status of persons with disabilities and their supported

1

Status of Persons with Disabilities and their Supported Living Needs

A

Research Study Report

2011

Rural Development Trust (RDT)

Bangalore Highway Anantpur – 515001

Andhrapradesh India

Phone: 08554 - 275572

Email: [email protected]

2

Research Study Team

Tool Development

*RDT CBR Team, Research Coordinator & Project Advisor Mr. B. Venkatesh, Research Consultant Vandana Bedi

Data Collection

*RDT CBR Team

Data Collation

Research Consultant Vandana Bedi

Technical Support by:

Quantitative: Computer Experts Mr. Sanjit Singh and Mr. Supreet Singh

Qualitative: PhD Student Ms. Seema Tiwari

Research Design, Data Analysis, Author of Report

Research Consultant Vandana Bedi

Review and Advisory Committee

Mr. Gautam Chowdhary, Disability Development Worker, Kolkata

Mr. Peter Coleridge, Researcher and Consultant, Disability & Development, England

Ms. Poonam Natarajan, Chairperson National Trust, New Delhi

Dr. Raja Ram, Psychosocial Consultant and Director ANTARANG, Bangalore

Mr. B. Venkatesh, Resource Coordinator & Project Advisor, C.K.Palli, Anantapur

*RDT CBR and Monitoring & Evaluation Team

3

Acknowledgements

RDT is extremely grateful to all the study participants for their valuable sharing that have greatly enriched the purpose and the meaningfulness of the research study.

RDT is also deeply appreciative of the contributions of all the reviewers and advisors of the study. It is thankful to all of them for doing time consuming reviews and providing excellent advice during the course of the study.

4

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations.............................................................................................8

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes............................................................................9

Executive Summary......................................................................... 10

1. Introduction ............................................................................. 14

1.1 Objectives of the Study ............................................................................ 14

1.2 Rationale for the Study ............................................................................ 14

2. Methodology............................................................................ 15

2.1 Research Study Design.............................................................................. 15

2.1.1 Context of the Study ....................................................................................................16

2.1.2 Ethical Considerations...................................................................................................16

2.2 Sample .................................................................................................... 17

2.2.1 Selection of Participants for Quantitative ......................................................................17

2.2.2 Selection of Participants for Qualitative Data ................................................................17

2.3 Data Collection Procedures ...................................................................... 18

2.3.1 Tool Development for Primary Data.............................................................................18

2.3.2 Field Work...................................................................................................................18

2.3.3 Documentation of Data................................................................................................19

2.4 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 19

2.4.1 Data Analysis Process for Quantitative Data ..................................................................19

2.4.2 Data Analysis Process for Qualitative Data ....................................................................19

2.5 Validation of the Study............................................................................. 19

2.6 Limitations of the Study ...........................................................................20

5

3. Quantitative Data Analysis ........................................................ 21

3.1 Interpretation of Data..............................................................................22

3.1.1 Age and Gender based Interpretation of Study Population (Annexure VIa) ................... 22

3.1.2 Educational Status of Study Population (Annexure VIb) ................................................ 25

3.1.3 Status of Reading/Writing, Money Handling Skills and Skill Training (Annexure VIc) ..... 28

3.1.4 Occupational Status of Study Population (Annexure VId) ............................................. 30

3.1.5 Marital Status of Study Population (Annexure VIe) ....................................................... 32

3.1.6 Health Status of Study Population (Annexure VIf) ........................................................ 35

3.1.7 Status related to Social Security Cards (Annexure VIg)................................................... 37

3.1.8 Status of Group Memberships of Study Population (Annexure VIh)............................... 40

3.1.9 Status of Mobility and Self Care of Study Population (Annexure VIi)..............................41

3.1.10 Status of Social and Cultural Participation (Annexure VIj)............................................. 43

3.1.11 Status of RDT and Govt. Services and Benefits (Annexure VIk)...................................... 44

3.2 Key Findings ............................................................................................48

3.2.1 Age and Gender based Key Findings ............................................................................ 48

3.2.2 Key Findings about Educational Status...........................................................................51

3.2.3 Key Findings about Occupational Status ....................................................................... 54

3.2.4 Key Findings about Marital Status ................................................................................ 55

