Objective of the Impact Study The objective of the impact study of ‘Nuton Jibon’ project is to assess how adequately and effectively the project has achieved its stated development objectives to date in terms of poverty alleviation, livelihood improvement and inclusiveness under Village Development and Risk Reduction Fund (VDRRF). The proposed study will also assess the impact of rigid loan repayment cycle, performance effectiveness and sustainability of community institutions, cost effectiveness of community investment sub-projects. The impact study will also focus on the effectiveness of implementation process and recommend adjustments in the final project design to overcome the identified bottlenecks.

14

1.6 Organization of the Report The rest of the report is organized as follows. Chapter 1 is the introduction to the report. Chapter 2 describes methodology which includes data collection method, questionnaire design, sampling and estimation techniques. Chapter 3 elaborates the socioeconomic profile of the respondents. Chapter 4 highlights the major community financing programs, related IGAs and their returns. Chapter 5 discusses women empowerment and social capital issues while Chapter 6 focuses on infrastructural development and village institutions. Chapter 7 reports the econometric analysis of the project impact. Chapter 8 draws conclusion and provide some recommendations.

15

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Introduction In order to quantify the impact properly we need to collect information in such a way that it is comparable with the baseline survey. This will allow us to determine the impact of the project to date. The main component of this project is to conduct a sample survey in both project and control areas. Stratified random sampling procedures are followed in order to draw a representative samples. The methods of analysis include a mix of both quantitative a qualitative methods.

2.2 Data Collection

2.2.1 Questionnaire Design Therefore, we have developed a structured questionnaire for impact assessment based on baseline survey with some additions and modifications to capture the changes of outcome variables. In particular, baseline survey questions are followed and new questions are added. More specifically, the questionnaire covers the following issues: • Socio-economic characteristics (income, asset, education, family size, • Labor and employment situation • Land ownership, tenure arrangements and holding fragmentation • Women empowerment • Adaptation to shocks such as natural hazards, health, etc. • Effectiveness of community based institutions (CDD approach) • Effectiveness of loan facility and one time grant • Development of youth as community professional (CP) • Local infrastructural development

2.3 Determination of Sample Size

For the study a two-stage cluster sampling design is considered. The design effect needs to be considered. Generally design effect of 1.5 to 2.0 is considered depending upon the intra-class correlation coefficient. Since the cluster-sampling design is considered, the sample size is determined by using the following formula,

nh = [( z2 ) (1-r) (f) (k)] / [(r) (p) (s) ( e2 )]

= (1.96)2*0.85*1.5*1.10/0.15*0.5*4.53*.01

= 1585

where, nh is the sample size in terms of number of households to be selected; z is the statistic that defines the level of confidence desired= 1.96 at 5% level of significance

16

r is an estimate of an indicator to be measured by the survey. Here we consider a measurable estimate of change in wellbeing of the poor people, which is assumed to be 15%. f is the sample design effect, which is assumed to be 1.5; k is a multiplier to account for the anticipated rate of non-response, which we assume to be 10% p is the proportion of the total population accounted for by the target population. Since majority of the targeted population live in the rural areas, the HIES 2010 estimate of population whose occupation is agriculture and related activities is 46.4% (rural). Here we consider p = 50%; s is the average household size, which is 4.53 (rural) according to HIES, 2010 e is the margin of error to be attained, 10%. Therefore, for three regions (clusters) of project intervention, a sample of 1600 households is expected to be representative and will meet our purpose. The above formula is used as a guide to ensure representativeness of the sample. However, the study team determines the size of the sample keeping in mind the time and budget constraint after consultation with the SDF management. An approximate size of the sample could be 1600 households, including both treatment (1100) and control (500), which fits well in the time and budget framework as well as in the above formula. 2.3.1 Sampling Procedure There are two potential ways to draw sample for this study: First, draw a fresh sample of 1600 households from three regions (Rangpur, Jamalpur and Barisal), two phases and nine batches in such a way that it represents diverse village development cycles, poverty categories, multiple loan cycles, portfolio of community investment sub-projects, portfolio of livelihood investment subproject and other socioeconomic indicators. Since this is representative, we can compare our results with the baseline report. Second, use the same sample as the benchmark study used and revisit those households to create a panel. Since the benchmark data was not made available to BIDS, we went for first option. However, the area and sample coverage of this impact assessment is quite bigger than the existing baseline surveys.

2.3.2 Sampling Frame The program covers 3262 villages of 16 districts. These 16 districts are grouped into three regions: Rangpur, Jamalpur and Barisal. These three regions comprise 43, 35 and 22 percentage of total villages. Moreover, the project has two phases –-phase I and phase II. Phase I covers 44 percent and phase II covers 56 percent of the households. Thus, a representative sample distribution is given below.

17

Table 2-1:Distribution of samples (households)

A. District-wise sample distribution Region District Project Control Total Barisal Bagerhat 83 21 104

Barguna 200 100 300Rangpur Gaibandha 200 100 300

Kurigram 209 101 310Jamalpur Jamalpur 363 159 522

Mymensingh 79 21 100Total 1,134 502 1,636

B. Phase-wise sample distribution Rangpur Jamalpur Barisal Total Gaibandh

a Kurigram Mymensing Jamalpur Bagerhat Barguna

Phase I 198 126 0 268 0 178 770 Phase II 2 83 79 95 83 22 364 Control 100 101 21 159 21 100 502 Total 300 310 100 522 104 300 1636

2.4 Methods of Analysis: Mixture of Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches In order to assess the impact of the project the study relies on both quantitative and qualitative methods. While quantitative approach is representative and helps draw causal inferences, there are some aspects of the project which the numbers and techniques alone cannot appropriately address. Qualitative analysis will help better understand the formation of local institutions, their activities and their performance as well as issues regarding project management, monitoring and coordination issues. It is also pivotal to gain insight about the perception of the beneficiaries and also the implementers about the relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the project and thus the overall achievement. Therefore, we complement our quantitative analysis with qualitative ones where required. We have used descriptive statistics and sophisticated econometric tools (e.g., multivariate regression analysis, difference-in-difference methods, Propensity Score Matching) for quantitative analysis and for qualitative assessment we will rely on Focus Group Discussions and consultations with relevant stakeholders.

2.5 Quantitative Approach 2.5.1 Descriptive Statistics First two moments - mean, variance, percentage provide the basic comparisons. Moreover, following the baseline survey, some variables are also constructed which capture the improvement of livelihoods, quality of life, resilience to climate variability, natural hazards and other shocks.

18

2.5.2 Multivariate Regression Analysis A multivariate regression analysis is used to assess the impact of the project at the household level. We use some economic indicators such as income and expenditure to capture the changes in wellbeing due to the project. We also study the impact on women empowerment and social capital. Thus, we would like to see if the positive changes in these indicators are caused by the project interventions. That is we control for other covariates such as socioeconomic characteristics of the households and district level unobserved heterogeneity. Multivariate regression analysis has been conducted to assess the impact of the project at the household level. The general form of multiple regression model is given below:

Yit = B1+B2*NJit+B3*socioeconomic characteristicsit + uit (1) Where Yit is the outcome variable of household i in the year t; NJit is a binary variable which assumes 1 when the household participates in the project and 0 otherwise. We also use length of participation as our variable of interest. We also district fixed effect to get rid of district specific unobservable characteristics which might have bearing on the outcome variables. Socioeconomic characteristics include age, sex, earning member per household, education, etc. The treatment variables (NJ) considered are: (1) “Have Nuton Jibon membership”, a dummy variable equal to 1 if the household accessed Nuton Jibon loan; (2) “Years since member of the project,” a count of the number of years the borrower has been a member of the project. The hypothesis tested is whether access to and/or participation in the Nuton Jibon (SIPP) program has a positive effect on various outcome measures. Support for the hypothesis requires that the estimated coefficient β2 on one of the treatment variables in (1) be statistically significantly positive. A statistically significantly positive coefficient estimate on one of the two treatment variables indicates that simple access to the program as well as degree of participation has impact.

2.6 Qualitative Approach 2.6.1 Focus Group Discussions Focus group discussion provides insights into how people think and provides a deeper understanding of the issues being studied. While a valuable research tool, structured questionnaire generally asks closed-ended questions that may limit the feedback that can be gained from a respondent. A method to gain more in-depth information to supplement surveys is interviews; conducting interviews, however, can be an expensive proposition that can exceed the available resources. Focus groups are group interviews that give the researcher the ability to capture deeper information more economically than individual interviews. We conducted 9 FGDs of the beneficiaries in three regions. The proposed FGDs intend to probe the following issues:

1. Perception of the benefit from community financing program and one time 2. Methods for adaptation to shocks such as natural hazards, health, etc. 3. Effectiveness of community based institutions (CDD approach) 4. Effectiveness of community financing facility and one time grant 5. Role of community professional (CP) in community development 6. Effectiveness of Local infrastructural development

19

7. Beneficiaries’ capacity in establishing linkage with service providers in procuring inputs and selling products

8. Accessibility to market information for various sources and taking decision based on the information

9. Benefits of targeted households from improved community infrastructure or social services sub-projects

10. Assessment of project risk and analyses the risk reduction/vulnerability at the community level 11. Impact of the project on social attributes like empowerment, social status, cohesion, social

network and beneficiary assessment 12. Recommendation for improvement of the project impact

2.6.2 Key Informant Interview Key informant interviews are qualitative in-depth interviews with people who know what is going on in the community and also about the issues under study. The purpose of key informant interviews is to collect information from a wide range of people—including community leaders, professionals, or residents—who have first-hand knowledge about the community. These community experts, with their particular knowledge and understanding, can provide insight on the nature of problems and give recommendations for solutions. The type of issues to be consulted depends on the persons to be interviewed. Some examples are given below:

A. Community leaders, teachers, religious leaders, member of local government 1. Perception of the benefit from community financing program and one time grant 2. Methods for adaptation to shocks such as natural hazards, health, etc. 3. Effectiveness of community based institutions (CDD approach) 4. Effectiveness of loan facility and one time grant 5. Role of community professional (CP) in community development 6. Effectiveness of Local infrastructural development 7. Beneficiaries’ capacity in establishing linkage with service providers in procuring inputs and

selling products 8. Accessibility to market information for various sources and taking decision based on the

information 9. Benefits of targeted households from improved community infrastructure or social services

sub-projects 10. Assessment of project risk and analyses the risk reduction/vulnerability at the community level 11. Impact of the project on social attributes like empowerment, social status, cohesion, social

network and beneficiary assessment 12. Recommendation for improvement of the project impact

B. Regional Project director, Program manager, Cluster Facilitator 1. Efficacy of organogram in implementing project 2. Incentive structure of the project staff for improving the efficiency of their work 3. Assessment of project risk and analyses the risk reduction/vulnerability at the community level 4. Impediments and bottlenecks in implementing the project 5. The relative success of the components of the project 6. Recommendation for improvement of the project impact 7. Local level experience in implementing the project

20

C. Community Professional (CP) 1. Their role in community development. 2. Their level of training and its role in human capital development. 3. How the CP program can be improved.

We conducted 30 KIIs in three regions.

2.7 Fieldwork Design 15 enumerators have been hired to complete the survey in 4-5 weeks with 3 people in one group. The visit by the enumerators and field officers was carefully planned. They were positioned in a cluster of study sites to ease supervision and management of the survey. Completed questionnaire were brought to Dhaka at regular interval and the data were entered and cleaned at the same time.

2.8 Quality Control Measures A two-day extensive training program was organized for the preliminarily selected enumerators on the use of questionnaire, and, a field-testing was also done in Sirajganj district. A total of 18 enumerators attended the training sessions. Consultants and supervisors of the project made extensive visits to survey sites in order to monitor data collection process as well as to get an impression on various aspects of the Project. The data collection procedures were supervised continuously by the researchers. The members of the consultant team monitored the interviews as well as provided specific feedback to the enumerators regarding the interview as and when required (e.g., rapport establishment, questioning style, use of probing questions and approach to the respondents). As a follow-up to cross check the field data collection, supervisors re-interviewed some of the sample respondents for checking the process followed by the data enumerators. The supervisor of the enumerators checked all completed interview schedules on a daily basis to identify the missing information, ambiguous answers, numerical errors, and provided feedback to the enumerators. Besides, the consultants made them accessible for clarifying any issue coming up from questionnaire administration over mobile phones.

2.9 Data Management and Editing of Interview Schedules The data management activities included registration of the interview schedules, editing of interview schedules, data entry, and cleaning, processing and analysis. Each interview schedule was edited before entry into the computer. Editing of interview schedules was undertaken to ensure that the interview schedules were accurately and completely filled in by the field investigators and responses are consistent.

2.10 Data Processing and Analysis Data entry format has been designed by using MsAccess software and subsequently editing was done by SPSS Software. After trial of the format, the data entry has been done by experienced data entry operators using the data entry format developed in consultation with the Statistician and System and Data Management Specialist. All the collected data were processed and analysed in accordance with the objectives of the study. Editing, rechecking, coding and tabulation were done during processing of data. Consistency checks and keystroke errors were also detected and corrected accordingly before data analysis.

21

CHAPTER 3: SOCIOECONOMIC PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS: A COMPARISON WITH BASELINE STUDIES

This chapter assesses the impact of the project interventions on the socioeconomic profile of the respondents by comparing available baseline estimates and control groups. The results are reported for three groups of poor: hardcore poor, poor and vulnerable groups according to SDF definition. It is to be noted that several baseline studies were conducted for the project and no uniform format of reporting outcome indicators was followed. Therefore, we have tried to use the figures of baseline surveys that closely match with the impact survey indicators. A note of caution is that the baseline surveys have limitations in terms of coverage, samples and methods used. Therefore, the comparison is made here with caution.

3.1 Socio-Economic Profile Table 3-1 presents basic socio-economic characteristics of the respondents. The size of household is around 4 in both project and control areas, which is also comparable to the national figure (HIES 2010, BBS). Estimated sex ratio indicates that the ratio of females over males is higher in the project areas than the control areas (102 vs. 101). Information on sex ratio was not available in the baseline studies. The average number of earning members in a household has been found to be 2 both in treatment and control areas. This information was also not available in the baseline studies. Our estimates show that Nuton Jibon households own 12.1 decimal of land. While poor households own 16 decimal, hardcore poor own 9.5 decimal land. According to the Baseline 2005, poor households owned 17 and 10 decimals of arable land, and hardcore poor households own 5 and 2 decimals in Jamalpur and Gaibandha districts, respectively. Thus, a positive change in agricultural land ownership of hardcore poor has happened between the baseline and this survey period. About 10 percent of the households in the project area are reportedly landless. However, this landlessness cannot be compared with the baseline surveys due to unavailability of such estimates. Average nominal income of households increased substantially between the two survey periods (baseline, 2004 and impact, 2013) in both project and control areas. While nominal income has increased by about 59% between 2005 and 2010 nationally (BBS, HIES) at a rate of 12% per annum, nominal income here increased by 80% between 2005 and 2012, which is consistent with national figure. However, income of the project households is substantially higher than control households. Per household daily coarse rice consumption is estimated at 1.8 Kg for project and 1.7 Kg for control households. No such figure is available in the baseline studies, and thus it is not possible to compare the situation. However, according to BBS (HIES, 2010), daily rice consumption was about 2 Kg and meat consumption was about 20 gm, which is comparable to our estimates.

22

Table 3-1: Household profile of the respondents Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control Average family size 4.26 (4)2 4.48 (4.3)2 2.71 4.19 3.89 Sex ratio (F/M) 1.19 1.18 1.2 1.19 1.1 Dependency ratio 0.71 (0.73)3 0.68

(0.61)3 0.59 0.69 0.69

Average no. of SDF members per household 1.13 1.16 1.07 1.14 --

Average land owned (dc) 9.5 (10)4 16.1 (17)4 5.8 12.1 8.8 Average agricultural land owned (dc) 3.7 (3.5)2 8.6 (13.5)2 1 5.6 4.3

Landless household (0 dec) (%) 9.0 4.6 34.7 9.8 (79.35)1 11.6 Average monthly household income (Tk) 8294.18 9296.98 3900.00

8225.74 (4578.29)3 6406.97

Average per capita monthly income (Tk) 1769.30 1853.50 1549.40

1759.40 (725.41)2

1520.80 (674.15)2

Per capita agri income (all) 429.3 215.2 25.5 289 (249.6)2 Per cap Food exp (yearly)

12705.47 13137.27 10887.86 12701.5 (4953)2 10805.56

Per capita share of food exp over total exp (%) 77.7 (71)2 75.8 (67)2 84.74 77.63 (60)2

78.98 (60)2

% household with female head 10.4 6.8 53.7 13.5 15.1

Earning members per household 2.47 2.59 1.64 2.43 2.27

Per household daily coarse rice consumption (kg) 1.82 1.92 1.12 1.79 1.69

Per household daily meat consumption (kg) 0.10 0.12 0.02 0.10 0.07

N 494 504 126 1134 502-Figures in parentheses indicate baseline estimates: 1. Baseline 2004; 2. Baseline 2005 3. Baseline 2010; 4. Baseline 2012

3.2 Educational Status of SIPP Beneficiaries

Table 3-2 presents educational status of the household members of Nuton Jibon beneficiaries. The impact assessment survey findings suggest that around one-third of the household members do not have formal education, about 40% have primary education, and around 18 percent have secondary education. Comparing with the baseline findings (BIDS, 2004), primary education enrollments have increased both in the project and control areas during the period under consideration. Illiteracy rate among the family members of SDF beneficiary households has decreased substantially during the project period.

23

Table 3-2: Education level of the family members (Percentage) Hardcore poor

Poor Vulnerable All Control

Illiterate 8.8 8.7 32.8 10.5 (69.7)1 15.2Can read and sign only 28.5 25.6 29.2 27.2 (46.5)2 29.9Primary school 39.4 37.8 29.1 37.9 (26.85)2 38.9High school 17.1 20 7.3 17.8 (19.3)2 12.3S.S.C. 3.9 5.1 1 4.3 (3.75)2 2.2H.S.C. 2 2.4 0.7 2.1 (1.75)2 1.3Graduate 0.3 0.4 0 0.3 (1.8)2 0.3Total 100 100 100 100 100

1. Baseline, 2004; 2. Baseline, 2005

3.3 Livelihood Options Table 3-3 presents primary occupations of the family members of the households. The percentage of day labour employment in the households of the both hard core poor and poor households has increased from 39 percent to 46 percent between the survey periods (baseline and impact). For hardcore poor, while self-employment in agriculture has increased, it has decreased in non-agriculture activities compared to baseline figures. On the other hand, for the poor group, while self-employment in agriculture has decreased, it has increased in non-agriculture. Overall, while day labourers are significantly higher in control areas, self-employment in non-agriculture is significantly higher in the project areas.

Table 3-3: Occupation status of the family members (percentage) Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control

Agriculture (self-employed) 5.3 (3.6)3 4.4 (12.0)3 8.3 5.2 2.0

Day Labor 46.5 (39.7)3 46.4 (39.0)3 36.4 45.3 71.4

-Agricultural Labor 38.7 40 15.7 36.7 46.2

-Non-agricultural labor 7.8 6.4 20.7 8.6 25.2Non-Agriculture (self-employed) 33.7 (42.7)3 34.3 (31.2)3 29.8 33.6

12.2

Service 3.3 5 0.8 3.8 3

Others 11.2 9.8 24.8 12.1 10.8

Total 100 100 100 100 100Note: Livestock has not been reported as a profession separately by the respondents. 3. Baseline 2010 Table 3-4 presents occupation status of Notun Jibon group (NJG) members only—almost all of them are female. The distribution shows that 58 percent of the Nuton Jibon members are reportedly involved in house-works and 22 percent are self-employed in agriculture and non-agriculture activities. Our focus group discussion suggests that those who reported house work as profession, most of them are engaged in some IGAs on a part-time basis including livestock and poultry, agricultural activities etc.

24

Table 3-4: Occupation status of the NJG members only (Percentage)

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Agriculture (self-employed) 11.1 (1.2)3 14.5 (1.3)3 9.2 12.5 (1.5)3

Agricultural Labor 4.7 3.3 3.1 3.9Non-Agriculture (self-employed) 10.3 8 25.4 10.8Non-agricultural labor 3.6 1.6 20 4.4Service 2.2 1.6 0 1.7House work (involved in part-time IGAs) 62 (47)3

63.5 (51.5)3 17.7

58.1 (50.1)3

Others 6.2 7.6 24.6 8.7Total 100 100 100 100N 494 504 126 1134

3. Baseline 2010

3.4 Land Ownership Majority of the project households (68.1%) have only a small piece of land ranging between 1-10 decimals (Table 3-5). About 10% of the project households and 15% in control areas are landless. The proportion of households having land between 21-50 decimals and more is higher in project areas than control areas.

Table 3-5: Land ownership (percentage) by the respondents (Last 1 year)

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Control

Landless (0) 9 4.6 34.7 9.8 15.30 to 1 1.8 1.4 2.5 1.7 2.81 to 10 68.1 56.6 51.2 61.1 60.211 to 20 11.7 14.9 6.6 12.5 12.421 to 50 6.5 17.3 3.3 11 7.450 + 2.9 5.2 1.7 3.8 2Total 100 100 100 100 100N 494 504 126 1134 502

Table 3-6 shows that about 82 percent of the project households have only homestead land, and 20 percent households have both homestead and arable land. According to poverty classification, about 90 percent of the hardcore poor and vulnerable and 70 percent of the poor have only homestead land. The percentage of project households having only homestead land has increased since the baseline 2010. However, it is not possible to identify clearly whether such increase was due to project interventions as the similar percentage of control households has homestead land.