3.2.5 Key Findings about Health Status ................................................................................. 56

3.2.6 Key Findings about Social Security Status...................................................................... 56

3.2.7 Key Findings about Status of Group Memberships ........................................................ 57

3.2.8 Key Findings about Mobility, Self Care and Social Participation Statuses........................ 57

3.2.9 Key Findings about RDT and Govt. Services and Benefits ............................................. 57

3.3 Conclusion ..............................................................................................58

6

4. Qualitative Data Analysis.......................................................... 60

4.1 Insights into the Supported Living Needs of Persons with Disabilities.......... 61

4.1.1 The General Profile of Individual Participants................................................................61

4.1.2 The Functional Status of Individual Participants............................................................ 63

4.1.3 The Family and the Individual Participants ................................................................... 64

4.1.4 The Specific Problems and Future Concerns Related to the Disabled Participants ........... 66

4.1.5 Utilization of RDT Services and Benefits by the Individual Participants/Families............. 67

4.1.6 The Community Groups on Disability .......................................................................... 69

4.1.7 The SHGs of Persons with Disabilities/Carer representatives.......................................... 72

4.1.8 Case Illustrations ......................................................................................................... 73

4.2 Key Findings ............................................................................................77

4.2.1 General Status of Individual Participants....................................................................... 77

4.2.2 Factors Causing Maximum Concerns for Future Living Needs of Disabled Participants ... 78

4.2.3 Factors Precipitating/Increasing the Life-long Care Needs/Concerns of Disabled Participants ................................................................................................................. 79

4.2.4 Factors Promoting Safe Future or Lifelong Care Provision by Family Members.............. 79

4.2.5 Emerging Positive Indicators for Supported Family/Community Living.......................... 80

4.3 Conclusion ..............................................................................................80

5. Recommendations.................................................................... 82

5.1 General Recommendations.......................................................................82

5.2 Specific Recommendations for Supported Living for Disabled Persons with Long–Term Care Needs ............................................................................83

5.2.1 Facility of a trained Community Carer at Panchayat level for Supported Living............. 84

5.2.2 Personal Assistant to Person with Disability towards Independent Living....................... 85

5.2.3 Community Group/Respite Home at Panchayat Level .................................................. 85

5.2.4 Independent Living Resource Centre (ILRC) ................................................................. 86

7

5.2.5 The Australian Government’s Inquiry into Long-Term Care and Support to Persons with Disabilities................................................................................................................... 87

5.2.6 Pilots of Supported Living Projects in India................................................................... 88

References ..................................................................................... 88

8

List of Abbreviations

ADL Activities of Daily Living

BC Backward Class

BKS Bukkaraya Samudram Mandal

CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

CP&MD Cerebral Palsy & Muscular Dystrophy

H&SI Hearing & Speech Impairment

ID Intellectual Disability

IGP Income Generation Programme

IKP Indira Kranthi Patham

MI Mental Illness

MUL-DIS Multiple Disability

OC Other Class

PI Physical Impairment

PWD Person with Disability

RDT Rural Development Trust

RMP Registered Medical Practitioner

SC Scheduled Caste

SHG Self-Help Group

UNCRC United Nations Convention on Rights of Children

UNCRPD United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities

VI Visual Impairment

9

List of Tables, Figures and Boxes

Pg. No.

Table I % Population of Impairment Groups 40

Table II % Population in Age-Groups 41

Table III Literacy Rates 42

Table IV Educational Status (% age) of Disabled Population 43

Figure 1 Age Distribution of Participants with Disabilities 50

Figure 2 Disability Profile of the Participants 50

Box I Factors Promoting/Preventing PWDs’ Employability 44

Box II-VIII Case Illustrations I-VII 61-64

10

Executive Summary

This study carried out to help RDT develop an appropriate supported living programme for persons with disabilities having lifelong care needs, was conducted in the two mandals (Bukkaraya Samudram and Pedavaduguru) of RDT’s work area. Towards this purpose the study looked into an overall status of persons with disabilities in the study mandals, and specifically probed into the long-term care needs of identified vulnerable disabled persons requiring lifelong supported living.