25

Table 3-6: Types of Land owned by the households (percentage in last 1 year)

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Control

Both homestead and Arable land 6.15 12.90 0.60 19.64 16.0

Homestead (only) 86.91

(82.3)3 73.49

(60.05)3 95.0481.77

(64.4)3 86.37Landless 9.00 4.62 34.71 9.84 15.23Total (%) 100 100 100 100 100N 494 504 126 1134 502

Table 3-7 reports the amount of land owned by the households. While households own 12 decimal land in total, half of the land is agricultural land (5.6 dec.). The amount of land owned by project households is significantly higher than control households. Table 3-7: Amount of land (decimal) owned by the households Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control p-value Total land 9.50 16.00 5.80 12.00 8.80 0.00Agricultural Land 3.70 8.60 0.98 5.60 4.30 0.07

3.5 Summary

This chapter provides an analysis of socio-economic characteristics of Nuton Jibon beneficiary households. We emphasised on education, employment and land ownership in this section. While primary education enrollments have increased both in the project and control areas during the period under consideration, illiteracy rate among the family members of project households has decreased substantially during the period. Project households own relatively higher amount of land compared to control households. Employment scenario has not changed much over the period of time, but little improvement in self-employment in agriculture and non-agriculture is observed. It is encouraging to observe that the project households have been able to improve many aspects of their livelihoods over time (between the baseline and this impact assessment surveys).

26

CHAPTER 4: LOAN AND IGAS: TYPES, USES AND RETURNS The overarching goal of ‘Nuton Jibon’ project is to improve the livelihood of rural poor, especially those who are marginalized and vulnerable to any kind of economic or natural shocks. The development of livelihood, generating employment opportunities and also diversifying the source of income critically hinge on the availability and proper use of loan. A rural household is typically loan constrained. Limited access to loan constrains the household to create and expand income opportunities. To this end, the project implements several community financing programs for its members. In this chapter we will discuss the relevant institutions for loan and savings of ‘Nuton Jibon’, extent of uptake of different types of loan, the use of loan, especially in different IGAs, and the rate of return of investment out of loan.

4.1 Institutions for Loan and Savings

4.1.1 Sanchay Sangrakhan Committee (SSC) Sanchaya Sangrakhan Committee (SSC) is mandated to preserve the savings and to keep proper records. Leaders and Cashiers from 3-7 Nuton Jibon Groups (NJG) form SSC. These leaders and cashiers do not need to resign from their posts in the NJGs. At least one member of this group has to be women. The leader and cashier are generally re-elected every year. Major Responsibilities of SSC include opening bank account to keep the savings of Nuton Jibon Groups who are the member of SSC, meeting once in a month and discuss issues about savings and loan activities, helping Nuton Jibon Group members to prepare proposals for obtaining revolving fund loan to start income generating activities, helping Nuton Jibon Group to maintain accounts of savings and loan, maintaining bank pass book, deposit slip and check book and providing monthly statement to individual group and yearly accounts information to Gram Samity. 4.1.2 Village Loan Organization (VCO) This institution is comprised of the leaders/cashiers of all Sanchaya Sangrakhan Committee (SSC) and 2 members from the Gram Samity. The VCO has one leader, one secretary and one cashier. Of these three members, two are women and one is youth. The Nuton Jibon Groups, The SSC and VCO together undertake the savings and loan activities in the village. At least 60 percent of the VCO members are women. The major responsibilities of VCO include collecting the repayment of revolving fund loans through Nuton Jibon Groups, providing revolving fund loans to Nuton Jibon Group members, assisting the Scanning Committee to evaluate the viability of proposals submitted by members for revolving fund loans, maintaining the accounts of loan and repayments and submitting monthly report of loan and repayment activities to Gram Samity.

4.2 Types of loan and recipients 4.2.1 Shabolombi Loan This is the main loan product of the project. The loan provision under Shabolombi Fund (SF) follows some strict procedure for loan application, selection of borrowers and size of loan. Generally the

27

potential borrower applies for loan following the decisions of the Group. An Investment Plan (Business) is approved by the Group. Group Leader and Cashier sign the Joint Liability Document on behalf of the Group to ensure that both the group and each individual member of the group are liable for payment of the loan in case of default. The applicant must be the permanent resident of the village and belong to NJG/Youth Group to be eligible for the loan. She or he must comply and abide by Ten Principles (Dash Niti), have attended group meeting on a regular basis in the last six months and have saved the agreed amounts on a regular basis. The potential borrower cannot have an outstanding loan. Generally the Gram Samity considers the following factors in targeting the loan: divorced, widow, destitute, no earning member in the family, socially ignored, and vulnerable. The typical size of this loan is Taka 10,000 (in SIPP-II) which is repayable in weekly/bi-weekly/monthly instalment in a year. The service charge is 10 percent. One innovation of this loan is that frequency of instalment is decided by the group members. Also, with regard to implementation, the members of the ‘jibikaon’ groups collect the loan and maintain the accounts. Unlike NGO model, the members are not fear from NGO workers, as revealed from several FGDs. Peer pressure, social prestige and sense of ownership help avoid any kind of moral hazard (i.e., lack of incentives to take care of use of loan) problems while need and performance based assessment of the potential loan seekers help avoid adverse selection problem (i.e., loan goes to wrong person). Moreover, the committee who grants the loan has private information about the potential applicants. This makes this ‘Community Finance’ model more effective than the NGO model in terms of eliminating moral hazard and adverse selection problems and thus has more potential to benefit the poor. In our sample, all the households who are the members of SDF have received the Shabolombi loan, except some household who are vulnerable. Note that the vulnerable group is eligible for Shabolombi loan after a grace period. Initially, they receive a one-time grant of the size of about Taka 5000. The committee observes the grantee for a while before giving her the loan.

Table 4-1: Number of loans (and percentage) and the recipients Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Shabolombi 618(47.9) 608(47.1) 65(5) 1291(100) Avvontorin (internal) 135(50) 126(46.7) 9(3.3) 270(100) Skill development 17(42.5) 23(57.5) 40(100) Youth employment 21(41.2) 30(59.8) 51(100) The Table 4-1 documents the distribution of households who received different kinds of loan. Note that the column percentage does not add up to 100 as one household may take different types of loans. The Table 4-2 shows the three largest sectors where Shabolombi loan is used. About 39 percent of Shabolombi loan is used in livestock and poultry while about 18 percent is used in small businesses. The third largest use is agriculture which accounts for about 12 percent. The point to note is that all three major uses are in productive sectors and these three account for about 70 percent of the total number of loans.1 We will discuss this issue in detail later in this chapter. The average size of

1 Note that this 70 percent is based on first three major uses. Some smaller fractions are also used in other IGAs which are not captured here. In terms of number of loan, about 80 percent of Shabolombi loan and 76 percent of Avvontorin loan are used in IGAs.

28

loan for all cycles is about Taka 11,683. This figure is higher than 10,000 because the size of loan increases subsequently. Later in this chapter we will also discuss how the size of loan increases with cycles.

4.2.2 Avvontorin Loan The members of Nuton Jibon Group save per week. One incentive for saving is that they can borrow from this saving fund in case of emergency. Generally 80% of the savings collected by the Nuton Jibon Group can be given as loans to members for meeting their urgent family needs. The group is responsible for setting the maximum amount of loan each member can take. The size of loan can be as small as Taka 500. The internal lending rates are typically set by the groups and it has to be high enough to recover the cost. Usually the service charge is about 10%. This loan is generally payable in weekly or bi-weekly installment. Table 4-1 shows that about 270 households took Avvontorin loan in our sample. The recipients used it in mostly livestock and poultry (56%) and in small businesses (10%). The average size of Avvontorin loan is about Taka 4,883 for all cycles (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2: Characteristics of the different types of loan Average

size of loan received (taka)

Average Number of instalment

Average size of each instalment (taka)

Average Service charge (interest rate)

Use of loan (ranking in terms of percentage of households) 1st use 2nd use 3rd use

Shabolombi

11,683.00 27.7 703.2 10

Livestock and poultry (38.7)

Other small businesses (17.8)

Agriculture (11.9)

Avvontorin (internal)

4,882.80 18.4 387.2 10

Livestock and poultry (55.5)

Other small businesses (10.3)

Others (6.6)

4.2.3 Skill Development Loan Skill development loan is an important tool for achieving the broad objective of livelihood development. The target group is generally the youth who are supposed to develop their skill with this loan through training or any other skill development programs. The incidence of taking this loan in our sample is 40. This loan is found to be used for the right purposes, that is, for training. Most of the borrowers of this credit used it for learning computer, driving, sewing, tailoring, etc. About 90 percent is used for these training purposes (Table 4-3). A small fraction, about 10 percent is used for other purposes such as home consumption and agriculture. Average size of this loan in our sample is Taka 5,324. The service charge of this loan is 10 percent. Only 7 of these cases (about 18%) have been able to generate employment. The KII with project officials at the cluster level pointed out that greater emphasis should be paid to skill development loan and how to make best use of it. That is, more emphasis should be given on the transformation from skill acquisition to employment generation.

29

Table 4-3: Skill Development Loans and its Uses Skill Development Percentage used Average loan size Training (Computer, Mechanic, Driving etc.)

52.5 5167

Sewing/Tailoring training

37.5 6033

Consumption 5 5500 Agriculture 5 2000 N (cases) 40 Employment Generated (Cases)

7

% employment generated from skill development training

17.5

4.2.4 Youth Employment Loan This is another loan for livelihood development targeting only the youth. This loan can be regarded as a complementary to skill development loan. The main purpose of this loan is to serve as a start-up cost to start a trade/employment which he or she has acquired skill on. The incidence of taking this loan is much higher than the skill development loan. A total of 51 cases are found in our sample. The average size of this loan in our sample is slightly above taka 7,000 (Table 4-4). This loan is repayable in bi-weekly/monthly instalment and the service charge is about 10 percent. This loan is used for small business (45%) and tailoring and sewing (31%). It is interestingly to note that only 6 percent of this loan is used for other purpose. It indicates that this loan is rightly targeted and has helped generate employment for youth. Table 4-4: Youth employment loans and its uses Youth Employment Percentage used Average loan size Cow fattening 5.88 9000 Small business 45.1 7111 Agriculture & livestock 11.76 4833 Tailoring/sewing 31.37 6181 Others (consumption etc.) 5.88 5000

N 51 Total youth employment 56.04% (51/91) Note: We could not include wage employment as the loan recipients were not available at the time of interview. A rough estimate of how many youths got employed is 51 out of 91 youths including youths of both skill development and youth employment program beneficiaries. That is, about 56% got employment under both skill development and youth employment programs. One limitation of this estimate is that we could not interview the youth who left the village for wage employment. Otherwise, the estimate would be higher. There are numerous cases where a young person has changed his life with this loan. See Box –I, for an example.

30

Box-I: Case Study: Youth employment Loan Name: Saidul Islam Village: Chatang Para Union: Jongdhora Upazila: Dewangonj District: Jamalpur Saidul Islam is 22 years old now. His father died about 10 years ago. He is a dropped out from class eight. Two years ago he was jobless and used to work for others in agriculture. In 2011 he became the member of Gram Samity and took the Youth employment Loan. He used this loan for training on fixing power tiller and eventually has become a power tiller mechanics. He also learnt how to drive power tiller too. There are many power tillers in Dewangonj and there is always a demand for his skill, Saidul mentioned. He can earn up to Taka 7,000 per month in some seasons. He is financially independent now and he has some savings. He mentioned that this job has changed his life. He can eat well and dress well. He can eat meat at least once a month. Saidul has a plan to buy a power tiller for himself. He hopes that, if everything goes right, he will buy it in a year. He will take the Shabolombi loan to cover some part of the cost. Saidul is now very positive about his life. He has hope and he believes in himself that he can also succeed.

4.2.5 One Time Grant to Vulnerable SDF usually provides one time grant to the vulnerable, ranging between Tk. 2500 to Tk. 3500. Table 4-5 shows that about 48 percent of the vulnerable households have been able to take Shabolombi loan. One of the preconditions for being eligible to get Shabolombi loan is that recipients must have to start savings as well as forming Jibikayon group. In that sense, about 56 percent vulnerable households from SIPP-I and 40 percent from SIPP-II have been able to start savings and IGAs at a limited scale. Table 4-5: One time grantee who took Shabolombi loan

SIPP-I

SIPP-II Total

Number of vulnerable HHs 59 62 121Shabolombi Loan took by vulnerable HHs 33 25 58% of HHs who took Shabolombi loan 55.93 40.32 47.93

4.3 Use

Figure 4-1: P

About 80 pAvvontorin lfeature of thmostly usedlikely to be h

Name: NasimVillage: BoulpUnion: HuglaUpazila: MoroDistrict: BageNasima Begu5000. She bothe investmeShe also tooa part of it in Nasima Begufamily used trent some laimproved theNow their spclothes. NasiNasima has She is keen tNasima thinktaken serioushusband for gNasima think

0

20

40

60

80

100

S

e of Loan a

Percentage o

ercent of thloan are fouhe commund for producher neighbou

ma Begum pur

a Pasha olgonj erhat um took her ought chickennt has broughk another loarice cultivatioum’s husbanto bear sever

and and groweir quality of lifending on fooma thinks thaalready saveto get involveks her social sly now. Her going out.

ks SDF is diffe

Shabolombi 

and investm

of number of

he number ond to be use

nity financingctive purposeurs might ha

Box -II:

first loan on ns with this mht her about T

an – Shabolomon. d is a part timre economic

w rice which mfe. od and clotheat if their incod Taka 510. d in cow fattestatus has bsocial mobil

erent from oth

Avvontorin

ment in IGA

f loans used

of total Shaed for incomg programs es. Close mave resulted

: Case Stud

10th Februarmoney and heTaka 3,500 inmbi loan – of

me carpenterhardship dur

meets their ho

es has increame continuesShe has a pla

ening businesbeen elevatedity has increa

her NGOs as

Skill development 

31

As

in right purp

bolombi loame generating

of ‘Nuton Jmonitoring by

in higher pr

dy: Income

ry, 2013. It wer investment n the last six m

the amount T

r. There werering the lean ousehold dem

ased. In the las to increase, an what to do

ss which she td after takingased. Now s

SDF will distr

Youth employment 

poses (IGAs

ans and 76 g activities (

Jibon’ wherey the fellow roductive use

Diversificat

was an internahas started t

months in totaTaka 10,000

e periods whtime. Now w

mand partly.

ast Eid, they they will build

o when a largthinks has veg loan. Her ohe is does n

ribute its ‘prof

and training

percent of t(Figure 4-1).e two most

group meme of loan.

tion

al loan and tto pay off. Shal by selling eon 11th March

en he used twith the loan t

Income from

were able to d a new housge amount of ry high return

opinions on hnot have to ta

fit’ among the

g)

the number This is a sigimportant lo

mbers who a

the amount whe reported thggs. h, 2013. She

to have no wthe husband poultry and

buy her childse.

money will bns. ousehold ma

ake permissio

e members.

of total gnificant

oans are are most

was Taka hat so far

invested

work. The can also crop has

dren new

be saved.

atters are on of her

32

Table 4-6 shows the average size of credit per cycle used in different sectors by the people of different poverty status. Apart from investing in livestock and poultry, agriculture, agricultural enterprises, fisheries and other small businesses, the recipients also use credit for medical treatment, education, wedding, paying dowry, and home consumption. Though more households use credit in rearing livestock and poultry, the size of credit use in livestock and poultry per cycle on an average is lower than the credit used in other productive sectors such as agriculture, agricultural enterprise, fisheries and small business. In one loan cycle, on an average a hardcore poor invests Taka 10,929 in livestock and poultry, Taka 13,455 in agriculture, Taka 12357 in agricultural enterprises and Taka 11,083 in fisheries. The corresponding figures for the poor are Taka 10602, Taka 14,834, Taka 12,222 and Taka 12,569 respectively. These figures indicate that rearing livestock and poultry require less capital than the other productive sectors. Among the poverty groups, the size of credit is smaller for vulnerable group, as expected. The size varies little between the poor and the hardcore poor

Table 4-6: use of credit by types (average amount invested/spent for all credits and cycles) (Taka) Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Livestock and poultry 10928.93 10601.59 6787.5 10535.11 Agriculture 13454.89 14834.49 8000 14224.94 Agriculture enterprise 12357.14 12222.22 2000 12845.24 Fisheries 11083.33 12569.44 12074.07 Other small businesses 16577.06 12580.58 7523.81 14457.5 Medical Treatment

13500 12166.67 12833.33 Educational expenses 10000 10000 Wedding expenditure/dowry 10333.33 11000 3000 9333.33 Household consumption 2500 2500 Coping disaster 11703.7 18422.22 15902.78 Others 9137.72 11418.18 5720 9923.11 However it is important to note that the above table does not capture the relative share of the use of credit. It only reports the average use for those households which have positive values. That is, for an example, there is only one case for hardcore poor where the household used loan for wedding purposes and spent about Taka 10,333. Therefore, it is important to understand the distribution of credit in different sectors in terms of relative share. Table 4-7 shows the share of loan used in different sectors by the people of different poverty status also how this distribution changes with older (SIPP-I) and newer (SIPP-II) program. On an average about 36.47 percent of total credit is used in livestock and poultry and about 34.29 percent is used for other small business. These two are found to be the major sectors where most of the loan goes and this accounts for about 71 percent. Agriculture stands third (11.3%) and agricultural enterprises and fisheries account for a very tiny fraction of credit uses. About 85 percent of the loan is used for IGAs in

33

terms of volume of loans. Among the non-IGAs, coping disaster, marriage expenditure are the notable uses of credit. It is interesting to observe that vulnerable uses more credit in livestock and poultry than other sectors. The primary reason is that it requires less capital than other sectors and the return matures in quick time. The poor are more into agriculture in terms of credit use than the hardcore poor. It makes sense because hardcore poor are mostly landless. When we compare distribution of loan-use in SIPP-I with SIPP-II, we also find some interesting results. There has been a transformation of the distribution of loan from SIPP-I to SIPP-II in terms of use in livestock and poultry and agriculture. In SIPP-I, on an average about 46 percent credit was used in livestock and poultry while the share is about 33 percent in SIPP-II. On the other hand, share of credit in SIPP-II (16%) doubled from SIPP-I (8%). Also note that share of credit used in other small businesses remained same.

Table 4-7: Use of loan (Shabolombi and Avvontorin) by types (percentage share in total uses)

Credit use Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total SIPP-I SIPP-II

Livestock and poultry 36.47 33.23 57.69 34.66 45.56 32.62Agriculture 11.30 19.00 1.68 14.69 8.15 15.79Agriculture enterprise 1.44 1.00 2.24 1.20 0.49 1.32Fisheries 1.91 1.78 2.23 0.00 2.60Other small businesses 34.29 28.46 18.84 30.79 30.17 31.12Treatment 0.55 0.49 0.50 0.35 0.46Educational expenses 0.30 0.24 0.50 0.00 0.58Marriage expenditure/dowry 2.44 2.96 5.16 2.65 2.33 2.63Household consumption 0.71 0.54 3.08 0.64 0.34 0.70Coping disaster 2.00 3.62 2.79 1.47 3.03Others 8.59 8.68 11.31 9.35 11.15 9.16 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00N 494 504 126 1134 770 364

Figure 4-2: C

Table 4-8: LLoan serialnumber 1st loan 2nd loan 3rd loan 4th loan Note that thborrowers isof the numbpercent in dropped to trend continpoultry increproportion o A number o

1. Inveagric

2. As tothe

3. It cofor li

4. The sma

31%

1% 1%

3%1%

3%

Credit use i

ength of pa Livestock

and poult483(62.1)281(51.7)97(42.5) 28(49.1)

e pattern of s different frber of loansagriculture. 52 percent w

nued in thirdeased, thou

of loans spen

f observatio

stment in livcultural businhe borrower

er small businorroborates tvestock andrate of returll businesse

2%

%

%9%

Use 

n terms of v

articipation ry

Agricult

) 91(11.7) 86(15.8

50(21.98(14)

use of loanrom the news is used in

In the secowhile the sh

d cycle too. ugh it remaint in small b

ns from Tab

vestock andness. Hencers mature anesses suchthe observatd poultry. rn of differens is higher t

35

15%

1%

of credit in 

volume of c

and use of ture Agric

enter7) 19(2.8) 9(1.79) 2(0.9

0(0)

changes wiw borrowers

livestock anond cycle, are in agricuHowever inned much usiness con

ble 4-8:

d poultry ture, recipients nd become

h as tea stalltion that the

nt investmenhan the lives

5%

diffsernt se

34

credit

all loan (nucultural rprise

Fis

.4) 157) 159) 6(2

2(3

ith the length(Table 4-8).

nd poultry, 2the share oulture (16%) fourth cyclebelow the stinued to inc

rns out safeof first loan experience

l, hawkers, e size of loan

nt options alsstock and po

ctos (%)

Livestock

Agricultu

Agricultu

Fisheries

Other sm

Treatme

umber and psheries

5(1.9) 5(2.8) 2.6) 3.5)

h of participa. In the first 22 percent inof loans inv) and other be, share of share in firscrease.

er than easigenerally usd in handlinetc. n is much h

so tells the soultry.

k and poultry

ure

ure enterprise

s

mall businesses

ent

percentage Other small business 170(21.9) 152(28) 73(32) 19(33.3)

ation. That icycle of loan small busvested in livbusiness (28loans invest

st two cycle

ier than othse it in this sng loans, the

igher for sm

same story. T

s

of loans) Total

778(100)543(100)228(100)57(100)

s, use of loan, about 62 iness and a

vestock and8%) increasted in livests. Interestin

her sectors ssector. ey gradually

mall business

The rate of r

an of old percent

about 12 d poultry ed. This ock and

ngly, the

such as

y shift to

ses than

return of

35

Table 4-9: Loan cycle and size of loan (Taka) by SIPP-I and SIPP-II (only Shabolombi loan)

Loan cycle

SIPP – I (Phase-I) SIPP-II (Phase-II) Hardcore Poor Poor Vulnerable

Hardcore Poor Poor Vulnerable

1st cycle 5632 5422 4571 12950 12443 58982nd cycle 5740 5359 4700 14194 14142 62333rd cycle 5519 6016 8000 14817 14432 80004th cycle 5000 5556

N 346 360 64 149 150 62 Table 4-9 shows how the average size of Shabolombi loan changes with loan cycle for SIPP-I and SIPP-II. For SIPP-I, only the vulnerable group shows clear increase in size of the Shabolombi loan as the number of cycle increases. In SIPP-II, where the size of loan is much higher than the SIPP-I, gradual increase in size of loan is visible for all poverty status. It indicates that as the borrowers take loan and investment, their income increases, they become capable in handling larger loan and investment in larger project. This is an indication of some kind of graduation from smaller-loan-handling capacity to larger-loan-handling capacity.