The study used the census survey research design for quantitative data that informed about the overall situation of disabled study participants. It also utilized the descriptive research design for qualitative data to develop insights into the specific needs for supported living. The study followed proper processes for formulating ethical considerations; tool development and field testing; field work; documentation, collation and analysis of data; and validation of the key findings. The quantitative data was collected for a total of 1218 persons with disabilities of two study mandals using a quantitative data collection tool consisting of variables related to social, economic, political, civil and cultural parameters. The qualitative data was collected for 50 disabled individuals, and 6 SHGs and 6 community groups chosen through purposive sampling from the total study population and the two mandals, using an individual interview guide and focussed group discussion guides respectively. The quantitative data was collated and analysed separately for those study participants, who came in contact with RDT between 1999 and 2010, and those who came in contact with RDT team during the course of data collection in 2011. The quantitative and qualitative data analysis brought out the following key findings:

Key Findings of Quantitative Study

♣ RDT has reached out to less than 50% (M-59%; F-41%) of the total disabled population in the two study mandals, which is still a large number of persons. Gender gap is significant as World Disability Report (2011) states disability prevalence rate 11% more in females.

♣ Persons in the age group of 19-40 yrs. at 49% and persons with physical impairment at 57% form the largest groups in the disabled study population – percentages way above NSSO figures for the same groups.

♣ Better literacy rate (56%) in BKS mandal than Peddavaduguru mandal (52.2%) among 1999-2010 study population and very low literacy rate (36%) among 2011 study population of both the mandals is a success indicator of RDT’s educational programmes, which are more concentrated in BKS mandal. Overall literacy rate in the total 1999-2010 study population is much higher than the national average (41%) for persons with disabilities.

♣ Gender gap (less females) much bigger among disabled study population compared to the general population of the two mandals that has reverse gender gap.

11

♣ The maximum non-literates are among persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS - similar to the trend among national population of disabled people.

♣ Mainly (a few) persons with PI reaching the higher education level, whereas the rest staying at secondary level only – a trend reported in World Bank Report (2007) as well.

♣ 54.5% disabled persons of study population are engaged in some occupation.

♣ 53% of >18yrs. have job cards.

♣ 4% more males than females are not in any occupation.

♣ 30% of disabled working population is involved in domestic work as opposed to 12.8% NSSO (2002) average. 20% more disabled females are in domestic work than males.

♣ 24.5% engaged in outside work as against 37. 6% national average for disabled persons.

♣ 66.6% among persons with CP&MD, ID, MI & MUL-DIS and 45.6% among VI not in any occupation

♣ Occupational status better in Peddavaduguru mandal in spite of more livelihood opportunities in BKS mandal.

♣ 56.6% among >18 yrs. in study population are married (M-65%; F-35%).

♣ 38.7% disabled persons (>18 yrs.) of the study population have never married as compared to 27.8% of rural disabled persons above the age of 15 yrs. reported as single in the NSSO (2002) data.

♣ Only 4% women are deserted/widow in the study population as against 52% country’s average for disabled women and 10% average for all rural women.

♣ 18.5% are single women among study population as against 12% among disabled women and 10% of all rural women in the country.

♣ Maximum persons are married among PI and H&SI.

♣ Peddavaduguru mandal’s marital status statistics (especially for 2011 group) are better as compared to BKS mandal’s, specifically among females with disabilities.

♣ 91% of study population reported good health status.

♣ Persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS formed the major share of persons with health problems.

12

♣ More than 80% of study population have main social security cards.

♣ Fewer females have NREGA and Voter ID cards among the study population.

♣ >80% of study population getting disability pension as against 5.6% of country’s average.

♣ Peddavaduguru status slightly better than BKS in relation to social security cards and gender gap.

♣ 86% of the study population from 1999-2010 groups of both the mandals has reported being SHG members.

♣ 38% of study population requires low to high support in self care as opposed to 30% country’s average.

♣ More disabled persons have received RDT services & benefits in BKS than in Peddavaduguru mandal.