Table 4-10: Rate of return of the investment from loan (percentage)

Credit use

SIPP – I SIPP - II

Control Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable

Livestock and poultry 56.46 50.71 52.50 40.16 48.35 47.66 53.66Agriculture 36.15 36.92 41.27 39.26 33.33 34.89Agriculture enterprise 38.23 23.69 30.00 42.17Fisheries 0.00 53.70 71.94 51.52Other small businesses 64.67 71.15 44.83 60.13 51.94 51.26 60.30

Note: Rate of return is calculated as a ratio of profit over investment in a year expressed in percentage. The Table 4-10 shows the annual rate of return of various investment made by the borrowers classified by poverty status and SIPP. It reveals that the rate of return from livestock and poultry varies from 40-56 percent in program areas. It is found that on an average the rate of return from livestock and poultry in SIPP-I was higher than the SIPP-II. It could be the case that diminishing marginal return has set in as the size of loan is much higher in SIPP-II. The rate of return of other small businesses is higher for other IGAs, on an average. The rate of return from agriculture and agricultural enterprises are found to be very low. We also compare the rate of return with the control group (Table 4-10). The rate of returns for livestock and poultry are very much comparable to the control groups. Since a large number of borrowers invest in livestock and poultry it requires special attention. Table A2 shows that return from poultry is higher than livestock, on an average. Within livestock, return from goat/sheep rearing is higher than cow fattening and cow rearing. The livestock sector contributes largely to rural poor through income and employment generation. It offers sustained employment opportunities, particularly for the rural poor. Small-scale livestock

36

farming during 1993−2002 provided self employment to approximately 3 million poor women (DANIDA 2002). In the backdrop of increasing importance of livestock and poultry in livelihood development, several studies have estimated their rate of returns. A recent study shows that the rate of return varies significantly by geographical locations (Karim et. al, 2010). The highest rate of return from cattle fattening was found in Chittagong (82%) and the lowest rate of return was in Khulna (46%). In between there are Dhaka (49%) and Rajshahi (47%). The rate of return from livestock and poultry of ‘Nuton Jibon’ fares very well with these national statistics. Poultry farming was also found profitable in many studies such as Younus, Ahmed, and Chowdhury (2008). They found that total revenues from sale of day old chicks (DOCs) were TK 12.32 million per farm. The owners earn around Taka 0.87 million per month, with an annual rate of return of 91.8 percent on their investment. In our study too, we found higher rate of return from poultry than the livestock (Table A2 in appendix) though the rate is much lower than the above study.

4.4 Reported problems with SDF loans In our questionnaire we also asked the questions about the problems they face regarding taking and repaying loans. Overwhelmingly about 97 percent of the respondents reported that they did not encounter any problems in taking the loan (Table 4-11). Those who reported some problems complained about timely getting of the loan, smaller size, higher service charge, complex and lengthy paper works. About 77 percent of the respondents did not find any problem with the repayments (Table 4-11). Among the complains, problems in paying regular instalments, lack of opportunities of alternative income, health, livestock and natural shocks, low income from investment are noteworthy.

Table 4-11: Problems with SDF loan

Problem in taking loan Percentage reported

Don't get loan timely 0.4 Insufficient loan 0.6 Don't get loan timely and insufficient loan 0.2 Problems in preparing documents 0.3 Taking long time in procedure 0.5 More service charge 1.1 No problem 96.9 Total 100 Problems in loan repayment Minimum grace period 0.7 Problem in instalment 7.6 Natural disaster 1.8 Low price of commodity sells 0.6 No opportunity of alternative income 4.9 Low income from investment 1.1 Risk of disease 1.8 Illness in family 3.6 Livestock death 0.9 No problem 76.5 Others 0.5 Total 100

37

Box III: A Successful Case: Could not repay Mahajan’s loan Name: Jahura Begum Village: Chatangpara Union: Jongdhora Upazila: Dewangonj District: Jamalpur Jahura Begum became window at about 20 years ago. Since then she has been a destitute, working in other’s home as maid. She had to borrow a large sum of money for her daughters’ marriage in 2008 at a very high interest rate. The borrowed amount grew overtime sharply. In 2011, she heard about SDF and hoped that she would be able to repay the loan of the Mohajan if she could invest the money properly. At first she took Taka 5,000 and subsequently she borrowed Taka 10,000 and Taka15,000 from SDF. She invested a part of the proceeds in poultry and repaid a part of Mahajan’s loan. Still she owed a huge sum to the Mahajan. In the last year chickens died of diseases. Now she has outstanding loan of SDF with no asset to get return from. Mahajan is still chasing her for the outstanding amount.

4.5 Summary The community financing programs of ‘Nuton Jibon’ project are an integral part of its holistic development approach. The project has four community financing programs – ‘Shabolombi’, ‘Avvontorin’, skill development loan and Youth employment loan. ‘Shabolombi’ is the main loan component. About 85 percent (in terms of volume) of this loan is used for productive purposes such as livestock/poultry and business. We found similar results for ‘Avvontorin’ loan. Though smaller in size, this loan is also well targeted and mostly used for productive purposes, both in terms of number of loans and share of volume of loan. The other two loans for the youth are well targeted as well. Skill development loan is mostly used for getting training on sewing, tailoring, computer, driving, etc. One interesting finding is that pattern of use of loan changes with length of participation. Initially in first one to three cycles, borrowers are found to invest more in livestock. However, the subsequent loan is found to be used in businesses, which have higher rate of return than the livestock. We also calculated the rate of returns from various investments out of loan. It turns out that rate of return of livestock/poultry is about 54 percent which is very much comparable to the national statistics.

38

CHAPTER 5: IMPACT ON INCOME, EXPENDITURE AND QUALITY OF LIFE This section assesses the impact of the Nuton Jibon project interventions on income, expenditure and overall quality of life of the beneficiaries. In addition to using descriptive statistics, multiple regression analyses are used to assess the impact.

5.1 Income Status of the Households

5.1.1 Household Income Table 5-1 presents percentage distribution of annual income of the Nuton Jibon households. While about 20 percent of the households have income below Tk. 20,000, 50 percent of the households have income between Tk. 20,000 and Tk. 1,00,000. That is, 70 percent of the households belong to the income groups within Tk. 1,00,000. Income situation in the control area is also the same. However, the proportion of higher income group is relatively higher in project areas.

Table 5-1: Percentage distribution of annual income of the households Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control

% % % % Below 10,000 12.7 (9.9)3 17.1 11.6 14.5 12.3510,000-20,000 4.1 3 24 5.8 7.3720,000-40,000 13.5 (50)3 7.6 (26.5)3 28.9 12.5 15.74

40,000-60,000 12.9 14.9

(30.5)3 14 13.9 19.5260,000-80,000 15.3 (4.0)3 11.2 7.4 12.6 15.7480,000-100,000 12.7 (0)3 11.6 4.1 11.3 8.57100,000-150,000 14.5 16.1 6.6 14.4 12.55150,000-250,000 10.4 14.3 1.7 11.2 6.18250,000+ 3.9 4.2 1.7 3.8 1.99Total 100 100 100 100 100

3.Baseline 2010 (although the estimates are misleading) The Lorenz curve (Figure 5-1) suggests that income inequality is higher in control areas than the project areas (Gini coeff: 0.46 vs. 0.54). On the other hand, income inequality is slightly higher in SIPP-I areas than SIPP-II areas. The income distribution in the project areas has been found to be more equitable, which is also evident in Table 5-1. The project interventions might have been contributed to more equitable income in the project areas.

39

Figure 5-1: Lorenz curve and income inequality

40

5.1.2 Sources of Income Table 5-2 reports major sources of income of the households. Major sources of income of the households include agriculture (including agriculture wage, income from crop and agribusiness), business and salary/wages, which accounts for about 80 percent households. Agriculture and business each accounts for 30 percent of households. About 7 percent of household have income from livestock and poultry. It is observed that income from business and livestock/poultry is significantly higher in the project areas than control areas. Agriculture income remains almost stable, but decreased slightly since 2005. The higher income from business and livestock/poultry might be attributed as a positive outcome of the project. Other sources of income, such as remittances and social safety net programs are also significantly higher in the project areas.

Figure 5-2: Percentage share of sources of household income

Table 5-2: Sources of annual household income [Last 1 year]

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control p-value

Salary and Wage 22729.24 27907.66 14016.20 24244.20 24042.35 0.93

(22.86) (25.04) (30.01)(24.58)

(8.4)2 (31.31)

Business 31301.28 33347.86 12943.38 29870.39 18555.04 0.00

(31.48) (29.92) (27.71)(30.29)

(12.37)2 (24.16)

Agriculture 32456.01 33690.76 11418.32 30603.65 27316.85 0.26

(32.64) (30.22) (24.45)(31.03)(34.4)2 (35.57)

Livestock and Poultry

7381.19 8547.50 2451.03 7232.02 3144.59 0.00(7.42) (7.67) (5.25) (7.33) (4.10)

Social Safety net 1040.47 875.93 4044.92 1357.05 773.83 0.00(1.05) (0.79) (8.66) (1.38) (1.01)

Remittances 4526.54 7100.48 1831.09 5306.95 2954.86 0.00(4.55) (6.37) (3.92) (5.38) (3.85)

Total 99530.17 111563.82 46801.03 98708.87 76883.67 0.00(100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

Note: Average income in Taka has been reported and figures in parentheses represent percentage share of the sources in total income. 2.Baseline, 2005

05

10152025303540

Salary and

 …

Busine

ss

Agriculture

Fruits/Tree

Livestock/Po

u …

Livestock …

Social safety …

Remittances

Percen

t

Treatment

Control

41

5.1.3 An assessment of PDO of income One of the project development objectives (PDO) is that at least 50 percent of target households increase income by at least 50 percent against base year through employment and self –employment. To assess the status, we have estimated income of the households and compared that with baseline estimates available for districts of 2010. Since the baseline estimates of income are available for the year 2010, we compare income status of SIPP-II households only. Comparing with baseline income, we observe that income of the households has increased by more than 60 percent in Bagerhat, Barguna and Gaibandha; however, the income has increased by only 20 percent in Jamalpur, Kurigram and Mymensingh districts. Overall, income has increased by 36 percent compared to the baseline. Considering 3 years gap with an average inflation of 10 percent, real income has increased slightly for the project beneficiaries. On the other hand, more than 40 percent of the project households have been able to increase income (nominal) by 50 percent since the baseline, 2010. However, the progress is slow in Jamalpur, Kurigram and Mymensingh as only about 30 percent households have been able to increase income by 50 percent. From the analysis, it can be concluded that the project is in the right direction to achieve its income related PDO. Table 5-3: Increase of annual income of households (SIPP-II) across districts

District

Baseline income (annual income of households)*

SIPP-II hhs income in 2012-13

% increase of income from the baseline

Cut-off income (50% increase from baseline)

% of hhs having income above the cut-off point

# of households

Bagerhat 34973 56815.6 62.456 52459.50 46.98 83Barguna 26957 45374.4 68.321 40435.50 40.90 22Gaibandha 22290 39500 77.21 33435.00 -- --Jamalpur 65848 79489.4 20.717 98772.00 27.00 95Kurigram 64868 77726.6 19.823 97302.00 31.32 83Mymensingh 52544 63651.9 21.14 78816.00 29.10 79 Total 44580 60426.3 35.546 66870.00 31.77 362

*various baseline studies conducted in 2010 and 2012; for Gaibandha, only a few households interviewed belong to SIPP-II and that is why we omitted the calculation for percentage of households.

5.1.4 Econometric Results Table 5-4 presents the results of the estimation of equations (1) (see Methodology) on the entire data sample. Dependent variables are reported as column headers and the independent variables of interest in rows.

42

Table 5-4: Impact on income

Dependent var: log (per capita

annual hh income)

Dependent var: Share of income from livestock

and poultry

Dependent var: Share of income from business

enterprise VARIABLES model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4 model 5 model 6 SDF participation 0.552*** 0.017 0.078*** (0.079) (0.015) (0.023) length of participation 0.132*** 0.002 0.014** (0.021) (0.004) (0.006) education of hh head 0.060*** 0.061*** -0.003 -0.003 -0.003 -0.002 (0.012) (0.012) (0.002) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) Land (decimal) 0.003** 0.003** -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 (0.001) (0.001) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) no. of earning members 0.157*** 0.151*** -0.011 -0.009 -0.018 -0.020* (0.040) (0.042) (0.008) (0.008) (0.012) (0.012) sex of household head -0.463*** -0.519*** 0.010 0.012 0.082*** 0.082** (0.106) (0.111) (0.021) (0.022) (0.031) (0.032) Barguna 0.482*** 0.311* 0.011 -0.000 -0.219*** -0.245*** (0.167) (0.175) (0.032) (0.034) (0.047) (0.049) Gaibandha 0.212 -0.167 -0.009 -0.017 -0.053 -0.096** (0.163) (0.174) (0.031) (0.034) (0.046) (0.049) Jamalpur 0.544*** 0.237 0.072** 0.068** -0.000 -0.036 (0.155) (0.162) (0.030) (0.032) (0.044) (0.046) Kurigram 0.568*** 0.336** 0.044 0.038 -0.065 -0.092** (0.162) (0.166) (0.031) (0.032) (0.046) (0.047) Mymensingh 0.337* 0.372* 0.007 0.012 0.104* 0.092 (0.198) (0.207) (0.038) (0.040) (0.056) (0.059) Constant 8.227*** 8.617*** 0.064* 0.071** 0.276*** 0.328*** (0.186) (0.183) (0.036) (0.036) (0.053) (0.052) Observations 1,418 1,320 1,418 1,320 1,408 1,310 R-squared 0.090 0.085 0.019 0.018 0.063 0.053 Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

In the first two regressions model specifications, logarithm of per capita annual household income is considered as the outcome variable, and SDF participation and length of participation are the treatment variables, respectively. The results indicate that both the treatment variables have positive and highly significant impact on per capita income of the households. The impact is more prominent among the members of Barguna, Kurigram and Jamalpur areas. Table 5-2 that income from livestock/poultry and business have increased significantly among the members of the project, these two variables are also considered as dependent variables in models 3 & 4 and 5 & 6 respectively. Again the results are very positive and significant. Thus, it may be concluded from the regression models that Nuton Jibon project has positive significant impact on

43

income of the beneficiary households and this increase is due to increase in income from livestock and poultry and businesses. Moreover, the longer a person continues as a member of the project, the more benefits s/he derives from the project.

5.2 Household Expenditures Average annual household expenditure is presented in Table 5-5. Food expense remains the major sources of expenditure—about 67 percent in both project and control areas. Other notable family expenses included medicine and doctor fee (20.61% vs. 16.92%), education (22.23% vs. 34.04%), clothing (12.21% vs. 12.61%), furniture (10.65% vs. 7.61%), fuel cost (10.42% vs. 8.83%) etc.

Table 5-5: Annual family expenditures (average Taka and % share) of the households

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control

Sig. (p-val)

Food 51946.79

(69.38) 56495.37

(66.35)26206.32

(74.6)51180.18

(67.72)40506.69

(66.53) 0.000

Non-food 22923.59

(30.62) 28656.16

(33.65)8895.78 (25.34)

24394.16 (32.28)

20380.21 (33.47)

0.000

Health 4451.9 (19.42)

7291.7 (25.45)

1508.27 (16.95)

5422.06 (22.23)

6937.77 (34.04)

0.75

Education 4354.37 (19.00)

6147.79 (21.45)

1697.73 (19.08)

5027.5 (20.61)

3450.56 (16.93)

0.43

Fuel and Energy 2509.25 (10.95)

2898.67 (10.12)

1196.7 (13.45)

2542.16 (10.42)

1800.46 (8.83)

--

Cosmetics 1550.26

(6.76) 1737.35

( 6.06) 801.5 (9.01)1553.26

(6.37)1225.68

(6.01) --

Transport 2103.3 (9.18)

2430.69(8.48)

915.56 (10.29)

2185.66 (8.96)

1573.47 (7.72)

--

Cloths 3019.77 (13.17)

3400.56(11.87)

1032.46 (11.61)

2978.33 (12.21)

2569.18 (12.61)

--

Entertainment 694.49 (3.03)

728.3(2.54)

425 (4.78)

706.07(2.89)

487.2 (2.39)

--

Utensils 387.78 (1.69)

408.16(1.42)

148.38 (1.67)

381.68(1.56)

378.94 (1.86)

--

Furniture 2636.09 (11.50)

2716.96(9.48)

1068.18 (12.01)

2598.78 (10.65)

1551.95 (7.61)

--

Personal belongings (ornaments, watch etc.)

1216.38 (5.31)

895.98(3.13)

102(1.15)

998.66(4.09)

405 (1.99)

--

N 494 504 126 1134 502 *Figures in parentheses represent percentage. -- Not Tested

44

5.2.1 Changes in Food Consumption Pattern Table 5-6 presents annual family expenditure pattern of the households. About 30 percent of the households spend between Tk. 40,000-60,000 yearly and 23 percent between Tk. 60,000-80,000. The change in the pattern of expenditure is more prominent among the hardcore poor compared to the Baseline survey, 2010. Now about 37 percent hardcore poor households spend between Tk. 60,000 and Tk.100,000 and the corresponding figure was 20 percent in the Baseline survey 2010. Such a pattern of higher spending ability of the households has not been observed in the control areas. Despite the fact that the households in the control areas were matched with the program households based on available information and apparent livelihood situation, the observed differences in the higher spending ability of the program households can be regarded as a positive outcome of the project.

Table 5-6: Annual family expenditure pattern of households (percentage) Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Control

5000-10000 0.2 0.2 5.8 0.8 0.8 10000-20000 2.7 0.8 31.7 5 6.8 20000-40000 14.7 11.2 33.3 15.2 29.7

40000-600000 31.7

(38.5)2 29.1 (20.0)2 20 29.3 31.3

60000-80000 25.2

(15.5)3 24.3 (20.0)3 7.5 22.9 19.1 80000-100000 12.3 (4.6)3 13.3 (16.0)3 0.8 11.5 6.6

100000+ 13.3

(2.65)3 21.1 (14.7)3 0.8 15.4 5.8 Total 100 100 100 100 100 N 494 504 126 1134 502

Table 5-7 reports annual expenditure on some selected food items. The Table suggests that rice expenditure was about 36 percent of total food expenditure in the project areas and 44 percent in control areas. The other major items of expenditure are fish (18% vs. 16.99%), meat (10% vs. 6.6%), vegetables (7.7% vs. 9.13%), milk (4.5% vs. 2.5%), and edible oil (4.8% vs. 5.63%). Project households thus consume more protein/nutrient food than control households. Except rice and oil, consumption expenditure on all other items is significantly higher in project areas than control areas, indicating a sign of improvement of quality of life of the project beneficiaries.

45

Table 5-7: Annual expenditure (Taka) on food items

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control Sig. (p-val)

Rice 18973.65

(36.53) 19951.16

(35.31)11782.83

(44.96)18627.72

(36.40) 17856.24

(44.08)0.11

Ata/moida 161.32 (0.31)

250.03(0.44)

22.78(0.09)

186.06 (0.36)

42.37(0.10)

0.00

Pulse 1952.89

(3.76) 2213.94(

3.92)1156.57

(4.41)1983.26

(3.88) 1726.24

(4.26)0.003

Fish 9184.86 (17.68)

10567.01(18.70)

3762.69(14.36)

9213.94 (18.00)

6881.35(16.99)

0.000

Meat 5336.97 (10.27)

5935.31(10.51)

1311.82(5.01)

5166.33 (10.09)

2669.45(6.59)

0.000

Egg 1417.82

(2.73) 1788.2(3.17)

504.96(1.93)

1484.6( 2.90)

1027.47(2.54)

0.008

Vegetables 4041.03

(7.78) 4214.24

(7.46)2613.97

(9.97)3963.04

(7.74) 3697.39

(9.13)0.01

Milk 2308.02

(4.44) 2705.98

(4.79)922.89(3.52)

2335.62 (4.56)

1007.42(2.49)

0.000

Oil 2561.45

(4.93) 2602.61

(4.61)1630.48

(6.22)2478.28

(4.84) 2279.86

(5.63)0.17

*Figures in parentheses represent percentage. Not all items consumed are reported here.

5.2.2 Econometric Results In this section, we assess the impact of the project on household consumption expenditures. Table 5-8 reports the results. The results show that both membership and length of participation have positive and significant impact on household food and non-food consumption expenditures. Except Mymensingh (new district), consumption expenditures are significantly higher in all other districts. That is, phase-I households have been benefitted more from the projects than those of Phase-II.

46

Table 5-8: Impact on consumption expenditure

Dependent var: log (per capita annual hh food consumption)

Dependent var: log (per capita annual hh non food

consumption) VARIABLES model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4 SDF participation 0.147*** 0.144*** (0.022) (0.030) length of participation 0.030*** 0.040*** (0.006) (0.008) education of hh head 0.008** 0.009*** 0.024*** 0.024*** (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) Land (decimal) 0.002*** 0.003*** 0.002*** 0.002*** (0.000) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001) no. of earning members -0.026** -0.027** 0.010 0.013 (0.011) (0.012) (0.015) (0.015) sex of household head 0.036 0.023 0.219*** 0.217*** (0.030) (0.031) (0.040) (0.041) Barguna 0.455*** 0.402*** 0.194*** 0.134** (0.047) (0.048) (0.062) (0.064) Gaibandha 0.415*** 0.328*** 0.207*** 0.097 (0.046) (0.048) (0.061) (0.064) Jamalpur 0.378*** 0.313*** 0.355*** 0.248*** (0.043) (0.045) (0.058) (0.059) Kurigram 0.325*** 0.255*** 0.163*** 0.092 (0.045) (0.046) (0.060) (0.061) Mymensingh -0.004 0.007 0.042 0.014 (0.056) (0.057) (0.074) (0.076) Constant 8.831*** 8.933*** 6.874*** 6.949*** (0.052) (0.050) (0.070) (0.067) Observations 1,418 1,320 1,417 1,319 R-squared 0.170 0.163 0.127 0.134 Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

5.3 Non-land Asset Ownership Respondents’ non-land asset ownership is explored in Table 5-9. The results show that more than 50 percent of the Nuton Jibon members have non-land asset worth between Tk. 10,000 to Tk. 50,000, while only 36 percent of control group belong to this group. About 40% of the respondents in project areas have assets less than Tk. 10,000, while majority (59%) of control group belong to this group. Thus, in terms of asset ownership, project members are better off than control group members.

47

Table 5-9: Non-land asset owned by Nuton Jibon households (in %)

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Control

<10000 43.1 30.9 88.4 42.6 5910000-50000 51.3 57.6 10.7 49.7 36.750000-100000 3.9 8.6 0.8 5.7 3.6100000-200000 1.2 2.6 0 1.7 0.4200000+ 0.4 0.2 0 0.3 0.4Total 100 100 100 100 100

Table 5-10 reports the ownership of different types of assets of the household members. The notable assets include bi-cycle (6.64% vs. 5.76%), mobile phone (18% vs. 17.49%), net (5.08% vs. 4.34%), bamboo (13.77% vs. 12.69%), furniture (23.55% vs. 29.53%), Ornaments (16.61% vs. 18.07%), and electric fan (6.64% vs. 3.56%). There is no significant difference in terms of number of different assets owned by project and control groups. Table 5-10: Non-land asset ownership of household members Asset code Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control

Motor cycle n 5 7 0 12 2

% 0.27 0.33 0 0.28 0.13

Rickshaw/van n 57 38 2 97 42

% 3.04 1.79 0.86 2.29 2.72

Bi-cycle n 116 160 5 281 89

% 6.19 7.52 2.16 6.64 5.76

Boat n 11 11 0 22 10

% 0.59 0.52 0 0.52 0.65

TV n 52 60 3 115 23

% 2.78 2.82 1.29 2.72 1.49

Radio n 3 6 0 9 2

% 0.16 0.28 0 0.21 0.13

Mobile phone n 356 379 27 762 270

% 19.01 17.81 11.64 18 17.49

Sewing machine n 25 22 0 47 8

% 1.33 1.03 0 1.11 0.52

Sola electricity panel n 42 57 1 100 42

% 2.24 2.68 0.43 2.36 2.72

Net n 91 115 9 215 67

% 4.86 5.4 3.88 5.08 4.34

Bamboo n 247 298 38 583 196

% 13.19 14 16.38 13.77 12.69

Furniture n 436 456 105 997 456

% 23.28 21.43 45.26 23.55 29.53Ornament (any type) n 315 351 37 703 279

48

Asset code Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control % 16.82 16.49 15.95 16.61 18.07

Electric fan n 114 162 5 281 55

% 6.09 7.61 2.16 6.64 3.56

Others n 3 6 0 9 3

% 0.16 0.28 0 0.21 0.19

Total n* 1,873 2,128 232 4,233 1,544% 100 100 100 100 100

Note: * Multiple responses from each household

5.4 Savings Behaviour Table 5-11 reports the savings pattern of the households. About 90 percent of the households in the project areas save in the Nuton Jibon project, and the amount of Taka they have saved last year was Tk. 730 on average. On the other hand, control households mainly save in NGO/Grameen Bank (69%) and the amount of savings there is about Tk. 1500. Overall, the amount saved last year is higher in project areas than control areas. It can be observed that almost 100 percent of target households save money, while it is about 64 percent in case of control households. Thus, the project promotes financial inclusion. In this context, it can be concluded that one of the PDOs that is at least 70 percent of target households have increased savings and have access to inclusive financial service has already been achieved. Table 5-11: Savings pattern of the households

Place of savings Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total Control

At home n 26 26 8 60 73% 4.82 4.81 7.84 5.08 22.67Mean (Tk.) 750 820 205 630 400

NGO/Grameen Bank n 26 14 1 41 223% 4.82 2.59 0.98 3.47 69.26Mean (Tk.) 1650 2300 250 1,600 1500

Commercial bank/Post office

n 5 3 0 8 19% 0.93 0.55 0 0.68 5.9Mean (Tk.) 9000 19200 9500 4500

SIPP (Nuton Jibon) n 479 493 93 1,065 - % 88.87 91.13 91.18 90.1 - Mean (Tk.) 780 740 350 730 -

Shop n 3 5 0 8 7% 0.56 0.92 0 0.67 2.17Mean (Tk.) 1340 1340 1200

Total n 539 541 102 1,182 322% 100 100 100 100 100Mean (Tk.) 1456.36 1751.87 616.24 1512.84 2751.73

49

5.4.1 Housing, Sanitary, Drinking Water Table 5-12 presents the status of sanitary, drinking water and housing condition of the households. The survey results indicate that housing condition of the households has improved since the Baseline conducted in 2005. It is observed that the percentage of houses whose wall was made of Tin has increased from 20 percent in 2005 (baseline) to about 70 percent in 2013 for the poor and hardcore poor. The percentage of house walls made of mud has decreased substantially during the survey periods. The percentage of houses with wall made of bamboo remains stable during the baseline and impact survey periods (Figure 5-3).

Figure 5-3: Percentage of house having wall made of items

Drinking water situation has remained unchanged since the Baseline, 2010. About 95 percent of the households collect drinking water from Tube well, of which 82 percent are shared. The situation of access to safe drinking water is also similar in control areas. Toilet facilities have improved substantially in project areas since the Baseline in 2010. About 60 percent of the respondents now use sanitary latrine, while only about 28% of the poor and hardcore poor had used sanitary latrine in 2010 (according to the Baseline 2010). The sanitary latrine use has increased slightly in project areas compared to control areas.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Wood Bamboo Tin Mud Others

Percen

t of h

ouseho

ld

Treatment

Control

50

Table 5-12: Status of housing, sanitary, drinking water and others Hardcore

Poor (%) Poor (%)

Vulnerable (%) Total (%)

Control (%)

House wall made of: Wood 5.6 4.6 9.6 5.6 6.1 Bamboo

18.3 (14)2 17.5

(19.0)2 24.6 18.6 14.9 Tin

66.7 (19)2 71.8

(33.5)2 51.8 67.5 70.7 Mud 0.4 (7.5)2 0.4 (9.0)2 1.8 0.5 1 Others 9.1 5.6 12.3 7.8 7.3 Sources of drinking water Own hand tube well 11.9 11.6 9.9 11.6 12.5 Shared tube well 82.6 82.7 84.3 82.9 82.7 Tube well (All)

94.5 (95.3)3 94.3 (96.8)3 94.2 94.5

(95.5)3 95.2 Pond 4.9 5.2 4.1 5 2.4 Well 0 0 0.8 0.1 0.2 Others 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.5 2.2 Toilet facilities Open space/ Non-Sanitary 37.5 (64)3 32.6 (67)3 64.7 38.2 43.4 Sanitary 60 (27.5)3 64.8 (28.5)3 29.4 58.9 53.4 Others 2.5 2.6 5.9 2.9 3.2 Having Electricity connection at household 36.2 43.4 12.4

36.8 (11.0)2

26.3

Any separate kitchen (Yes%) 82 88.8 45.5 81

70.5

Average # of rooms in house

1.64 1.89 1.2 1.7 1.56

Note: 2. Baseline, 2005; 3. Baseline, 2010

5.5 Health Status and Illness Table 5-13 presents survey results on health status and illness situation of the respondents. About 26% of the respondents suffer from fever in both treatment and control areas. While 100% of the respondents in the project area took treatment, 92 percent took treatment in control areas. While project members consult a doctor about 7 days after the disease onset, control area respondents took 15 days to see a doctor. This indicates that project members are more concerned about health and diseases and they are more capable of taking formal treatment than those of control groups.

51

Table 5-13: Status of health and illness

Types of disease (%)

Took treatment

Average no. Days after which doctor

was consulted

Average annual treatment

expenditure     

Project Control Project Control Project Control Project Control Fever 26.4 27.5 100 91.7 3.99 3.76 1310.56 1165.09Serious injury 3.1 7.3 95.2 100 5.25 4.63 6947.37 5700Heart disease 4.3 5 100 100 14.66 12.18 9863.79 15590.9Respiratory problem 8.8 7.3 100 100 6.48 7.75 2842 2138.75Diarrhoea 8.7 8.7 100 100 4.88 8.22 4852.76 1480.53Gastric/Ulcer 7.4 6.9 100 93.3 8.48 56.79 2055 2668.46Blood pressure 3.2 1.4 100 100 4.1 2.67 1569.55 3466.67Others 38.1 35.9 99.5 100 9.16 12 5885.75 9578.31

5.6 Summary Income distribution in the project area is found more equitable than that of control areas. Major sources of income of the households are agriculture (including agriculture wage, income from crop and agribusiness), business and salary/wages, which accounts for about 80 percent. Each of agriculture and business accounts for 30 percent shares of total household income. About 7 percent of total household income comes from livestock and poultry. Incomes from both livestock and poultry and businesses are significantly higher in the project areas than control areas. Regression analysis suggests that project contributed positively and significantly to income and expenditures of the households. Expenditure pattern also suggests that both food and non-food expenditures are significantly higher in project areas. The situation of sanitary, housing, and drinking water are also better in project areas. These together indicate a better quality of life of the project beneficiaries.

52

CHAPTER 6: WOMEN EMPOWERMENT AND SOCIAL CAPITAL

6.1 Impact on Women Empowerment Empowered women are argued to contribute more to her family and society than the non-empowered ones. It is argued in literature that children’s health and education outcomes of more empowered women are found to be better. The ‘Nuton Jibon’ project also places women at the center of their development approach. In fact this is an institution ‘of the women and for the women and by the women’. Though there are some male members, especially in case of ‘Jubo’, all the committees are headed by women. The women organize themselves to form a group, apply for fund from SDF and manage that fund properly. They manage as large as Taka 50 lacs by themselves. This in fact is a huge break away from our conventional wisdom that the village people cannot manage a big sum of money. FGD reveals that heading all the committees, taking important decisions, managing funds, disbursing loan, keeping accounts, participating in the meetings have helped boost their confidence and self-esteem. This has direct bearing on the other aspects of their social and economic life. In this chapter we will discuss how participation in SIPP has helped women empowered. Empowerment is a complex and multidimensional issue which can hardly be captured through some structured questions. Therefore, we consider both quantitative and qualitative methods for such analysis. Among a host of dimensions of empowerment, we emphasize on decision making role and social mobility of the women. FGDs and case studies strongly indicate that participation in NJGs has empowered women regarding decision making and social mobility. A large number of participant women reported that now their husbands and relatives valued their opinions, suggestions, decisions and comments more than before. They have now some ‘say’ in family matters such as buying and selling properties, schooling decisions of children, medical treatment, etc. They don’t need ‘permission’ of their husbands or any family members for spending her money. But they maintained that they always inform their husband about their spending. One interesting observation from FGDs is that their relationships with their in-laws have become better. The fact that these women have a role in decision making process has helped gain self-esteem which they used to lack before. Since involvement in committees requires huge time commitment, FGDs reveal that women now have less time to do household works. Therefore, FGDs also probed if it created any tension in the family. Though a few reported that sometimes their husbands did not permit them to attend meeting during the time of household chore, most of them reported that their husbands were very supportive. In order to probe further, we also interviewed a number of husbands whose wives are actively involved in different committees. All of them mentioned that they understand their wives’ commitments and value their wives’ works. They have realized that their wives are also income earning members and this demands their time.

53

Table 6-1: Extent of women’s decision making (percentage of households) Treatment (SDF) Control

Decisions Always

Most of the times

Some times Never Always

Most of the times

Some times Never

Education of children 23 45.4 29.4 2.2 12.1 49 35.9 2.9 Saving money 34.4 39.6 22 4 24.4 35.6 30 10.1 Spending of saved money 33.6 37.4 25.4 3.6 27.8 32 32.6 7.6 Taking loan 27.6 39.5 23.3 9.7 18.7 32.8 28.3 20.2 Going out for work 25.2 30.5 28.2 16.1 20.5 32.2 30 17.3 Family planning 13.3 44.3 33.3 9.2 6.3 38.9 42.1 12.8 Going to parents' home 24.1 32.2 36.1 7.6 19.6 35.8 37.7 6.9

Table 6-1 shows degree of women’s decision making in household matters. For example, ‘Always’ means they always take decision; ‘most of the time’ means they take decision most of the time but not always. It is interesting to note that in all cases ‘Always’ is higher for treatment group than the control. That is, more ‘Nuton Jibon’ women take decision all the time than the non participants in case of children’s education, saving money, spending of saved money, taking loan, going out for work, family planning and going to parents’ home. In case of ‘most of the times’, the results are mixed as there is no clear indication that percentage of women of NJG who can take decision most of the time is higher than the control group. Interestingly, in monetary matters, such as taking loan, saving and spending saved money, the figures are higher for treatment group. Further, fewer women of NJG than the control group reported that they had never taken any decision. Hence, Table Table 6-1 strongly indicates that ‘Nuton Jibon’ project has contributed positively to empower women to make decision in important household matters.

Table 6-2: Decision making regarding livestock and poultry (percentage) Before joining ‘Nuton Jibon’ After joining ‘Nuton Jibon’ None Medium Strong None Medium Strong

Choosing breed of livestock and poultry 48.36 44.58 7.06 7.72 52.7 39.58Marketing of livestock and poultry and their product 46.27 48.52 5.21 11.11 54.42 34.47Home consumption of livestock and poultry and their product 44.72 49.69 5.59 9.66 57.22 33.13Spending of money from selling livestock and poultry product 47.15 47.66 5.18 11.77 54.45 33.78Book keeping of income-spending of livestock and poultry 48.16 46.83 5.01 11.7 54.72 33.57

Since livestock and poultry is a major trade where a large share of ‘Nuton Jibon’ loan goes, we analyze extent of women’s decision making in this case separately. Moreover, women are mostly

54

engaged in this trade and look after the business, as revealed in FGDs. In Table 6-2 we compare ‘before’ and ‘after’ situation in terms of making decision in choosing breed, marketing, home consumption, spending money and book keeping. ‘None’, ‘Medium’, and ‘Strong’ mean woman have no ‘say’, have some ‘say’ and have strong ‘say’ in decision making. Table 6-2 shows that after joining ‘Nuton Jibon’, the women now have strong opinion on the issues related to livestock and poultry. Before participation, only 5-7 percent women had strong opinion but now the share has increased to 33-40 percent. Table 6-2 strongly indicates that women are not only taking loans, they are also the decision makers even on issues related to investment such as livestock and poultry.

Table 6-3: Social mobility Treatment (SDF) Control No. of respondents

Average no. of visits per year

No. of respondents

Average no. of visits per year

Hospital 422 6 190 5Upazila offices 117 6 49 5Upazila health complex 354 8 136 8Family planning office 413 10 143 11Cinema Hall 7 12 5 16Village market 414 54 187 38Exhibition 19 10 2 8Mela 106 3 19 2Political meeting 9 5 3 2Vote centre 44 4 25 3Relatives house 1,043 18 454 15Others 27 36 13 23

Table 6-3 reports the average number of visits to hospotials, upazila offices, upazila health complexes, family planning offices, cinema hall, village market, exhibition, mela, political meeting, vote center and relatives’ houses. It shows that average number of visits by the NJG women is not significantly differently from the control group, except for village market. On an average a NJG women visits village market 54 times a year, that is, about once a week. On the other hand, a non participant woman goes to village market 38 times in a year. This indicates that women of NJG are more connected to markets than the non participants. The reason is that they are more involved in business now.

6.1.1 Econometric Results We assess the impact of the project on women empowerment. For this purpose, we consider several variables related to woman’s overall role in decision making as the outcome indicators. The variables, such as “Education of the children”, “Savings”, “Loan taking”, “Going out for work” and “Family planning” are used to assess the impact on women empowerment. In order to make the outcome indicator a binary variable, we combine ‘always’ and ‘most of the time’ into one group and label it 1 while the other two groups ‘some time’ and ‘never’ are merged and labelled 0. The results again suggest that the project has significant and positive impact on women decision making role, which indicates a positive impact of the project on women empowerment.

55

Table 6-4: Impact on women empowerment (decision making)

Education of children Savings Taking loan Going out for work Family planning

VARIABLES model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4 model 4 model 6 model 7 model 8 model 9 model 10 SDF participation 0.652*** 0.951*** 0.817*** 0.234 0.938*** (0.174) (0.146) (0.139) (0.161) (0.193) length of participation 0.158*** 0.251*** 0.176*** 0.005 0.239*** (0.048) (0.040) (0.037) (0.043) (0.050) education of hh head 0.015 0.017 -0.022 -0.024 -0.045** -0.041** 0.012 0.014 -0.016 -0.020 (0.024) (0.025) (0.021) (0.022) (0.019) (0.020) (0.023) (0.024) (0.027) (0.029) Land (decimal) 0.002 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.006* 0.006* 0.001 0.002 0.006* 0.007* (0.003) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) (0.003) (0.004) (0.002) (0.003) (0.004) (0.004) no. of earning members -0.177** -0.158* -0.128* -0.146* -0.073 -0.105 -0.239*** -0.240*** -0.284*** -0.307*** (0.089) (0.093) (0.075) (0.077) (0.070) (0.072) (0.083) (0.088) (0.107) (0.111) sex of household head -1.244*** -1.082*** -1.315*** -1.280*** -1.302*** -1.261*** -3.032*** -3.092*** -0.818* -0.846** (0.303) (0.307) (0.246) (0.253) (0.230) (0.235) (0.320) (0.333) (0.422) (0.428) Barguna 1.019*** 0.790** 0.261 -0.151 -0.232 -0.553** 1.585*** 1.460*** 3.617*** 2.947*** (0.303) (0.314) (0.265) (0.275) (0.266) (0.278) (0.423) (0.434) (0.739) (0.742) Gaibandha 3.031*** 2.529*** 2.168*** 1.484*** 1.662*** 1.134*** 3.454*** 3.471*** 6.770*** 6.026*** (0.350) (0.361) (0.300) (0.307) (0.291) (0.300) (0.436) (0.457) (0.788) (0.789) Jamalpur 0.798*** 0.442 0.497** -0.062 0.071 -0.349 0.909** 0.817* 5.102*** 4.462*** (0.274) (0.288) (0.244) (0.252) (0.245) (0.255) (0.412) (0.426) (0.736) (0.737) Kurigram 2.509*** 2.206*** 2.275*** 1.806*** 0.297 -0.061 3.288*** 3.269*** 1.809** 1.301* (0.322) (0.320) (0.297) (0.292) (0.258) (0.260) (0.436) (0.444) (0.749) (0.754) Mymensingh 0.319 0.378 0.024 -0.051 -0.614* -0.694** 0.449 0.517 0.041 0.131 (0.343) (0.354) (0.311) (0.317) (0.315) (0.325) (0.514) (0.523) (1.018) (1.018) Constant 0.397 0.614 0.767** 1.359*** 1.032*** 1.560*** 1.434*** 1.640*** -2.958*** -2.249***

(0.403) (0.387) (0.346) (0.337) (0.336) (0.329) (0.465) (0.462) (0.863) (0.853)

Observations 936 871 1,345 1,250 1,294 1,201 1,176 1,088 1,059 996 Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

56

6.2 Impact on Social Capital ‘Nuton Jibon’ project follows the inclusive and participatory approach of development involving the local community and institutions. This method is popularly known as Community-Driven Development (CDD) approach. This participatory approach advocates for building and expanding social capital through group meetings, forming social networks, helping each other out. It helps build leadership quality and create leaders. In this section we will discuss very briefly has the participation in SIPP increased their social capital compared to their non-participant counterpart.