♣ More disabled females have received RDT services & benefits than disabled males.

♣ Proportionately 10-20% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS receiving services but with lower social, economic, civil, political and cultural statuses.

♣ RDT services & benefits addressing some life domain needs of disabled persons at an individual level but not towards inclusive environments.

Key Findings of Qualitative Study

♦♦ 86% respondents were carers and not persons with disabilities themselves because of attitudinal and communication difficulties.

♦♦ The educational, economic, health, marital and occupational statuses were quite poor for almost all the qualitative study participants.

♦♦ Disabled persons with mobility aids were having a lot of difficulties in functional mobility because of inaccessible environment inside and outside the house.

♦♦ Some families were surviving only because of support received from RDT.

♦♦ Dependence in self-care, behavioural difficulties, financial cost of health, and safety and security of especially disabled women have emerged as the main concerns for future living needs.

13

♦♦ Many concerns often expressed by disabled persons like meaningful engagement, leisure, choices in life, some control on environment, financial security etc. have not got mentioned in this study.

♦♦ Non-usage of alternate self-care methods, non-adaptation of environment, no inclusive services, no training of carers, and RDT’s current services and benefits not leading to desired outcomes in the qualitative study participants are the main factors identified as precipitating lifelong care needs/concerns.

♦♦ Independence in self-care, disabled person’s capacity to contribute in the family in any way, good neighborhood relationships, and membership of RDT supported SHGs are being seen as factors promoting safer future for those with lifelong care needs.

♦♦ Training in ADLs, vocational training, financial support, livelihoods, accessible housing and other environments have been mentioned as the important supported living needs.

♦♦ Factors such as disabled persons/families wanting supported living measures within the family rather than only institutional care, and favourable attitudes of community groups and disabled persons’ SHGs are promising indicators for exploring family/community based supported living options.

The study concluded that persons with mainly severe physical, mental and visual impairments of the study population, especially when associated with poor health and poverty conditions, seemed the most vulnerable as a group. Although RDT services are the reason for basic survival of some such persons with disabilities/families, these are not reducing the impact of impairments in their lives. The study also revealed that the supported living for persons with disabilities forms a range of needs depending on the level of support required by the person in various life domains, rather than one solution for all.

Based on the key findings the study made general recommendations of reflecting on the focus and methodology of RDT’s disability services delivery system, developing new human resources to address life needs and rights of disabled persons as enshrined in UNCRPD, and building on current inclusive opportunities. It also made certain specific recommendations for supported living options like Community Carer at panchayat level, Personal Assistant for person with disability, Community Group/Respite Home at panchayat level and Independent Living Resource Centers.

14

1. Introduction

This study has been conducted to help RDT develop a need based and appropriate supported living program for persons with disabilities within its project areas (TOR-Annexure I). Towards this aim the study attempted to develop a broader perspective on the situation of the study population with disabilities in regard to their social, economic, political, civil and cultural status. Secondly, the study tried to identify the more vulnerable groups among persons with disabilities requiring long-term care and their specific needs for supported living. The study also gave insights in to the relevance and impact of RDT’s current services.

1.1 Objectives of the Study

The study conducted in the two mandals ((Bukkaraya Samudram and Pedavaduguru) of Anantpur district (RDT’s total work area) was conceptualized with the following objectives:

1. To collect and record qualitative and quantitative data on the social, economic, political, civil and cultural status of persons with disabilities in general, and of those in need of supported living in particular, in the selected areas.

2. To identify future living needs and aspirations of persons with disabilities in

need of supported living, and related issues, in the selected areas.

3. To analyse the data with reference to universal measurables (such as UNCRC, UNCRPD, Purchasing power parity, Human development index and CEDAW) to assess the present status on quality of life for such persons with disabilities.

4. To undertake a data based assessment on the process and impact of RDT’s (centralized and community based) programs with persons with disabilities, their families and communities in general, and those in need of supported living in particular, in the selected areas.

5. To identify compatibility of and changes required in RDT’s approach to its

work with persons with disabilities, their families and communities, and make recommendations in order to address the supported living needs and issues of persons with disabilities in the selected areas.