Table 6-5: Social capital of the households Treatment Control

No. % No. % Households with participation of any members in rally/assembly/public meeting 139 12.4 30 6.1Households having links with influential persons 196 17.4 52 10.5Households with members running for UP/UZP chairman or any local government 10 0.9 4 0.8Households with members took initiative to motivate the villagers to meet to resolve any problem 208 18.4 13 2.6Household with members provided voluntary labor for the development of the village 200 17.7 9 1.8 Households reporting that Gram Samity would be the first to help others in bad time 456 40.2 Table 6-5 reveals that members of Nuton Jibon Group (NJG) are engaged more in community/social works than the non-SDF members. About 12 percent of the households have NJG members who have participated in rally/assembly/public meeting. The corresponding figure is only 6 percent for the control group. Interestingly, about 18 percent of the households with NJG members took initiative to motivate the villagers to meet to resolve any problem and the similar percentage of households provided voluntary labor for the development of the village. This indicates the success of development of leadership and group based solution to individual problems, as advocated by the SDF. The corresponding figures for control are only 3 and 2 percent respectively. About 40 percent of treatment households have reported that they would go to Gram Samity first for any kind of help. This also reflects the extent of trust Gram Samity has acquired by its members.

6.2.1 Econometric Results Impact on social capital has been assessed in this section. Attending social meetings other than Nuton Jibon, motivating others for doing good and degree of voluntary work are considered as indicators of social capital. It is observed in Table 6-6 that the project has significant impact on improving social capital of the beneficiary households.

57

Table 6-6: Impact on social capital

Attending meeting(except

SIPP) Motivating others Voluntary work

VARIABLES model 1 model 2 model 3 model 4 model 5 model 6

SDF participation 0.928*** 2.100*** 2.465*** (0.239) (0.308) (0.356) length of participation 0.278*** 0.355*** 0.440*** (0.058) (0.054) (0.065) education of hh head 0.013 0.016 0.039* 0.048** 0.022 0.034 (0.027) (0.028) (0.024) (0.024) (0.027) (0.027) Land (decimal) -0.006 -0.005 0.005** 0.005* 0.004 0.003 (0.006) (0.005) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) (0.003) no. of earning members 0.080 0.034 0.057 0.041 0.069 0.055 (0.099) (0.103) (0.085) (0.088) (0.092) (0.095) sex of household head 1.198*** 1.110*** 0.767*** 0.730** 0.667** 0.520* (0.368) (0.371) (0.297) (0.306) (0.304) (0.303) Barguna -0.179 -0.505 -1.491*** -1.951*** -1.507*** -2.367*** (0.377) (0.391) (0.544) (0.554) (0.577) (0.638) Gaibandha 0.944*** 0.066 1.198*** -0.037 1.666*** 0.123 (0.338) (0.386) (0.363) (0.404) (0.373) (0.431) Jamalpur -1.253*** -1.972*** 0.138 -0.778** -1.763*** -2.858*** (0.390) (0.430) (0.364) (0.393) (0.497) (0.535) Kurigram -0.656* -1.210*** 0.755** -0.057 1.007*** 0.002 (0.385) (0.404) (0.367) (0.377) (0.377) (0.393) Mymensingh -0.517 -0.515 0.382 0.433 0.922** 0.996** (0.483) (0.501) (0.444) (0.446) (0.433) (0.430) Constant -3.858*** -3.127*** -4.923*** -3.272*** -5.243*** -3.229***

(0.525) (0.494) (0.535) (0.457) (0.575) (0.471)

Observations 1,398 1,302 1,411 1,315 1,410 1,314 Standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

6.3 Summary ‘Nuton Jibon’ not only contributed to income generation, it has significant impact on non-income dimensions of well being. Members of the NJG are found to be more empowered than the non-participant. A large number of participant women reported that now their husbands and relatives valued their opinions, suggestions, decisions and comments more than before. They have now some ‘say’ in family matters such as buying and selling properties, schooling decisions of children, medical treatment, etc. Women are not only taking loans, they are also the decision makers even on issues related to investment such as livestock and poultry. Results also indicate that women of NJG are more connected to markets than the non participants primarily due to their greater involvement in

58

market. Econometric analysis also confirms that NJG members are more empowered and have more social capital than the control group. We also found that Nuton Jibon Group (NJG) are engaged more in community/social works than the non-SDF members. Gram Samity has earned the reputation of ‘problem solver’ as 40 percent of treatment households have reported that they would go to Gram Samity first for any kind of help.

59

CHAPTER 7: INFRASTRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT

7.1 Impact on Infrastructure Development ‘Nuton Jibon’ project follows a holistic approach of development, putting higher priority on the infrastructure of the villages for development of livelihood. ‘Gram Samity’ decides which infrastructural works to be done and how much to spend on it. FGDs reveal that there is hardly any complain about the way these infrastructural works are being managed. Most of the villagers are happy that these works are done in transparent manners, though there a few complains. However, in terms of numbers of works, villagers think that it is inadequate. Most of the infrastructural works are earth works, building culverts, setting up tube wells and repairing school building. In this chapter we will discuss the extent these works are being done in villages and the perception of the villagers about SIPP’s contribution to enhancing some basic civic amenities.

Table 7-1: Infrastructure development and respondents’ perceptions Infrastructural works Work completed or still on-going under SIPP in your

village Yes No Don't know

Earth work 60.5 31.8 7.7 Culvert/pipe/box 58.6 31.6 9.8 Canal/drain 9.5 74.9 15.6 Tube-well 28.1 59.4 12.5 School development

12.9 69.8 17.3

Market development 0.9 81.3 17.8

Total 28.7 57.9 13.4 The above Table 7-1 highlights if there is any infrastructural works currently underway or has been completed. About 61 percent respondents reported that earth works are done/going on and about 59 percent reported that culvert was built/on-going. In case of tube-well, school development building canal/drain, only 28, 13 and 10 percent of the respondents reported to have these works done or still ongoing. There is hardly any work done for market development. About 50 percent of the respondents mentioned that earthwork and culvert construction improves roads/transportation system in their localities. This is an important progress towards infrastructure related PDO. Case Studies and FGDs also reveal that the members of NJG rank infrastructure works very high when asked about the major contribution of the project in their locality. However, some reported that local leaders and influential people have tried to take control of the infrastructure works. Some of them

60

put undue pressure on the members of NJG to give them the contracts, some asked them to buy materials from them. Even there are a few cases reported where the local leaders threatened to stop the works. However, collective efforts of the members of NJG have helped resolve these problems. Since a large number of people are now involved in SDF, most of the local leaders have now become very supportive of rural infrastructural works under SDF as they consider the NJGs as their ‘vote bank’.

Box IV: Case Study: Community Professional (CP) Name: Ishrat Jahan Village: Srikhandi Union: Hossain pur Upazila: Palash Bari District: Gaibandha Ishrat Jahan is 30 and has eight years of formal education. She became the member of the Gram Samity in 2010. Before becoming a CP, she worked in VCO as a Cashier. She has experience in maintaining accounts, register books, resolution books. She fulfilled all the requirements and upon approval of the president of Gram Samity, her application was accepted to become a CP. As a CP, Ishrat oversees the various activities of all committees under the project. Her major activities include checking the ledger book and training the members on rules and practices of the committees She gets Taka 450 per day for this work. She also visits ‘Gram Samity’ of neighbouring villages and helps them set their institutions and accounts. For this extra responsibility, she receives Taka 200 per day. However, she complains that the compensation is not enough considering the load of works. She recommends raising it to Taka 600. She mentioned that the members of the committees are not well aware of their responsibilities. For example, she mentioned that in her village the members of Purchasing Committee do not know how to do procurement the way it is documented in SDF’s official guidelines. Ishrat mentioned that lack of proper training of the committee members and infrequent holding of meeting are responsible for the lack of knowledge about the responsibilities of works. She recommends making a permanent post under SDF’s Organogram.

7.2 Village Level Institutional Development Various village level institutions under the Nuton Jibon project are formed in order to smoothly run project functions and ensure community driven development (CDD). These institutions (groups) act as catalyst to enhance effectiveness of project outcomes, which are contingent on proper functioning of these institutions. During the survey, we try to assess the effectiveness of these institutions through perceptions of the respondents. Table 7-2 reports the results. The majority of the respondents are aware of Jibikayon group. While almost all are familiar with basic institutions, such as Gram Parishad and Jibikayon Group, more than 60 percent of the respondents are familiar with other sub-committees such as VCO and SSC. about 50 percent are aware of other

61

committees, such as SAC, Finance sub-committee, Purchase committee, Disaster committee, Infrastructure and maintenance committee. It is thus important to increase the awareness of different committees among the members of Nuton Jibon project. To assess the effectiveness of the committees, respondents who reported that they are members of a particular committee were asked whether scheduled meetings are held regularly. It is encouraging that almost 100 percent said that meetings of these committees held regularly, that is, they are effective and play an active role. The functions of the committees were assessed as “good (“4”)” on a 1-5 scale of ranking. Regarding transparency and accountability of the institutions more than 90 percent of the respondents gave positive response. Another indication of effectiveness of the committees is that most of the loans are used in productive purposes (see Chapter 5).

Table 7-2: Assessment of the village institutions Village institutions

Familiarity about the institutions (%)

Have Membership (Yes, %)

Held Regular meeting (Yes, %)

No. of meetings in a year (mean)

Assessment about the function of institutions (mean) (1=very bad, 5=very good)

Are the institutions run with transparency and accountability (Yes, %)

Gram Parishad 100 100 96.86 5 4 98.12Livelihood group (Jibikayon group) 100 100 96.56 25 4 93.8Gram Samity 73.8 31.5 96.65 13 4 93.3VCO (Village Loan Organization) 66.9 16.4 97.25 13 4 90.6SSC (saving group) 63.1 14.3 95.91 15 4 93.3SAC (Social Audit Committee) 54.3 7.7 95.24 14 4 92.7Finance sub committee 52.2 6 96.97 13 4 100Purchase sub committee 54.2 5.9 96.97 13 4 91.2Maintenance sub committee 47.8 2.3 90.91 13 4 100Disaster sub committee 49.9 7.2 100 9 4 100 Infrastructure sub committee 43.3 5 95.45 11 4 85.7Total 64.0  26.3 96.3 13.1 4.0  94.4 The second generation committees are least known to the respondents because these committees are formed only in Batch-I villages in Gaibandha and Jamalpur districts. However, it is important to build awareness about the committees as the committees are going to be expanded in the whole

62

project areas in a sustainable manner (Table 7-3). To make these institutions sustainable, it is important to build capacities of these institutions, particularly after phasing out of SDF.

Table 7-3: Assessment about second generation institutions Village institutions

Familiarity about the institutions (%)

Have Membership (Yes, %)

Held Regular meeting (Yes, %)

No. of meetings in a year (mean)

Assessment about the function of institutions (mean) (1=very bad, 5=very good)

Are the institutions run with transparency and accountability (Yes, %)

Nuton Jibon Cluster Federation Society 21.8 3.6 90.1 14 3 77.8Nuton Jibon District Federation Society 17 0.4 100 -- -- --Producer group 17.4 1.7 50.0 22 4 66.7Note: Second generation committees were formed only in Batch-1 village (Gaibandha and Jamalpur districts), for which the percentages appear to be low.

7.3 Disaster preparedness and coping strategies Livelihood is at risk due to natural disasters particularly of the poor. Since Bangladesh is a natural disaster-prone country, people here are often affected by natural disaster like flood and cyclone. Climate change related risks are added to the current situation. Poor are more vulnerable to disasters and climate change variability. It is therefore important for the poor to adopt climate change variability and disaster coping strategies. SIPP-I did not build any disaster coping program. However, experiences from SIPP-I revealed that improvements of livelihood of the poor people through SIPP program had been at stake due to disaster. Therefore, SIPP-II (Nuton Jibon) program has built different disaster coping strategies in its objectives. Particularly, the program gives emphasis on institutional development so that such institutions could work to mitigate disasters and climate change outcomes. One of the institutions is Disaster Management Sub-committee, which is formed at the village level. This committee is expected to work on preparing a plan to cope with disaster through needs assessment. They will also form a volunteer group to help people from disasters. SDF also encourages creating a revolving fund on “village development and risk reduction”, from which members could take loan to immediately mitigate disaster losses. About 37 percent of the respondents are vulnerable to disaster shocks as they were affected by disasters during the last year. It was revealed in the survey that about 50 percent of the respondents were affected by cyclone and 35 percent by flood. Loss due to cyclone was smaller than that of flood. The results are almost similar for both treatment and control areas (Table 7-4).

63

Table 7-4: Disaster related information Treatment Control Affected?

(July, 12 – June, 2013)

(Yes, %)

Did income decline?

Loss (taka)

Affected?

(July, 12 – June, 2013)

Did income decline? (Yes, %)

Loss (taka)

Flood/water logging

35.59 19.56 10023.3 29.70 16.97 8896.37

Cyclone 47.70 8.45 7671.28 59.39 10.91 5169.69 Tornado/hail

storm 2.91 2.66 16958.4 1.21 1.21 3000

Others 13.80 9.66 23522.8 9.70 4.24 14994.3 N 414 300 300 165 57 57

Regarding disaster coping strategies adopted by the respondents, majority worked more and spent from their savings (Table 7-5). The percentages are almost the same for both treatment and control groups. About 6 percent of the respondents took advantage of Nuton Jibon programs, such as interest free disaster loan, help from volunteer group, and other disaster related programs of SDF. Since the beneficiaries of Nuton Jibon programs of disaster is quite low, more efforts are required to strengthen the disaster-related institutions.

Table 7-5: Disaster coping strategies

Treatment Control Copping Strategies Code N=414 % N=165 %

Worked more 87 21.01 47 28.48 Migrated to another place 8 1.93 3 1.82

With savings 201 48.55 82 49.70 Taking loan 81 19.57 32 19.39

Selling assets 12 2.90 1 0.61 Stopped sending children to school 2 0.48 2 1.21

Interest free disaster loan 12 2.90 0 0.00 Help from volunteer group 2 0.48 0 0.00

Other disaster related programs of SDF 6 1.45 0 0.00 SIPP 5 1.21 0 0.00

Government grant 25 6.04 7 4.24 Friends/relatives 24 5.80 8 4.85

Others 15 3.62 3 1.82

64

7.4 Summary Most of the infrastructural works are earth works, building culverts, setting up tube wells and repairing school building. Perception and works done are found to be highly correlated. The major infrastructure works were done in case of earth works and building culverts. This is reflected in better road and transportation perceived by the respondents. The majority of the respondents are not aware of some of the village institutions, which needs to be addressed. It is found that almost all respondent noted that meetings of these committees held regularly. However, new generation committees are least known to the respondents, and thus the responses regarding these committees are poor. In case of disaster management, about 6 percent of the respondents took advantage of Nuton Jibon programs, such as interest free disaster loan, help from volunteer group, and other disaster related programs of SDF. Since the beneficiaries of Nuton Jibon programs of disaster is quite low, more efforts are required to strengthen the disaster-related institutions in order to ensure sustainability of livelihood improvement.

65

CHAPTER 8: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS SIPP (I and II) is now about ten years old. The new part of SIPP is now known as ‘Nuton Jibon’ project. In contrast to conventional microcredit program, Nuton Jibon offers a holistic and participatory approach of development. It puts local institutions as the centre of development and advocates for long term sustainable development through institutional changes, which is widely known as community driven development (CDD). The project has multiple components such as loan, infrastructure development, institutional development, youth employment, and enhancing capacity of disaster management. The major difference of this model from the traditional microcredit model is that in case of ‘Nuton Jibon’ local institutions work like NGOs; they bring funds, disburse and collect loan, keep records of all accounts, manage and oversee other development works such as infrastructure development. Moreover, local institutions decide about the service charge and in the end they know that they will get the share of the service charges accumulated over time, which builds some sorts of project ownership among the members. This study aims at investigating the impact of the components of this project on the income and non-income dimension of well-being. It is found that both income and non-income outcome indicators are better than the control group and also the baseline. This betterment can be attributed to the project. Participatory approach, development and engagement of village institutions, and the sense of ownership of the members may have contributed to the better outcomes of the participants. The project has contributed positively in accumulating various types of capital such as natural capital (land), financial capital (saving), social capital (social networking), human capital (education, heath) and local physical capital (infrastructure development). All these capital complement each other to generate a higher stream of income for the NJG members. However, there are some areas where more emphasis should be given in order to improve the outcomes of the project. The outcomes of the project with necessary recommendations to improve the livelihood of the poor in a sustainable manner are discussed below. Income and quality of life: The project has made decent progress by reducing income inequality among the participating members. Income from small businesses and livestock and poultry contributed significantly to overall income. However, marketing linkages are poor and thus establishment of market-linkage could help project beneficiaries increase income more. Expenditure on food, particularly nutrient food has increased significantly in project areas. Housing and sanitary conditions have also improved. It has been observed that about 56 percent of vulnerable households from SIPP-I and 40 percent from SIPP-II have been able to start savings and IGAs at a limited scale, that is, they have been able to improve their status from One Time Grant recipients to Nuton Jibon Group member. Altogether, these indicate a better quality of life of project beneficiaries. Comparing with baseline income, we observe that income of the households has increased by more than 60 percent in Bagerhat, Barguna and Gaibandha; however, the income has increased by only about 20 percent in Jamalpur, Kurigram and Mymensingh districts. Overall, income (nominal) has increased by 36 percent since the baseline. On the other hand, more than 40 percent of the project households have been able to increase income (nominal) by 50 percent since the baseline, 2010. However, the progress is slow in Jamalpur, Kurigram and Mymensingh as only about 30 percent

66

households have been able to increase income by 50 percent. From the analysis, it can be concluded that the project is in the right direction to achieve its income related PDO. Savings and Financial Inclusion: About 90 percent of the households in the project areas save in the Nuton Jibon project, and the amount of Taka they have saved last year was Tk. 730 on average. On the other hand, control households mainly save in NGO/Grameen Bank (69%) and the amount of savings there is about Tk. 1500. Overall, the amount saved last year is higher in project areas than control areas. It can be observed that almost 100 percent of target households save money, while it is about 64 percent in case of control households. Thus, one of the PDOs that is at least 70 percent of target households have increased savings and have access to inclusive financial service has already been achieved. Youth Employment generation: About 90 percent of skill development loans are used for various training purposes, such as sewing/tailoring, driving, motor mechanic etc. About 56 percent of the youths entered into regular employment process with a start-up capital ranging between 5-7 thousand taka only. Thus, greater emphasis should be given on how to make best use of skill development loan, particularly to transform it into employment. Community Professional (CP): The creation of CP is an innovation of this project. However, uncertainty looms large among the CPs as they are employed on temporary basis. An incentive structure for CPs can be developed by developing a system of recruiting some capable CPs to SDF’s suitable permanent positions. Poverty alleviation: The poverty analysis is done following the poverty classification of SDF, which was mainly based on social indicators excluding income level. To assess whether members are graduated from existing poverty level, it is important to include income/expenditure based poverty line along with social indicators. Using the national poverty line (BBS, 2010), it has been observed from the Table A1a in the appendix that 27 percent of the “hardcore poor” and 31 percent of the “poor” are not actually poor. Since the social classification has also income dimension, it might be possible that these households have graduated due to project interventions. However, it is strongly recommended to classify the poverty status of the beneficiaries again for better targeting and maximizing the welfare impact.

Infrastructure Development: Most of the infrastructural works are earth works, building culverts, setting up tube wells and repairing school building. Only about 29 percent of the households are aware of infrastructure works of Nuton Jibon project. The major infrastructure works were done only in case of earth works and building culverts. Therefore, a need based appraisal of the local infrastructure can be done to assess the local demand and diversify the infrastructure works. Moreover, focus can be given on Millennium Development Goals rather than focusing only on infrastructure. Women Empowerment: Members of the NJG are found to be more empowered than the non-participant. A large number of participant women reported that now their husbands and relatives valued their opinions, suggestions, decisions and comments more than before. They have now some ‘say’ in family matters such as buying and selling properties, schooling decisions of children, medical treatment, etc. Women are not only taking loans, they are also the decision makers even on issues related to investment such as livestock and poultry. Results also indicate that women of NJG are more connected to markets than the non participants primarily due to their greater involvement in market. There is no program or village institution to help women to have better linkage with markets. This area can be explored further to have greater impact of the project.

67

Village Level Institutions: Almost all of the respondents are aware of basic institutions like Gram Parishad, Gram Samity and Jibikayon and majority (more than 60%) are familiar with other sub-committees. About 90 percent of the respondents opined that these institutions run in a transparent and accountable manner. This response is an indication of the fulfilment of PDO that at least 75 percent of village institutions function in a transparent, inclusive and accountable manner. While first generation village institutions are familiar to majority of the respondents, second generation institutions are found to be less familiar as they have been introduced only in two districts (Jamalpur and Gaibandha). It is found that almost all respondents noted that meetings of these committees held regularly and they run efficiently and transparent way. From sustainability perspective, it is important to introduce the institutions in all the project areas gradually as well as some more initiatives can be taken in order to build capacity of the institutions. Participatory Vulnerability Analysis (PVA): SDF has so far done PVA in 2369 villages out of targeted 2519 villages. One of the objectives of PVA is to assess risks associated with livelihood and IGAs of targeted households, and on the basis of that the interventions are designed. Our sample districts include about 755 villages where PVA analysis was done. To assess the PVA, one of the indicators would be the rate of return in choosing IGAs. Other indicators could be the income of the households as well as disaster coping strategies. Investment in types of infrastructure is another indicator. Our analysis shows that NJG members initially invest in livestock and then they switch to small businesses--a higher return oriented IGA, which is an indication of proper PVA. Income is significantly higher in treatment areas than control areas indicating that project beneficiaries choose better IGAs considering all risk factors. Disaster coping strategies in terms of project interventions are rather weak, but due to higher income they have been able to coping disaster shocks in a better way than their counterparts. Investments in infrastructure particularly in developing and repairing earthen roads, culverts etc. improves transportation and communication in the project areas, which is contributing to higher IGAs. Thus, PVA has been an important indicator for successful implementation of the project. Project Development Objectives (PDO): The project has made a decent progress in achieving its development objectives. Some of the PDOs are already achieved and some are in the right track. About 35 percent of the households have been able to increase its income by 50 percent since the baseline, whereas the target is 50 percent by the end of the project. In terms of institutions and financial inclusion, 100 percent are already achieved. More than 50 percent households are now taking advantages of infrastructure built by the project, whereas the target is 80 percent by the end of the project. According to the PDO, about 70 percent village institutions should function based on PVA. Although that kind of appropriate institutional analysis was not done here, however, based on outcome indicators it can be argued that IGAs, infrastructure and livelihood options are based on PVA. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project is in the right direction in achieving its development objectives. Some specific recommendations:

1. Although income of the project households has increased significantly over time, this could be enhanced by helping them establish market linkages as major sources of income are livestock and small businesses. One of the ways for this is to establish tele-centers in project areas so that project members can get market information from the center with minimum cost. It is thus

68

recommended to expand e-upazila initiative to whole project areas from its piloting phase in Jamalpur district (see the Baseline Study conducted by BIDS in 2011).

2. Youth employment generation has been moderate as only 56 percent of the youths got employed. A greater emphasis should be given on how to make best use of skill development loan, particularly to transform it into employment. A data-base of youth (age between 18-35 years) of all the beneficiary households can be created and constantly monitored by the village institutions for their employment and skill development. Some strategic recommendations for generating more youth employment are made below:

a. Young people are attending various technical institutes in large numbers. This can be seen in the information and communication technology sector, which has experienced a huge inflow of IT-skilled workers. Thus, E-upazila initiative could be an effective means of capacity building and employment generation in the IT sector. Moreover, e-center can be used for labor market information.

b. A collaborative strategy can be developed with the SME foundation and other relevant government organizations to help targeted youths to develop their own enterprises.

c. A database of various job opportunities can be developed at the SDF’s headquarter, which later can be communicated to the village institutions for selecting appropriate candidates.

d. Organize sessions at the Upazila and Zila (district) level to raise awareness and discuss youth unemployment issues with representatives of private sector, civil society, youth and government.

e. Skill development program can be streamlined. For example, SDF can make some arrangements with different institutes for offering trainings at subsidized fees for SDF members and SDF can nominate youths for a specific training based on local-level needs assessment. Then, skill development loan can be sanctioned in favor of a youth based on training fees and related costs. This would help youth make best use of their skill development training.

3. There are uncertainties among the members regarding getting back service charge. It is

necessary to clarify this issue and communicate to the members when and how they will get service charges and to what extent. The distribution of service charge should be made within three years of participation to make it visible to them and removing uncertainties.

4. All the village level institutions, particularly second generation institutions are not equally known to the members. Thus, members should be made more aware about the institutions (both new and old) for its sustainability after phasing out of the NJ project. It is also recommended to expand second generation institutions in more than two districts so that further improvement of these institutions can be made for its sustainability.

5. Using the national poverty line (BBS, 2010), it has been observed that 27 percent of the “hardcore poor” and 31 percent of the “poor” are above the poverty lines although they were

69

classified as poor by SDF through social classification. Since the social classification has also income dimension, it might be possible that these households have been graduated due to project interventions. However, it is strongly recommended to classify the poverty status of the beneficiaries again for better targeting and maximizing the welfare impact. 

6. SDF has at least one paka or semi-paka building in all program villages. These facilities can be rented out to earn revenue for the ‘Gram Samity’ for social occasions such as wedding, birth-day, etc. Moreover, these establishments can be used for establishing telecenters for its commercial uses including computer-related training purposes.

7. Various outcome indicators indicate that PVA has been playing an important role in making right choice of investments and livelihood in project areas. An overall summary of risk factors associated with IGAs and livelihoods across regions could be instrumental to better outcome of the project.

8. In case of investment in infrastructure, priority should be given to places/projects where local government cannot reach, and the assessment must be based on PVA. Moreover, it is important to inform the local government bodies before building any infrastructure, and that can be done through second generation committees.

9. For final impact evaluation, the same households of this mid-term impact study need to be revisited and the difference-in-difference technique should be applied to assess the impact of the project during the mid-term and final impact evaluation. Moreover, baseline studies, if needed further, should follow the same techniques of analysis and reporting format of indicators. Otherwise, it would be difficult to compare estimates of baseline studies with impact studies. It is also important to note that for an impact evaluation the time period should be not less than six month.

70

References

1. Baseline survey of SIPP Additional Financing & SIPP-2, 2010 (SIPP-2 pilot phase) December, 2010.

2. Baseline survey of SIPP Additional Financing & SIPP-2, 2010 (Cyclone and SIDR area) December, 2010.

3. Baseline survey of SIPP Additional Financing & SIPP-2, 2010 (Flood affected area) December, 2010.

4. Baseline Study on e-Upazila Initiatives, BIDS, 2011

5. BETS Consulting Service ltd. (BETS)

6. Baseline survey of SIPP Additional Financing & SIPP-2, 2010 (Cyclone SIDR Area), December,2010.

7. BETS Consulting Service ltd. (BETS)

8. Baseline survey of SIPP Additional Financing & SIPP-2, 2010(Flood Affected Area), December,2010.

9. BETS Consulting Service ltd. (BETS)

10. Baseline Survey on Empowerment and Livelihood Improvement “Notun Jibon” 2012(Volume-1) November 2012. Center For Natural Resource Studies (CNRS)

11. Baseline Report on Consulting Service on Impact Evolution Study-2005(Phase-2 Baseline Of

SIPP) March, 2005

12. Impact Evolution of Social Investment Program Project-2004 (BaselineSurvey), December, 2004

13. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS)

14. IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULT REPORTS, 2011(SIPP -Loan) December, 2011, The world bank

15. Empowerment And Livelihood Improvement “Notun Jibon” Project, 2010 (Proposed Loan Sipp-

2) may, 2010, The world bank

16. DANIDA (Danish Interna_ onal Development Agency). 2002. Impact study of the Bangladesh semi-scavenging poultry model. Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Government of Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

17. Younus, M., N. Ahmed, and E.H. Chowdhury. 2008. Supply chain analysis of poultry in

Bangladesh. Report prepared for Academy for Educational Development, Washington D.C.

18. Karim, Zahurul, Khan ShahidulHuque, Md. GolamHussain, Zulfiqar Ali, and Mosharraf

Hossain, 2010, Growth and development potential of livestock and fisheries in Bangladesh, Prepared for the Bangladesh Food Security Investment Forum.

71

APPENDIX-I: ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES

Table A1a: Poverty Status: SDF vs. HIES (2010)

Poverty status (HIES 2010) Poverty status (SDF)

Total Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable

Hardcore poor n 286 269 81 636% 58.49 54.02 66.94 57.4

Poor n 71 73 17 161% 14.52 14.66 14.05 14.53

Non Poor n 132 156 23 311% 26.99 31.33 19.01 28.07

Total n 489 498 121 1,108% 100 100 100 100

Table A1b: Poverty lines by divisions Poverty Line from HIES 2010 by Division (Per

capita monthly expenditure)

Division Lower Poverty Line

Upper Poverty Line

Barisal 1284 1485Khulna 1192 1435Rajshahi 1236 1487Dhaka 1276 1497

72

Table A2: credit use and return by loan cycle (for all loans)

Credit Use Loan 1 Loan 2 Loan 3 Loan 4

Loan size Profit Return

Loan size Profit Return

Loan size Profit Return

Loan size Profit Return

Cow Fattening 10916.00 7881.77 41.76 9083.00 6964.29 49.50 10136.00 5686.36 38.18 8500.00 3000.00 60.00

Cow rearing 12606.00 7592.71 42.38 12077.00 10245.89 44.55 12732.00 8067.86 57.53Goat/Sheep rearing 6198.00 4556.38 61.70 6229.00 5880.95 60.01 5400.00 5600.00 62.00 4000.00 2000.00 50.00

Poultry 7120.00 4795.65 74.67 5611.00 5177.78 49.64 11400.00 8580.00 51.20 4500.00 4333.33 83.33

73

Table A3: Randomly selected villages and sampling distribution

District code

Upazila coe Village Identity

Total Control Program 1 Bagerhat 60 Village

code 1 0 12 12

7 0 15 15 8 0 9 9 9 0 22 22 10 0 10 10 11 0 2 2 12 0 7 7 13 0 7 7 501 20 0 20

Total 20 84 104 4 Barguna 9 A02 Village

code 4 0 20 20

14 0 20 20 22 0 20 20 24 0 20 20 501 40 0 40

Total 40 80 120 28 A02 Village

code 1 0 20 20

11 0 20 20 501 20 0 20

Total 20 40 60 85 A02 Village

code 1 0 20 20

2 0 20 20 16 0 20 20 18 0 20 20 501 40 0 40

Total 40 80 120 32 Gaibandha

21 A02 Village code

501 25 25

Total 25 25 24 A02 Village

code 4 25 25

12 20 20 Total 45 45

67 A02 Village code

2 0 25 25

13 0 30 30 501 25 0 25

Total 25 55 80 82 A02 Village

code 4 0 25 25

501 25 0 25 Total 25 25 50

91 A02 Village code

1 0 25 25

7 0 50 50 501 25 0 25

Total 25 75 100 39 Jamalpur

85 A02 Village code

12 0 32 32

74

District code

Upazila coe Village Identity

Total Control Program 20 0 31 31

30 1 16 17 501 40 0 40

Total 41 79 120 15 A02 Village

code 3 0 28 28

4 0 8 8 5 0 11 11 8 0 9 9 15 0 38 38 17 0 13 13 18 0 5 5 22 0 6 6 117 0 2 2 501 30 0 30

Total 30 120 150 29 A02 Village

code 1 0 33 33

10 0 68 68 501 40 0 40

Total 40 101 141 58 A02 Village

code 7 0 10 10

9 0 72 72 501 29 0 29

Total 29 82 111 49 Kurigram

52 A02 Village code

4 0 30 30

5 10 30 40 7 0 29 29 8 0 30 30 9 0 81 81 501 75 5 80

Total 85 205 290 77 A02 Village

code 501 20 20

Total 20 20 61 Mymensingh

23 A02 Village code

1 0 25 25

8 0 30 30 501 20 0 20

Total 20 55 75 81 A02 Village

code 1 9 9

2 13 13 3 2 2 4 1 1

Total 25 25 501: Control Village code

75

Table A4: Education level of the family members (Percentage)   SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control 

  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable Illiterate 8.64 9.54 40.97 9.48  7.01 25.32 10.44 15.18Can read and sign only 27.18 24.81 25.69 22.36  21.04 29.11 24.46 27.95Primary school 2.06 1.64 0.69 5.01  2.84 2.53 2.39 1.93High school 40.25 38.30 27.78 36.85  36.56 30.38 37.70 38.86S.S.C. 15.93 18.26 4.17 19.32  23.87 10.13 18.13 12.35H.S.C. 3.49 4.92 0.00 5.01  5.34 1.90 4.37 2.17Graduate 2.14 2.16 0.69 1.79  3.01 0.63 2.20 1.27

Total  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00

Table A5: Land ownership (percentage) by the respondents (Last 1 year)

Land SIPP-I SIPP-II

Treatment Control Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Hardcore poor Poor Vulnerable Total

Landless 10.42 5.8 27.12 9.59 5.37 2 41.94 10.25 9.88 15.340 to 1 0.89 0.29 3.39 0.81 4.03 4 1.61 3.6 1.68 2.791 to 10 69.35 58.26 54.24 62.97 65.77 53.33 48.39 57.62 60.67 60.1611 to 20 11.01 14.2 10.17 12.43 13.42 16 3.23 12.74 12.7 12.3521 to 50 6.25 17.1 1.69 10.95 6.71 18 4.84 11.08 11.2 7.3750 + 2.08 4.35 3.39 3.24 4.7 6.67 0 4.71 3.88 1.99Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100N 346   360  64 770 149 150 62 364 1134 502

Table A6: Amount of land (decimal) owned by the households

Type SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II 

Treatment  Control  p‐value Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable 

Total Land  9.20  16.00 7.60 10.00 16.00 4.00 12.00 8.80 0.00Agricultural  Land  3.90  8.90 1.40 3.40 8.10 0.60 5.90 4.30 0.07

76

Table A7: Percentage distribution of annual income of the households

Income SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II 

Treatment  Control Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Total  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Total 

Below 10,000  23.21  18.55 22.03 20.95 12.75  12.67 20.97 14.13 18.87 33.2710,000‐20,000  10.42  6.67 28.81 10.14 10.07  4.67 20.97 9.7 9.88 10.5620,000‐40,000  10.12  11.88 20.34 11.76 13.42  13.33 30.65 16.34 13.32 11.7540,000‐60,000  7.44  8.41 10.17 8.11 21.48  16 9.68 17.17 10.93 9.9660,000‐80,000  9.23  7.54 5.08 8.11 12.08  11.33 9.68 11.36 9.08 9.5680,000‐100,000  10.12  8.99 3.39 9.05 12.08  14 4.84 11.63 9.88 6.37100,000‐150,000  12.8  17.39 3.39 14.19 11.41  10 1.61 9.14 12.61 10.36150,000‐250,000  10.71  13.33 3.39 11.35 4.03  11.33 1.61 6.65 9.79 4.38250,000+  5.95  7.25 3.39 6.35 2.68  6.67 0 3.88 5.64 3.78Total  100  100 100 100 100  100 100 100 100 100

N 346   360 64 770 149  150 62 364 1134 502

77

Figure a1: Lorenz Curves

78

Table A8: Sources of annual household income [Last 1 year]

Income Sources SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II 

Treatment  Control  p‐value Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable 

Salary and Wage 25796.21 28809.26 15187.24 17165.22 26104.14 12902.75 24244.2 24042.35 0.93

19.91 19.01 33.49 12.60 18.93 30.05 18.72 32.13

Business 81146 90454 20710 97442 84276 16534 78335 36372.00 0.00 62.65 59.68 45.67 71.55 61.13 38.50 60.50 48.60

Agriculture 10579.06 17619.17 1264.539 11669.15 17866.9 4591.906 13013.47 7547.20 0.26

8.17 11.62 2.79 8.57 12.96 10.69 10.05 10.09

Livestock and Poultry 8123.6 10018 2078.396 6028.063 4958.5 2805.344 7232.017 3144.59 0.00

6.27 6.61 4.58 4.43 3.60 6.53 5.59 4.20

Social Safety net 1424 1266 4549 1424 1266 4549 1357 774.00 0.00 1.10 0.84 10.03 1.05 0.92 10.59 1.05 1.03

Remittances 2464 3401 1561 2464 3401 1561 5307 2955.00 0.00 1.90 2.24 3.44 1.81 2.47 3.63 4.10 3.95

Total 63452.7 77444.02 35196.51 63452.7 77444.02 35196.51 74440.11 53053.55 0.00

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

79

Table A9: Annual family expenditures (average Taka and % share) of the households

Expenditure SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control  p‐value 

Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable 

Food expenditure 56676.00 60159.00 25905.00 41147.00 47697.00 26493.00 51635.00 40507.00 0.00 

77.98 75.33 84.30 74.94 71.04 83.26 75.86 76.63   

Nonfood expenditure 16001.22 19698.85 4823.34 13757.30 19445.91 5327.45 16434.35 12356.78 0.00 

22.02 24.67 15.70 25.06 28.96 16.74 24.14 23.37   

Health 1852.00 3560.00 738.00 2577.00 3355.00 636.00 2718.00 2518.00   

11.57 18.07 15.30 18.73 17.25 11.94 16.54 20.38   

Education 4359.48 6011.00 1638.64 4301.39 6459.24 1737.12 5095.43 3450.56   

27.24 30.51 33.97 31.27 33.22 32.61 31.00 27.92   

Fuel and Energy 2511.29 2476.87 924.41 2496.73 3866.80 1451.42 2545.96 1800.46   

15.69 12.57 19.17 18.15 19.88 27.24 15.49 14.57   

Cosmetics 1666.61 1869.04 732.00 1291.65 1437.20 866.52 1557.12 1225.68   

10.42 9.49 15.18 9.39 7.39 16.27 9.47 9.92   

Transport 2481.11 2772.48 894.00 1300.88 1746.99 942.50 2222.31 1573.47   

15.51 14.07 18.53 9.46 8.98 17.69 13.52 12.73   

Cloths 3262.37 3590.61 1238.60 2468.46 2950.67 839.84 2990.32 2569.18   

20.39 18.23 25.68 17.94 15.17 15.76 18.20 20.79   

Entertainment 788.21 882.00 350.00 353.57 335.22 500.00 698.50 487.20   

4.93 4.48 7.26 2.57 1.72 9.39 4.25 3.94   

Utensils 452.13 446.05 159.38 248.21 319.95 141.04 386.39 378.94   

2.83 2.26 3.30 1.80 1.65 2.65 2.35 3.07   

Furniture 3158.50 2434.63 1150.00 1475.19 3362.29 1037.50 2651.11 1551.95   

19.74 12.36 23.84 10.72 17.29 19.47 16.13 12.56   Personal belongings (ornaments, watch etc.)