1.2 Rationale for the Study

The Rural Development Trust (RDT), started in 1969, is based in all the 63 blocks of Anantpur district. It works with dalits, tribes, weaker sections and disabled persons in the areas of education, community health, housing, livelihood, development of disabled people, empowerment of women, and ecology among others.

15

People with disability in India often live amidst poverty, stigma, inadequate social/welfare measures, unequal educational, employment & recreational opportunities, ignorant family and community, and limited facility of mobility and other environmental access. Although many non-disabled persons also share such a living, persons with disabilities are further pushed into this living condition because of disadvantages and discrimination faced at multiple levels. Encountering such persons with disabilities in its work with rural communities, RDT decided to address their needs and began its work with disabled people in 1986-87. Over the years RDT has been working through both institutional based and community based rehabilitation service delivery approaches. Through these services RDT has tried to open up many opportunities and build the capacity of persons with disabilities within its strengths and limitations. RDT has reached out to many rural communities where persons with disabilities live in darkness figuratively and literally. Working with disabled persons poses multiple visible/invisible, direct/indirect challenges originating from within the person, their families, neighbors and community, and Government systems. RDT attempts to work with all these agencies to optimize resources for the development of persons with disabilities.

RDT has recognised over the last few years that families, communities and institutions where RDT works find themselves inadequate in providing appropriate support to adolescents with severe impairments to live a quality and meaningful life. It also came across a few such disabled persons, who had been abandoned by their families unable to provide care because of poverty and lack of appropriate services. Then RDT heard about the concept of “supported living”, understanding it as a service that addresses all the needs of people with severe impairments to live a quality and meaningful life; and that it does so with the active participation and ownership of disabled people themselves, their organizations, their care givers and their communities along with organizations like RDT and the Government also as stakeholders.

RDT contacted a number of agencies and individuals in different countries to learn about supported living programs. Yet it could not find any appropriate programs or guidance. Thus RDT decided to commission this study that would aim at assessing and suggesting potential options to address such needs of persons requiring life-long care.

2. Methodology

2.1 Research Study Design

This study looked into the overall situation of persons with disabilities in the selected work areas of RDT, and specifically probed the needs of disabled persons requiring life-long supported living. It used quantitative and qualitative methods respectively.

The study used census survey research design for quantitative data, and descriptive research design for qualitative data.

16

2.1.1 Context of the Study

The context of the study was the two mandals namely, Bukkaraya Samudram (BKS) and Peddavaduguru of Anantpur district, which is the project area of RDT for its general community development programmes and disability specific programmes as well. The criteria for selecting the two mandals for the study was based on differences in proximity to RDT Head Office in Anantpur town, and longevity, intensity, comprehensiveness of RDT’s work in disability.

Bukkaraya Samudram mandal is 5 km. from Anantpur town and has the best water resource in the whole of drought prone district. As a result water is available for more than one crop. RDT has been working for at least 12 years in this mandal with an adequate staff resource. This is where RDT’s institutions are situated and it has initiated comprehensive programmes for persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups. People in this mandal tend to become more dependent on RDT.Because of proximity to Anantpur town people have greater employment/livelihood opportunities.

Peddavaduguru Mandal is 55 kms from Anantpur town and far from RDT’s institutions. Because of lack of water there is only one crop a year. Villages are remote. RDT has been working in this mandal also for about 12 years but finds it difficult to retain its staff. Therefore, continuity of work often faces a setback especially in the CBR sector. RDT has initiated comprehensive programming for other marginalized groups but not so much for persons with disabilities. Employment opportunities are limited to agriculture and mining. Yet, the political awareness is higher in this mandal, which is considered to be a political power centre. Thus it tends to get more Govt. resources than Bukkaraya Samudram.

The context was not studied directly but through all the participants of the study.

2.1.2 Ethical Considerations

The purpose of the study was explained to each participant and their consent taken verbally before any data was collected. All of them were assured that the information shared by them would be kept confidential and their names would not be revealed.

The study team followed as far as possible culturally appropriate, disability friendly, gender sensitive and non-judgemental behaviour and methods while interviewing the participants.

It was decided that whenever required, the team would collect even the quantitative data at the home of the concerned disabled participant for issues which were sensitive in nature for that participant. The team also tried to have at least one female staff in the team of two, while talking to a female participant during data collection.

It was also decided that no photographs would be taken as they did not seem to enhance the quality of the study in any way.

17

2.2 Sample

2.2.1 Selection of Participants for Quantitative

Data All persons with disabilities including sangha and non-sangha members, who were registered with RDT from the villages of the selected two mandals, were the participants for the quantitative data. It was decided that persons with disabilities from the villages of the two study mandals not covered by RDT would not be part of this study.

During the process of data collection, a large number of persons with disabilities not registered with RDT also started attending the data collection process in both the mandals. They also wanted to be considered as the participants. Thus an informed decision was taken to include their quantitative data as well in the study.

Sample Size

A total of 1218 persons with disabilities from the two study mandals, namely Bukkarayasamudram and Peddavaduguru formed the sample for the quantitative data of this study.

2.2.2 Selection of Participants for Qualitative Data

Individual Participants (For Individual Interviews) - The participants for qualitative data were selected from among all the participants part of the quantitative data. A total of 50 participants (5%) were chosen through the use of purposive sampling technique of non-probability type with the following criteria that was meant to identify disabled persons most likely to be requiring supported living:

◊ The majority of those between the ages of 18-40 years, the age range when the issue of supported living becomes most apparent. A few below 18 years were also considered to understand the concerns and issues of families of younger persons with high support needs.

◊ As far as possible equal representation of male and female participants.

◊ As far as possible equal participants from both the mandals.

◊ Those with partial or full support needs for their daily self-care and/or mobility.

◊ Those undergoing difficult living circumstances for example: social isolation; poor status in the family; domestic violence; physical, vocal or sexual abuse; lack of adequate nutrition, clothing, shelter, health care, hygiene etc.

SHGs and Community Groups (For Focused Group Discussions)

3 Sanghas from each mandal were identified belonging to the three villages from where a larger number of individual participants came.

18

3 Community groups from each mandal consisting of two representatives from each of the other groups/sanghas (e.g. Women’s Group, CDC, Youth group etc.), and including members of Panchayat, school teachers, anganwadi teachers etc. The community groups belonged to the same villages as that of the SHGs.

Sample Size

50 individuals + 6SHGs + 6 community groups

2.3 Data Collection Procedures

Primary, secondary and tertiary data were generated for the study. The source for primary data was the study participants as detailed above. Secondary data was provided by RDT staff and the data bank maintained by RDT program management in the form of organizational pamphlets, annual reports etc. Sources of tertiary data were the documents such as laws and policies of the Indian Government, country reports, position papers on the issues dealt within the study, and relevant research articles.

The data was collected between Feb.’2011 and April’2011.

2.3.1 Tool Development for Primary Data

Tools for data collection were developed over a five and a half day workshop at RDT. The data collection team was trained in the use of tools during a half day workshop at RDT.

The quantitative data collection tool with various variables (Annexure IIa) was prepared along with a Reference Guide (Annexure IIb) – for explanation of many of the variables.

For qualitative data collection, two semi-structured Individual Interview guides were developed – one for the person with disability as an informant (Annexure IIIa); the other one for the carer as an informant (Annexure IIIb). Two separate semi-structured Focused Group Discussion Guides (Annexures IVa & IVb) were developed for group discussions with SHGs of disabled persons and other community groups.

All tools were field tested and modified based on the feedback. All tools were translated into the local Telugu language for the final data collection.

2.3.2 Field Work

A Handout on the field work guideline (Annexure V) was given to each of the data collection team members to help them plan and execute data collection procedure.

For quantitative data collection all the participants from the same village were gathered in a group in their own villages at a pre-decided time and place. A team of two then filled the quantitative data tool with each of the participants individually.

19

For qualitative data collection individual participants were met in their homes. The SHGs and other community groups were met at a pre-decided place in their own villages.

2.3.3 Documentation of Data

The team that collected the data from the participants documented the responses, sharings, and discussions by hand in Telugu. This data was translated into English, organized and fed into the computer for the principal consultant researcher.