3132.00 1320.44 400.00 318.44 600.15 27.50 1259.60 405.00   

19.57 6.70 8.29 2.31 3.09 0.52 7.66 3.28   

80

Table A10: Annual family expenditure pattern of households (percentage)

Expenditure SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II 

Treatment  Control Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Total  Extreme p  Poor  Vulnerable  Total 

5000-10000 0.00  0.29 8.62 0.81 0.67  0.00 3.23 0.83 0.79 0.80 

10000-20000 1.19  0.87 34.48 3.65 6.04  0.67 29.03 7.76 4.85 6.77 

20000-40000 11.01  9.57 27.59 11.64 23.49  15.33 38.71 22.71 15.36 29.68 

40000-600000 30.65  26.67 20.69 28.01 34.23  35.33 19.35 32.13 28.86 31.27 60000‐80000  25.89  25.51 6.90 24.22 22.82  21.33 8.06 19.67 22.51 19.12 80000‐100000  15.48  14.20 0.00 13.67 5.37  11.33 1.61 7.20 11.47 6.57 100000+  15.77  22.90 1.72 18.00 7.38  16.00 0.00 9.70 16.15 5.78 Total  100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00  100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 

Table A11: Non-land asset owned by Nuton Jibon households (in %)

Non land asset SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II 

Treatment Control Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Total  Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Total 

<10000  38.99  30.43 84.75 38.65 52.35  32.67 91.94 50.97 42.33 58.9610000‐50000  53.57  56.23 13.56 51.62 46.98  60.67 8.06 45.98 49.74 36.6550000‐100000  5.06  10.43 1.69 7.30 0.67  4.67 0.00 2.22 5.64 3.59100000‐200000  1.79  2.90 0.00 2.16 0.00  1.33 0.00 0.55 1.76 0.40200000+  0.60  0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00  0.67 0.00 0.28 0.53 0.40Total  100  100 100 100 100  100 100 100 100 100

81

Table A12: Savings pattern of the households

Place of Savings    Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable 

Hardcore poor  Poor  Vulnerable  Treatment  Control 

At home n  18 21 7 20  14 6 60 73%  4.69 5.34 14 9.39  6.83 9.52 4.93 22.67Mean  1355 2464 284 878  2162 625 1185       

NGO/Grameen Bank n  14 6 1 14  15 1 43 157%  3.65 1.53 2 6.57  7.32 1.59 3.54 48.76Mean  2418 2817 250 2199  2825 3400 1921 2208

Commercial bank/Post office n  3 5 0 3  1 0 8 19%  0.78 1.27 0 1.41  0.49 0 0.66 5.9Mean  15833 62680                6633  600                15338 22934

SIPP (Nuton Jibon) n  348 358 42 172  173 56 1,097 66%  90.63 91.09 84 80.75  84.39 88.89 90.21 20.5Mean  877 860 670          719 872

Shop n  1 1 0          1 1%  0.26 0.25 0          0.08 0.31Mean  1200 1340                488  468 452 1340 1200

Others n  0 2 0 4  2 0 7 6%  0 0.51 0 1.88  0.98 0 0.58 1.86Mean     3227                34694  8000                22890 3950

Total n  384 393 50 213  205 63 1,216 322%  100 100 100 100  100 100 100 100Mean  1219 2023 515 1953  1134 524 1472 1125

82

Table A13: Status of housing, sanitary, drinking water and others SIPP-I SIPP-2 Treatment Control House wall made of: Hardcore 

poor  Poor  Vulnerable Total Hardcore 

poor  Poor  Vulnerable Total

Wood 3.89 1.74 5.45 3 9.46 11.33 13.56 10.92 5.43 6.06 Bamboo 14.37 13.08 23.64 14.46 26.35 28 25.42 26.89 18.25 14.95 Tin 73.35 79.94 60 75.44 52.03 52.67 44.07 50.98 67.94 70.71 Mud 0.3 0 0 0.14 0.68 1.33 3.39 1.4 0.62 1.01 Others 8.08 5.23 10.91 6.96 11.49 6.67 13.56 9.8 7.75 7.27    Sources of drinking water   Own hand tube well 12.5 12.46 13.56 12.57 10.74 10 6.45 9.7 11.38 12.55 Shared tube well 86.9 86.38 84.75 86.49 72.48 74 83.87 75.07 82.98 82.67 Tube well (All) 0.3 1.16 0 0.68 15.44 14.67 8.06 13.85 5.03 2.39 Pond 0 0 1.69 0.14             0.09 0.2 Well 0.3 0 0 0.14 1.34 1.33 1.61 1.39 0.53 2.19 Others      Toilet facilities   Open space/ Non-Sanitary 7.74 6.69 18.97 8.13 9.46 6.67 19.67 10.03 8.5 16.6 Sanitary 30.36 28.78 50 31.17 27.7 20 40.98 26.74 29.03 26.8 Others 60.71 62.79 24.14 58.81 57.43 68.67 34.43 58.22 59.65 53.4  1.19 1.74 6.9 1.9 5.41 4.67 4.92 5.01 2.83 3.2 Having Electricity connection at household 34.23 40.29 6.78 34.86 40.94 50.67 17.74 41

36.77 26.29 

Any separate kitchen (Yes%) 79.17 88.99 42.37 80.81 88.59 88 48.39 81.44 81.22 70.52 Average # of rooms in house 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 

83

Table A14: Status of health and illness

   Type of disease (%)  Took treatment Average no. Days after which doctor was 

consulted  Average annual treatment expenditure 

   SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control  SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control  SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control  SIPP‐I  SIPP‐II  Treatment  Control 

Fever 31.05  15.79  26.36  27.52  31.18  15.87  26.48  25.94  4  5  4  4  1140  1481  1311  1165 

Serious injury 3.43  2.39  3.09  7.34  3.23  2.4  2.96  7.55  6  3  5  5  8320  1800  6947  5700 

Heart disease 3.85  5.26  4.27  5.05  3.87  5.29  4.29  5.19  19  7  15  12  12500  5550  9864  15591 

Respiratory problem 8.35  10.05  8.84  7.34  8.39  10.1  8.88  7.55  5  9  6  8  2276  3893  2842  2139 

Diarrhoea 8.78  8.61  8.69  8.72  8.82  8.65  8.73  8.96  5  4  5  8  4009  6888  4853  1481 

Gastric/Ulcer 7.49  6.7  7.36  6.88  7.53  6.73  7.4  6.6  8  11  8  57  1606  2824  2055  2668 

Blood pressure 3.21  3.35  3.24  1.38  3.23  3.37  3.25  1.42  4  5  4  3  1844  981  1570  3467 

Others 33.82  47.85  38.16  35.79  33.78  47.58  38.03  36.8  6  10  9  16  21687  10442  15200  11285 

Total 100  100  100  100  100  100  100  100                         

 

84

APPENDIX-II: QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies 

E‐17 Agargaon, Sher‐e‐Bangla Nagar, Dhaka 1207 

 Impact Assessment Survey of Nuton Jibon Project, 2013 

 

(Household Survey Questionnaire)    

NB:  All the information collected through the survey will be kept confidential and privacy will be maintained with  regard  to name/address. This  information will only be used  for  research purpose.    

85

Module A: Household Identification Information 

Name of household head   Member No./MID 

 

    

  

 Member No./ MID 

 

    

Type of poor                               1. Very poor 2. Poor   3. Vulnerable 4. Not poor 

Household  head’s  mobile  number  (neighbor mobile no.,  If necessary ): 

     

   Household identify  Code

A01  Household  no. 

 

Name of interviewer: ...........................................  

 

A02  Name of village:  ...................................................... 

 

Date of data collection day month year

A03  Name of union:  ...................................................... 

 

Name of supervisor........................................... 

A04  Name of upazila:  ...................................................... 

 

Recheck date of supervisor day month year

A05  No. of cluster:‐  Year of inclusion in‐ SIPP One‐time grant /year :*‐ Batch no:‐ 

    Signature of supervisor 

A06  Name of district: ...................................................... 

 

 

A07  Religion of household head: Muslim‐1;  Hindu‐  2;  Christian‐3;Buddist‐4; Others (mention)‐5 

 

  

 

*For Vulnerable, who is not a member of SIPP, but got one‐time grant, Date of receipt of one time grant 

86

Module B: Household Composition July 2012 to June 2013  

Member no. 

Name 

Gender:(male‐1 female‐

2)  

Age   ( in year) 

Relation with household 

head 

Marital status 

Educational qualification 

SDF Member/ or not 

Primary occupation 

Secondary Occupation 

      Year Code B03 Code B04 Code B05 (yes‐ 1; no‐2) C01/D01 C01/D01MID  Name  B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07 B08

     

      

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

 

87

 Codes for Module B ‐ Household Composition 

Relation with households head: Code B03 Household head‐1 Spouse‐2 Son/dougther‐3  Father/ mother‐4 Brother/Sister‐5 Grandson/grand daughter‐6 Mother in law/father‐in‐law‐7 Brother in law/sister‐in‐law etc‐8 Nepew‐9 Uncle/Aunt‐10 Servant/House maid/etc ‐11 Nonpaying guest‐12 Others(mention)‐13   

Marital  status:    Code B04  

Unmarried‐1 Married‐2 Widow‐3 Separated‐4 Divorce‐5    

Code of educational qualification(B05) t Illiterate =50 Only can read=51 Only can sign=52 Can read and write=53 Hafizi/Kawmi=20 S.S.C=10 H.S.C=12 Graduation=16 Masters=18 Technical /vocational=19 Child=99 Which class studying/passed (mention…)= 1‐9 

88

Module C: Salaried and Wage Employment (July 2012 to June 2013).  

Member no. 

Type of job? 

Only for those who earn daily wages  Income in salary 

How many months worked in the year? 

 

Average  days in a month 

Average hours in a day 

Average daily wages  

Net income in a month(After deducting all charges) 

  Code C01+D01    Day  Hour  Taka  Taka MID  C01  C02  C03  C04  C05  C06 

  

 

  

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

  

 

*Wages: if foods are including in wages, add that food cost to the wages.   

89

Module CWhich kind of labor /job? Code C01 Agriculture labor/agriculture‐1 labor(earthwork)(Government active)‐2 labor(earthwork)( (general)‐3 labor(earthwork)(SIPP‐Infrastructure)‐4 Sweeper ‐5 Construction labour‐6 Industrial labour‐7 Transport labour‐8 Trainee‐9 Fishery labour‐10 House wife‐11 Student‐12 Disable/old‐13 Child‐14 Maid servent‐15 Others(mention)‐16______________  

 

Salaried worker Nongovernment‐21 NGO‐22 Maid servent‐23 Agriculture‐24 Teacher(primary)‐25 Teacher(secondary)‐26 Teacher(college/university)‐27 Government job‐28 Community Professional‐ 29 Expatriates‐30 House tutor‐31 Others(mention)‐32______________   

90

Module D: Business Enterprises and other Economic Activities (Revenues and Costs) July2012 to June 2013. 

Member No. 

Work details   

How long this activity has beenrunning? 

Main source of funding to start this activity?  

What was the main source of additional capital?  

Monthly Gross income 

Monthly expenditure 

How many workers are employed? 

Monthly Salary of a worker on average?(salaried)

What is the rent of shop/place on average?  

Expenses for raw materials on average? 

Expenses for electric /fuel cost on average? 

How much others total cost on average? 

  CodeD01    CodeD03 CodeD04  Taka  Family Salaried   Taka  Taka  Taka  Taka MID  D01  D02  D03  D04  D05  D06  D07  D08  D09  D10  D11  D12   

         

  

         

  

         

  

         

  

              

  

         

  

         

  

         

  

         

  

         

 

91

 Codes for Module C and D 

Module D 

Active: Code D01  Active: Code D01Cotunue…….  Source of fund: Code D03, and Source  of  additional  fund  ?:Code D04  Inherited business‐1 Own savings‐2 Loan from relatives/friends‐3 Small loan‐4 Sabolombi loan(SIPP)‐5 Internal loan(SIPP)‐‐6 Skill development loan(SIPP)‐‐7 Youth Employment loan(SIPP)‐8 Fund from other project/loan‐9 Assets sale‐10 Commercial bank loan‐11 Business profit—12 Remittance ‐13 Not applicable‐99 Others(mention)‐14__________    

Self employment: Fisherman/ Fisheries‐41 Other natural assets collectors‐42 Renting out animal and vehicle‐43 Irrigation ‐44 Rickshaw/Van/Passenger/Nosimon/karimon/CNG‐45 Tailor/cutter‐46 Blacksmith/cobbler/potter‐47 Barber‐48 Washer man/Laundry‐49 Electrician‐50 Sanitary worker‐51 Carpenter‐52 Mason‐53 Doctor(MBBS)‐54 Doctor(village)‐55 Midwife‐56 Mechanic (instrument)‐57 Mechanic ‐58 Advocate‐59 Imam/Kazi‐60 Beggar‐61 Grocery shop‐62 Other (mention)‐63 ______________ 

Business: Fish business‐74 Contructor‐75 Small business/hotel/tea seller‐76 Handricraft‐77 Milk /milk food business‐78 Agriculture product business‐79 Food processing Business‐80 Mobile/Flexiload‐81 Livestock‐82 Poultry‐83 Livestock tretment‐84 Others (mention)‐85_____________   

 

92

Module E: Agricultural Production (Crop and Fish) July 2012 to June 2013   

Crops/Fish Land area(in decimal) 

 

Crops/Fish collection/Total crops 

 Crops/fish sold 

Quantity  Unit  Quantity  Unit 

Code E01  Code E05  Code E07E01  E02  E04  E05  E06  E07 

  

         

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

   

93

Codes for Module E Crops and Fishes Code E01  Rice Aus‐11 Amon‐12 Boro‐13 Others‐14  Others grain crops  Wheat‐15 Barley‐16 maize‐17 Zob‐18 China/Caun/Milet‐19 Others‐20  Fibers  Crops  Jute‐31 Doincha‐32 Cotton‐33 Bamboo‐34 Others‐35 

Pulse Lentil‐41 Mugh lentil‐42 Maskalai‐43 Chickling‐44 Green gram (boot)‐45 Aorhor‐46 Pea‐47 Soyabin‐48 Others‐49    Oil seed Seasam‐51 Linseed‐52 Masterd‐53 Nut‐54 Ladies finger‐54 Others‐56  

Vegetables Pumkin‐61 Brinjal‐62 Parbel‐63 Ladies finger‐64 Gourd‐65 Arum‐66 Cucumber‐67 Carrot‐68 Felon‐69 Daata‐70 Green banana‐71 Caulfiflower‐72 Tomato‐73 Radish‐74 Turnip ‐75Papaya‐76 Kakarala‐77 Cosava type potato‐78 

Dhane leaf‐81 Cavage‐82 Spinach ‐83 Letus‐84 Others(mention)‐85  Spies Chili‐91 Onion‐92 Gerlic‐93 Turmeric‐94 Ginger‐95 Coriander‐96 Otherts‐97   

Fruits Bnana‐101 Mango‐102 Pineapple‐103 Jackfruit‐104 Papya‐105 Water melon‐106Litchi ‐107 Guava‐108 Orange‐109 Custard apple‐110 Lemon‐111 Grapefruite‐112 Blackberry ‐113 Plums…‐114 kool/ plum‐115 Apple‐116 Pomegranate ‐117 Bilombi‐18 Chalata‐119 Tetul‐120 Olive‐121 Coconut‐122 Others‐123 

Others Crops Potato‐131 Sweet potato‐132 Causva‐133 Mulberry ‐134 Sugercan‐135  Fish Hilsha‐1 Rui‐2 Katol‐3 Puti‐4 Catfish‐5 Boal‐6 Magur‐8 Others‐9 

  Unit code E05 and Code E07 Maund‐1 Kilogram‐2 Units‐3 Bundle‐4 

94

Others(mention)‐5 

Module F:  (Production Cost) – (Crop and Fish) During July 2012 to June 2013 (Only the land you owned and cultivated and rented out will be included) for all crops. Fishes are alo including here.  

Name of crops  Code of Crops 

Units of land(Decimal) 

 

Cost of land digging plough 

Total day of labor and cost for Sowing/Planting  

Total day of labor and cost for weeding / weed 

Harvest cost and day of labor 

Cow/ plough Power tiller/TractorOwn (unit) 

Hire Plough(units)

Cost of rentable 

land plough cost(taka) 

Own (unit)

Hireplough (units) 

Total cost of 

rentable plough (taka) 

Own labor (days) 

Hire labor (days) 

Total cost of hire 

labor(taka) 

Own labor (day) 

Hire labor (days) 

Total cost of hire labor (taka) 

Own lobor (days)

Hire labor (days)

Total cost of hire 

labor(taka) 

F01  F02  F03  F04  F05 F06 F07 F08 F09 F10 F11  F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18                                   

                                   

         

         

                                   

                                   

                                   

         

         

                                   

                                   

*In case of own, mention their market price. *For fisheries (Seed), Fish food, pesticide, irrigation need to mention.  

 

95

 Module F: (Production Cost) – (Crop and Fish)        (cont.) July 2012 to June 2013   

Crops/fish name  Code  of crops 

Cost of seed/Plant (taka) 

Cost of pesticide (taka) 

Total cost of fertilizer(taka) 

If own Machine, Cost of 

diesel/electricity. 

Total Cost of other machine. 

Total cost of processing 

How much cost for 

irrigation and harvest* 

F01  F02  F19  F20  F21  F22  F23  F24  F25                  

                 

                 

                 

     

     

     

     

     

*In case of own, mention their market price. *For fisheries (Seed), Fish food, pesticide, irrigation need to mention.  

 

96

Module G: About fruits, tree production and their income. (July 2012 to June 2013)  

Serial no. 

Fruits  and  woden tree 

At Homestead (Number) 

At other places (Number) 

Price of fruits(taka) Selling  price of tree(taka) 

Price of  plants (taka)

Consume 

Sell Purchase sell

SLNO  G01  GO2  G03  G04  G05  G06  G07  G08 1  Mango     2  Jackfruit               3  Litchi     4  Palm/persimmon     5  Coconut               6  Betel nut               

7  Papaya     8  Guava               9  Banana               10  Lemon               11  Wooden tree     12  Others(mention)               

   

97

Module H‐1: Livestock and Poultry  July 2012 to June 2013  

Description of livestock and poultry 

 

How many  in July 

2012(including 

leased) 

How many purchased 

during July 2012 to June 2013? 

How many sold during July 2012 to 

June 2013?  

How  many deaths during  July 2012  to  June 2013? 

How  many during  July 2012  to  June 2013.(includig leased ones) 

How  many  took lease during  July 2012  to  June 2013? 

Units  Units Price(taka) 

Units Price(taka

) Units  Units  Units 

Livestock code  H101  H102 H103 H104 H105 H106  H107 H108

Bull/ox/Calf  1                 Cow(local)  2                 

Cow (hybrid)  3                 Buffalo  4                 Goat(local)  5                 

Goat (hybrid)  6                 Sheep  7                 Hen(local)  8                 

Hen (hybrid)  9                 Duck  10                 Koel  11                 Rabbit  12                 Pegion  13                 Others(mention)  14                     

98

Module H‐2: Livestock and poultry Costs July 2012 to June 2013 

Type of livestock  

Cost of doctor and Medicine 

Cost of Vaccine 

Cost of Injection 

Cost of food 

Cost of accommodatio

n Labor cost(taka) 

Others 

taka  taka  taka  taka  taka Self  salarie

d 

Livestock code  H201  H202 H203 H205 H206 H207 H208 H209

Bull/Ox/Calf  1         Cow(Local)  2     

Cow (hybrid)  3                 

Buffalo  4                 

Goat(Local)  5                 

Goat (hybrid)  6     

Sheep  7                 

Hen(Local)  8     

Hen (hybrid)  9                 

Duck  10     

Koel  11                 

Rabbit  12     

Pigeon  13                 

Others(mention)  14 

   

    

99

Module H‐3: Livestock and poultry Output  July 2012 to June 2013.   

Output From livestock, Food/nonfood 

From how many 

animals on average? 

How many months provided 

on average? 

How much in a month?  

 

How much sold 

in a month? (units)  

Total  price (unit/taka) 

Livestock production  Unit  H301  H302 H303  H304 H305

Cow milk  Liter        

Got milk  Liter         

Cow dung  K.G         

Egg  Units   

leather  K.G   

Wool  K.G   

Others(mention)     

 *In case of more than one animals, take average  

             

100

Module I: Social Safety Nets   July 2012 to June 2013 your    Is your household members during this period were involve in government social safety Program? (Yes‐1; No‐2)  I01    

MID Name of house hold members 

Which type of program they are involved? 

 

When involved there? 

What was the allocation for these members and How much in taka? 

Frequency of getting allocation 

Type of allocation code: Cash taka‐1; Rice‐2;  Wheat‐3; Oil‐4; Milk powder‐5; Cloths‐6;Corn‐7; Others(mention)‐8 

Schedule of getting allocation: Daily‐1; Weekly‐2; 2 times in a week‐3; Monthly‐4; 1 times in 2 months‐5; 

After 3 months; Others ‐6  Code I02 Month‐Code I03 

Year‐Code I04 

Type of allocation‐

1 

Type of allocation‐

2 Taka 

MID  Program Name  I02  I03 I04 I05 I06 I07 I08  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

  

     

 

101

Codes for Module I  Name of Program which is involved the members? Code IO2 

When this member Involved there?

Month‐Code IO3 Year‐Code 

IO4 Age allowance‐1 Widowed Allowence‐2 Disable/Paralysis allowance‐3 Maternal  allowance‐4 Freedom fighter allowance‐5 Paralysis freedom fighter‐6 Relief(Cash)‐7 Relief(Disaster)‐8 Grant for vulnerable ethnic group ‐9 Chittagong hill tribal allowance‐10 Disable Student allowance‐11 Disable student stipend‐12 Money for work‐13 Home making/Home repair allowance‐14 Agriculture rehabilitation ‐15 From OMS money‐16 VGD ‐17 VGF ‐18 Test relief (TR)‐19 Only relief for nothing‐20 

Food for work‐21 100 days program‐22 Primary study stipend‐23 School Feeding Programmed ‐24 Drop out students Scholarship ‐25 Higher secondary student stipend‐26 Maternal Health  allowance‐27 Rural Employment opportunities for protection of public ‐28 Char area livelihood allowance‐29 Rural  Employment,  Social  forestation  and  Rural  Maintenance Program (LGD) allowance‐30 Project fund‐31 From  SIPP (One‐time grant)‐32 Others(mention)‐33   

January(Pous‐Magh)‐1 February(Magh‐Falgun)‐2 March(Falgun‐Coitra)‐3 April(Coitra‐Boishakh)‐4 May(Boishakh‐Joistha)‐5 June(Joistha‐Ashar)‐6 July(Ashar‐Sraban)‐7 August(Sraban‐Vadra)‐8 September(Vadra‐Asshin)‐9 October(Asshin‐Kartik)‐10 November(Kartik‐Agrahayon)‐11 December(Agrahayon‐Poush)‐12 

2005‐5 2006‐6 2007‐7 2008‐8 2009‐9 2010‐10 2011‐11 2012‐12 

   

102

Module J: Migration and Remittances July 2012 to June 2013. J01  Has anyone sent money to your households during these periods? ( yes‐1; No‐2)  J01    

Name of the Remitter 

What is the relationship Between money sender and household head? 

Where does the Money sender live? 

How many times he sent money/product? 

Total (how much money + how many product sent?)  (convert product value to money) 

Code J02  Code J03 MID  Name  J02 J03 J05 J06  

         

  

         

  

         

  

         

 Code J02 Household head‐1 Spouse‐2 Son/daugher‐3  Father mother‐4 Brother/Sister‐5 Grandson/grand   

daughter‐6 Mother‐ in‐law/father in law‐7 Brother in law/sister in law etc‐8 Nepew‐9 Uncle/Aunt‐10 Servant/House worker etc ‐11 Shelter‐12 Others(mention)‐13 

Place of residence of the money sender?‐ Code J03 Dhaka……………………..1 Another district of bangladesh…………..2 Abroad……………………………………….3 

    

103

Module K‐1: Food Consumption Expenditure (for last 7 days) 

Name of food  Units  Code 

Is this eaten within last 7 

days? 