2.4 Data Analysis

2.4.1 Data Analysis Process for Quantitative Data

Eighteen variables were chosen out of all the variables for quantitative analysis. These 18 variables were found to be most relevant to the study and had the required information. The data for each of these variables was collated in tables – some under various sub-components (e.g. Education – Primary, Elementary, Secondary, Higher etc.) and many in reference to the following disabilities as well – Physical Impairment (PI), Cerebral Palsy and Muscular Disability (CP&MD), Intellectual Disability (ID), Visual Impairment (VI), Hearing and Speech Impairment (H&SI), Multi-Disability (MUL-DIS) and Mental Illness (MI). The data was then analyzed using Excel Word.

2.4.2 Data Analysis Process for Qualitative Data

To begin with all the data was codified into various themes relating to each of the variable covered under the qualitative study. A codebook was prepared according to the codified themes. The data was entered into the master chart for each variable.

The data was then manually analyzed from the master chart, to project the findings of the qualitative data. This being a qualitative data with a small sample size (50 respondents and 12 groups), the data has been represented in numbers instead of percentages.

To highlight the respondent’s feelings and expressions of the respondents, a few of their statements were picked up in their own words and woven into the data description. Seven case illustrations have also been presented at the end to add to the qualitative details.

2.5 Validation of the Study

The draft of the study was circulated to all the stakeholders connected with the study. It was also sent to the members of the review and advisory committee. The feedback was received and incorporated as found necessary by the advisory committee. The validation of the study happened through a two day meeting where the final draft study was presented to the whole research team. Their approval marked the official validation. A few suggestions emerging from this meeting were also incorporated in the final report.

20

2.6 Limitations of the Study

• Some of the important variables for quantitative data like the income of the participants and the economic condition of their families, the situation of other family members etc. could not be included because of the large sample and difficulty in gathering such information.

• Majority of the team members that collected the primary data were new to the process and their training was not sufficient partly due to the time limitations and partly due to late realization of the need. This impacted the depth of the qualitative data collected.

• Not having had the opportunity to interact directly with study participants, their families and the community members, the research consultant felt that the inferences in the report were limited in intuitive and emotional dimensions of the people involved in the study. Although, to bridge this gap to an extent possible, the research consultant did have an in depth interaction with the data collection team and incorporated their sharing in the final data analysis and key findings.

• The depth of quantitative and qualitative data analysis has also been limited by the experience of the research consultant.

• In the absence of such national or international data/findings as envisaged in the TOR, because of non-existence or non-availability of such information, the study had to confine itself to compare the data with National Census (2001) data and National Sample Survey Organization’s (NSSO, 2002) data. It has also been stated by some authors that many times it is very difficult to compare the disability data with other countries, as the available data is usually from countries having very different contexts (Walia, 2010).

Yet the study has been able to bring out some useful findings that have helped make some recommendations.

21

3. Quantitative Data Analysis

This chapter comprises of two sections: 3.1 – Interpretation of quantitative data and 3.2 – Key findings. The quantitative data comprises of a study population of 1218 participants with disabilities from the two study mandals namely, Bukkaraya Samudram and Peddavaduguru of Anantpur district.

The quantitative data interpretation has been done for eighteen variables, some of which have been grouped together for interpretation, based on the data collated in the form of tables (Annexure VIa-j). A few variables included in the quantitative data collection tool (Annexure IIa) have not been considered for data collation and interpretation (for e.g. community, house-hold income, caste, etc.) either due to incomplete information or dropped relevance. The information on some other variables (not included in quantitative data collation) like communication, difficult circumstances, leisure, relationships, support network etc., was used to identify sample participants for the qualitative data. The same information has also been integrated with the qualitative data for its collation.

The quantitative data has been collated separately for:

Mandals BKS and Peddavaduguru – so that mandal wise differences in the ۅstatus of persons with disabilities could be recognized.

Persons with disabilities having come in contact with RDT between 1999-2010 ۅand 2011 (during the course of this study) – so that the differences in the impact of the length of RDT interventions on the status of persons with disabilities could be assessed.