(From both market or homemade) How much ate /bought within 7 

days? Price  Total Price 

     (Yes‐1; No‐

2) Unit  TK./Units  TK. 

  Food K101 K102  K103 K104Food Grain  K.G.          

Fine Rice    11         

Rice‐ Medium    12         

Rice‐Coarse    13         

Beaten Rice    14         

Pop Rice     15         

Puffed Rice    16         

Wheat     17         

Flour    18         

Vermicelli    19         

Bread/ borate  Units  20         

Barley  K.G. 21

Corn  K.G. 22

Others (mention)     23

Pulse  K.G.Lentil    31

Green Gram    32

Chikling‐vetch    33

Pea gram     34

Mashcalai    35         

Others (mention)     36         

Fish  K.G./Units          

HIlsha  Units  41         

104

Name of food  Units  Code 

Is this eaten within last 7 

days?  

(From both market or homemade) How much ate /bought within 7 

days? Price  Total Price 

     (Yes‐1; No‐

2) Unit  TK./Units  TK. 

    Food  K101  K102  K103  K104 Rui/Mrigel/Katol   K.G.  42         

Silver  carp/Grass carp/Common carp 

  43         

Tilapia/Nailotica    44         

Pangash     45         

Koi/magur/sing    46         

Soil/Gojar/taki    47         

Boal/Ayer    48         

Baim    49         

Small Fish/Gura fish    50         

Prawn    51         

Dried fish     52         

Sea fish    53

Others (specify)     54

Meat/Egg  K.G./Units Beef  K.G. 61

Buffalo Meat    62

Mutton    63

Sheep meat    64         

Chicken    65         

Duck meat    66         

Hen egg    67         

Duck egg    68         

Others mention     69         

105

Name of food  Units  Code 

Is this eaten within last 7 

days?  

(From both market or homemade) How much ate /bought within 7 

days? Price  Total Price 

     (Yes‐1; No‐

2) Unit  TK./Units  TK. 

    Food  K101  K102  K103  K104 Vegetables  K.G.           

Potato    71         

Brinjal    72         

Pumpkin  K.G./Units 

73         

Water gourd    74         

Green papaya    75         

Parbel    76         

Chichinga    77         

Green banana    78         

Arum/ol  kochu/Kachur mukhi 

  79

Couli flower    80         

Cavage    81         

Bean/lobey    82         

Tomato    83         

Radish    84         

Ladies Finger    85         

All  type  of leafy(Spanish/Amaranth/Basil 

  86

Lettuce    87

Others (specify)     88

Milk / Dairy  Liter          

Liquid Milk    91         

106

Name of food  Units  Code 

Is this eaten within last 7 

days?  

(From both market or homemade) How much ate /bought within 7 

days? Price  Total Price 

     (Yes‐1; No‐

2) Unit  TK./Units  TK. 

    Food  K101  K102  K103  K104 Powder milk     92         

Card    93         

Sweet meat  K.G.           

Rosgolla    101         

Zilapi/Bundia/ Amitte    102         

Halua/Batasha/kodma    103

Other (specify)     104

Oil and Fats   LiterMastered oil    111

Soyabean oil    112         

Dalda/Vanashpati    113         

Ghee    114         

Others(specify)     115         

Fruits  K.G.           

Banana  Units  120         

Mango  K.G.  121         

Melon/ bangi  Units  123         Litchi    124         

Papaya    125         

Guava    126         

Pineapple    127

Apple  K.G. 128

Orange  Units 129

Grapes  K.G. 130

107

Name of food  Units  Code 

Is this eaten within last 7 

days?  

(From both market or homemade) How much ate /bought within 7 

days? Price  Total Price 

     (Yes‐1; No‐

2) Unit  TK./Units  TK. 

    Food  K101  K102  K103  K104 Safeda  Units  131         

Blackberry  K.G.  132         

Jackfruits  Units  133         

Others (specify)    134         

             

108

Module K‐2: Monthly/Yearly expenditure of nonfood items. 

     

Product name 

Monthly/yearly 

Code How Much did you get as wages/cash?

How much did you get as Gift? Total Value(1+2) 

1 2        Quantity  Taka 

 Monthly/ye

arly Non‐Food 

K201 K202 K203

Fuel as  lighting/Firewood/Cow dung/Cakes/Wood powder/Bhushi) 

Monthly  1

Cosmetics  (snow/Soap/ Mosquito coil/ Powder/Perfume) 

Monthly  2       

Transport  and  others expenses(Bus/Boat/Train/etc) 

Montly  3       

Clothing(Shirt/Sarre/Lungi/Shoes/bed sheet/etc) 

yearly  4

Entertainments(Movies/Books/Video cassette/TV etc) 

yearly  5       

Kitchenware/utensils (Plate/Pot/Fridge/Glass etc) 

yearly  6       

Furniture(Bed/Table/Sofa,etc)  yearly  7       

Personal items(Ornaments/Parts/Umbrella/Hand watch, etc) 

yearly  8

*Education cost will not be included in module –k‐2.

109

Module L: Expenses on Education  

July 2012 to June 2013 

Member no. 

Name of students of this household (Like module 

Module B table)  

Expenses of Monthly tuition, 

Admission and 

registration fees. 

Expenses of House tutor 

/Coaching. 

Expenses of Exam fees. 

Expenses of  Book,exercise,pen,etc. 

Expenses of 

uniform, shoes, etc. 

Expenses of Hostel or other accommodation. 

Other expenses 

    Taka  Taka  Taka  Taka  Taka  Taka  Taka

MID  Name  L01  L02  L03  L04  L05  L06  L07 

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

110

Module M: Health and illnesses M01:Has any member of your households suffered for any disease during July 2012 to June 2013?(Yes‐1;No‐2)

  

Member ID 

Name  Types of dieses? Taken any treatment? 

 

Treatment  taken after  how  many days of illness? 

Where did you take 

Treatment? 

Health expduring 1 y

    Code M02 (Yes‐1;No‐2)  Days  Code M05  TakaMID  Name  M02A M02B M03 M04 M05 M06

                                                                                                    Type of disease? Code M02: Chronic  Fever‐1,  Major  Pain/Disable‐2,  Heart  disease  ‐3,Breathing  problems‐4,  Stomach  problems‐5,  Gastritis  /Alcer‐6,Blood  preRheumatic fever‐8,Skin disease‐9,Dibetis‐10,Cancer‐11, Leprosy ‐12,Paralysis‐13, Epilepsy‐14, Pregnancy‐15, Others (Specify)‐16 Where treatment taken? Code M05: Govt  hospital/Health  centre‐1,  NGO  Hospital/  Health  centre‐2,  Private  Hospital/  Health  centre‐3,  Homio‐4,  Vegoose/Hakim/A5,Ojha/Boiddya‐6, Pharmacy‐7,Self medicine ‐8,Village doctor‐9, Others(specify)‐10.  

M01 

   

111

Module N: Agricultural Land and Decision Making July2012 to June 2013 N01  Total land owned including homestead, ponds, arable land and others? TOTDECSN02  Total arable land owned (decimal)? CULDECSN03  Total leased in land (Agriculture)? INDECS N04  Total lease‐out land (agriculture)? OUTDECS 

    Module O: Housing, Infrastructure, and asset give information about your home during last July 2012 to June 2013? O01: how many rooms at your home?  O1    Others Assets

O08.Give information about others assets of this households. 

#  Assets  Units Present market value 

Code  NUM ASSVAL Asset code1  Motorcycle     2  Rickshaw /van     3 Bicycle4 Boat5  TV     6  Radio     7 Mobile Phone8  Sewing Machine     9  Solar panel     10  Net     11 Bamboo12  Furniture     13  Ornaments     14  Electric fan     14 Others

O02: Is there any separate kitchen?(yes‐1;no‐2) O2O03: Wall of the house has made of?  O3   (wall‐1,wood‐2,Bumbo‐3,Tin‐4, Soil‐5,Others(specify)‐6     O04: What types of latrine do you?  O4   (Open place‐1, In a hole‐2, Senitary‐3,Others(Specify)‐4O05: What is the source of drinking water?   O5   (Supply  water‐1,  Tube‐well‐2,Ponds/River‐3,Kua‐4,Water  fall‐5,Others(specify)‐6 

   

O06: How many feet distance between main room and source of drinking water? 

O6   

O07: Is there any electric connection?(yes‐1;no‐2)  O7   

     

   

112

                Module P: Loans July 2012 to June 2013 P01:  Has  your  household  member  taken  any  loan  from  any  person  orinstitutions?     

(Yes‐1;No‐2)

 A)  Information about loan(In case of  SIPP, take information for last 4 Years‘ loan (4 loan cycle) and for others last 1 year loan information)  

MID  Number  of loan 

When received?  Name of source 

Is the loan under SIPP‐II?

Yes‐1 No‐2 

Amount of 

money 

Number of 

installments 

Amount per 

installment  

Rate of Interest(Service charge rate) 

Use of loan Code 

P10 

Amount of usage in IGA 

 

 How much profit from 

IGA? 

Did you Repay the installments regularly? Code P13 

 Code P04 Month  Year 

  SLNO  P02  P03  P04  P05  P06  P07  P08  P09  P10  P11  P12  P13 

  1                         

  2                         

  3                         

  4                         

  5         

  6                         

  7                         

  8         

  9                         

  10                         

           

 

113

B)  Problems of Taking SIPP Loan:  Problem of taking loan   Use Tick (√) marks 

1.Not getting loan in due time    2.Not getting  proper amount of loan   3.Both(1+2)   4.Problem of preparing documents   5.Lenthy loan process   6.Inadequate information of loan   8. High service charge   9.No Problem   10.Others(Specify)   

 

C) Problem of Loan Repayment: Problem of Loan Payment  Use Tick (√) marks 

1.Short  grace period   2. Problem of repayment installment   3.Natural disaster 4.Low price of product produced   5.Less oppurtunity for attractive income 6.Low profit from  Investment 7.Risk of disease   8. Family sickness/illness   9.Death of Livestock/poultry   10. No problems at all   11. 10.Others(Specify) 

     

114

Codes for Module P PO4 Source of loan?  Relatives‐1 Neighbor /friends‐2 NGO/microcredit bank‐3 Sabolombi Loan(SIPP)‐4 Internal loan(SIPP)‐5 Skill  development Loan(SIPP)6 Young  Employment loan(SIPP)‐7 Commercial bank‐8 Employer‐9 Shop/Businessman‐10 Money lender‐11 Others(specify)‐12  

 

P10 Code of loan Usage:  P13 Way of repayment of installment Cow fettering project‐1 Cow rearing ‐2 Goat/Sheep rearing ‐3 Poultry‐4 Fish firming ‐5 Agriculture(irrigation, wages  payment  ,take leases,mortgage,etc)‐6 Vagetabes‐7 Agro  Processing Business‐8 Others small business‐9 Treatment‐10 Education‐11 Marriage/Dowry‐12 Others(specify)‐13  

Going abroad‐11 Making House/repair‐12 Face Dissaster‐13 Money  Landry  with  Interest business‐14 Purchase van/rikswa‐15 Livestock rearing‐16 Tailoring‐17 Consumed‐18 Others(specify)‐19   

Profit for IGA=1 Other  income source=2 Others NGO Loan=3 Relatives/Friends loan=4 For Savings =5 Others (Specify)=6        

     

115

Module Q: Social Capital and Networks Q01  If any disaster happened in the village, who take pioneer role to face the disaster?(answer shall be more than 1) 

 Code: Village people‐1, Gram samity‐2, Only neighbors together‐3, Local government‐4, Political leaders‐5, Nobody‐6. 

Q02  (During July 2012 to June 2013) Did any person of your households participate in  any meeting or committee other than SIPP? yes‐1; No‐2) Q03  (During July 2012 to June 2013) Did any person of your households communicate with any higher authority  (yes‐1; No‐2) Q04  (During July 2012 to June 2013) Did any person of your household run or get elected as UP/UZP Chairman/Local govt? 

(yes‐1; No‐2) Q05  (During July 2012 to June 2013) Did any person of your households hold any meeting on village problem? (yes‐1; No‐2) Q06  (During July 2012 to June 2013)Did any person of your households take Initiatives to motivate people on any important issue ?

(yes‐1; No‐2) Q07  (During July 2012 to June 2013) Did any person of your households donate any money or labor for village development?

 (yes‐1; No‐2) Q08  If any family of this villages run into trouble, who will come forward to help?

 (Nobody‐1,Gram somity/Jibikayan group‐2, Their relatives‐3, Neighbors ‐4,Religious persons‐5, NGO‐6,Others(Specify)‐7 

   Q09  Do you think that the people of this village are busy with their own problem and they do not think about others?  

(Agree‐1;Partialy agree‐2,disagree‐3) 

Q10  If SIPP Project is not helpful for you, but helpful for others then will you support the project? (yes‐1; No‐2) Q11  If any female is elected as people’s representative, will you support her? (yes‐1; No‐2)            

116

Module R: Savings  July 2012 to June 2013 Those member whose are made savings, use different Raw for each member. If anyone made more than one savings, also use different raw for each. 

Serial no. 

Who are savings?  Place of savings? Is the savings are from group lending 

of NJG Balance of savings 

  MID   Code RO2  (yes‐1; No‐2)  Taka SLNO  R01  R02A  R02B  R03  R04 

                                                             

 Codes for Module R 

Where made savings? Code R02 Home‐1NGO/Grameen bank‐2 Commercial bank / Post office‐3 

SIPP ‐4Shop‐5 Others(specify)‐6 

 R05: Is the saving of SIPP enough (Yes‐1; No‐2) ___________ 

R06: Does it need to increase? (Yes‐1; No‐2)___________ 

R07: If no, why don’t you want to save? _______________________ 

R08: What do you need so that you are motivated to save?  ____________________   

117

Module S: Disasters, Shocks, and Coping Strategies between July 2012 and June 2013 

Pcode  Disasters  

Have you affected during July 2012 to June 

2013? 

In which month were you 

affected?(If you were affected more 

than one time mention the most affected one) 

How long the effect persisted? 

Convert losses to taka What was the strategy for 

recovering the losses? 

Such loses recovered fully? 

(yes‐1;No‐2) Reduced 

income Losses of house 

Losses of Crops 

Losses of Livestock 

Other losses 

   (yes‐1; No‐

2) Code S02 Day Taka Taka  Taka Taka Taka CodeS09

Pcode    S01 1g 2q S03 S04 S05  S06 S07 S08 1 2 3

11  Cold wave     12  Flood     13  Cyclone     14  Tornado/ Nor’easter     

15  Tidal     16  Drought     17  River erosion     18  Salinity     19  Sand deposit     

20  Landslip     21  Crop disease      22  Dangerous accident     23  Died of earning person     24  Died  of  unlearning  

senior person    

25  Died  of  child(bellow  7 years) 

   

26  Died of newborn      27  Fire     28  Theft/ Robbery     

29  Others(specify)      

    

118

 Which month affected? S02  Which Strategy undertaken recovers the loss?    S09

 January(Poush‐Magh)‐1 February(Magh‐Falgun)‐2 March(Falgun‐Coitra)‐3 April(Coitra‐Boishakh)‐4 May(Boishakh‐Joistha)‐5 June(Joistha‐Ashar)‐6 July(Ashar‐Sraban)‐7 August(Sraban‐Vadra)‐8 September(Vadra‐Asshin)‐9 October(Asshin‐Kartik)‐10 November(Kartik‐Agrahayon)‐11 December(Agrahayon‐Poush)‐12 

Members more worked ‐1 Migrated to another place‐2 Used savings‐3 Take loan‐4 Assets sold‐5 Stop children school going ‐6 Advanced labor sold‐7 Interest free disaster loan‐8 Help from vulnerable group‐9 Others disaster activity of SDF‐10 SIPP‐11 Government grant‐12 Friends/Relatives‐13 Others(specify)‐14  

119

Module T: Women Empowerment  Fixed code for the bellow answer. All time‐1, Most of the time‐2, Sometimes‐3, Never‐4, not applicable‐5. 

T1  Girls education       T8  Selling produced egg, milk   T2  Boys education       T9  Family planning   T3  Saving  T10 Expenses of Eid,puja, Christmas Day etcT4  Spending own deposit      T11  Selling land   T5  Taking loan      T12  Go to fathers home   T6  Going out      T13  To meet leaders   T7  Selling household assets  T14 To  donate daughters marriage 

  Question    Answer T15  When did you give marriage a daughter of your family, if any?  Year   T16  In that marriage, how much did you spend?  Taka   T17  What was the age of the girl when she got married?  Age   T18  When did you give marriage to a son of your family?  Year   T19  In that marriage, how much was spent?  Taka   T20  What was the age of the boy when he got married?  Age      

120

 Module U:Social Capital: Serial no.  Visited place  How many times visited 

Weekly monthly YearlySLNO  Name  U 101  U 102  U 103 

1   Hospital       2   Various offices of Upazila       3   Upazila health complex 4   Family planning centre        5   Movie theater       6   Village market       7   Exhibition 8   Fair       9   Political meeting       10   Vote center       11   Visit relatives home  12   Others(specify)............       

 B) Women‘s power of decision making on family metters:  

Serial no. 

Type of decision  Use Tick (√) marks 

SLNO  Name   1   No role                                         2   Participation in resolving family conflict   3   Purchase/sell/mortgage and use of own land   4   Marrige of son/daughter/others member of the family          5   Sending son/daughter to school  6   Others (specify)...........   

         

121

C) Ownership of women in all kinds of assets: Serial no. 

Description of own assets and wealth  Unit of measurement in Decimal/ Number 

SLNO  Name  U 301 1  Homestead land   2   Arable land 3  Mortgage/Leased land   4  Dairy cow   5  Ox 6  Calf   7  Hen/duck   8  Sewing machine   

9  Rickshaw /van   10  Others(specify)   

 D) Role of women in devolopment livestock:   

Serial no.   Subject of decision making 

Type of Role Before getting involved in SIPP

Not at all  Fairly  More  Not at all   Fairly  More SLNO  Name  U 401  U 402  U 403  U 404  U 405  U 406 

1.  Choosing  Livestock  and  poultry veriety. 

 

2.  Marketing of livestock output   3.  Consumption of livestock’s output             

4.  Use  of  proceeds  from  livestock output sale 

           

5.  Taking  stock  of  profit  and  loss  of  livestock sale 

           

    

122

 Module V:Project under SIPP  Community Investment Works  V  101.  Has  any  of  the  following  work  are  under  “notun  jibon”  project  been running or completed? (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

i. Earth work   

ii. Culvert/pipe/box   

iii. Cannel/drain   

iv. Tube‐well   v. School development work 

vi. Market development work     V 201: Has any  improvement of   condition was observed due to  implementation of works under SIPP‐1 & SIPP‐2 (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

i. Safe drinking water     

ii. Hygienic sanitations   

iii. Enough water for Irrigation 

iv. Proper communication system     

v. Good school structure   

vi. Others(specify) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐   

        

123

 Village institutions      

Institutions  V 301 Are you aware of village institutions? (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

V 302Are you or any member of your  household  are member  of  village institution?  (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

V 303Whether  held regular  meeting? (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

V304 How  many times meeting held in  that  one year? 

V 305What  is  your  idea  about the  activities  of  these institutions?  Code V 305 

V 306Are  these  institutions transparent  and accountable?  (yes‐1;No‐2;Don’t know‐3) 

I.     Gram somitte     

ii.      Livelihood  group   (Jibikayan group) 

   

iii.   VCO     

iv.   S.S.C     

v.    S.S.C(SAC)     

vi.      Sub‐  finance committee 

   

vii.      Purchase  sub‐ committee 

   

viii.    Maintenance  sub‐ committee 

   

ix.    Disaster Committee     

x.     Gram porishad     

xi.        Infrastructure  Sub‐ committee 

   

xii.        2nd    generation institutions 

 

a.      Notun  jibon  cluster federation society 

   

b.      Notun  jibon  district federation society 

   

c.   Production team     

Code V 305: Very bad‐1, Bad‐2, Fairly‐3, Good‐4, Very good‐5  

124

  Village Development and Risk Reduction Fund:  (yes‐1; No‐2) V 401: Are you aware of village development fund? _____________________ V402: i. Do you know, how this fund come to the village? __________________       ii. If yes, who run this fund? ____________________ V403: Do you know how much fund came to village last year? ___________ Training (Capacity Building): (yes‐1; No‐2) 

MID V 501: Is any member of 

your family took any training under SIPP? 

V502: Whether got any loan for training? 

V502: Whether got any loan after 

training? 

V 503: What training did you get? 

V 504: Whether the training was useful? 

           

           

           

           

         

8.1.1.1.1 Distribution of service charge: V 601: Will you get back the service charge you paid? (yes‐1; No‐2; don’t know‐3) ____________________ V 602: If yes, what is the percentage?........................% V  603: After what  time  you  are  get  back  the  service  charge?  __________      1.  6 month  ___________2.  1  Year__________3.2  year__________  4.Other (specify) Feature of SIPP: V 701: Why SIPP loans are different from Others NGO loans? 

i. This loan can be used as desired? ii. No Restriction on repayment of loan iii. After repayment of loan, it will saving for us iv. Low service charge v. Others.............................................. 

 V 702: What are the problems of SIPP? 

i………………………………………… ii………………………………………… iii…………………………………………