Persons with Physical Impairment (PI), Cerebral Palsy & Muscular Dystrophy ۅ(CP&MD), Intellectual Disability (ID), Visual Impairment (VI), Hearing & Speech Impairment (H&SI), Multiple Disability (MUL-DIS) and Mental Illness (MI) - to get a clearer picture of their statuses under different variables.

For each variable, first the data has been interpreted for the two mandals and their two groups belonging to 1999-2010 and 2011 study population of disabled persons. Subsequently a comparative analysis has also been presented.

22

3.1 Interpretation of Data

3.1.1 Age and Gender based Interpretation of Study Population (Annexure VI a)

Mandal Bukkaraya Samudram (1999-2010)

In the total identified population of 453 persons with disabilities in BKS mandal (1999-2010) 61% are males and 39% are females.

Persons with PI form the largest disability group at 51% followed by persons with ID at 19%, with H&SI at 11%, with VI at 9%, with CP&MD at 7%, and with MUL-DIS at 2.6%. No person with mental illness has been identified during this period. The gender difference within different impairment groups is most significant among persons with CP&MD (M-84.3%; F-15.7%) and MUL-DIS (M-66.6%; F-33.3%) followed by persons with PI (M-63.5%; F- 36.5%), VI (M-52.5%; F-47.5%), and ID (M-52.3%; F-47.6%). There is no gender difference among persons with H&SI (M-50%; F-50%).

The number of disabled persons in all impairment groups is highest in the 19-40 age group at 54.5% and lowest in the age groups of 61-onwards and 0-5 at 0.4% and 1.1% respectively of the total identified disabled population. The 6-18 age group constitutes 32.6%. The disabled population in the 41-60 age group (51 persons) comes down drastically equally for men and women as compared to that of the 19-40 age group (247 persons).

Mandal Bukkaraya Samudram (2011)

In the total identified population of 203 persons with disabilities in BKS Mandal (2011) 63.5% are males and 36.4% are females.

Persons with PI form the largest disability group at 60% followed by persons with H&SI at 11%, with ID at 10%, with VI at 8%, with CP&MD at 5%, with MUL-DIS at 3% and with MI at 2.4%. The gender difference within different impairment groups is most significant among persons with VI (M-82%; F-18%), followed by persons with MI (M-80%; F-20%), H&SI (M-65%; F-35%), PI (M-63%; F-37%), CP&MD (M-60%; F-40%), and ID (M-52.4%; F-47.6%). There is no gender difference among persons with MUL-DIS (M-50%; F-50%).

The number of disabled persons in all impairment groups is highest in the 19-40 age group at 42.3% and lowest in the 0-5 age group at 2.4% of the total identified disabled population. Disabled population in the age group of 6-18 yrs. forms 20% and in the 41-60 age group forms 32% of the total identified disabled population. The disabled population comes down drastically to 3% in the 61-onwards age group.

23

Mandal Peddavaduguru (1999-2010)

In the total identified population of 310 persons with disabilities in Peddavaduguru mandal (1999-2010) 54% are males and 46% are females.

Persons with PI form the largest disability group at 62.5% followed by persons with ID at 13%, CP&MD and VI both at 8.7%, H&SI at 6%, and with MUL-DIS at just 0.9%. No person with MI has been identified. The gender difference within different impairment groups is most significant among persons with MUL-DIS (M-100%; F-0%) and VI (M-67%; F-33%), followed by persons with ID (M-58%; F-42%) and PI (M-51.0%; F-49%). There is no gender difference among persons with H&SI (M-50%; F-50%). However there are more females among persons with CP&MD (M-48%, F-52%).

The number of disabled persons in all impairment groups is highest in the 19-40 age group at 55.4% and lowest in the 0-5 age group at 1.2% of the total identified disabled population. In the age group of 6-18 the disabled persons are 23%. In the age groups 41-60 and 61-onwards the number of disabled persons reduces remarkably to 17% and 3% respectively. When compared with 19-40 age group, the disabled women’s population in the 41-60 age group falls by 84% (from 88 to 16 females) as opposed to that of disabled men’s population that falls by 56% (from 84 to 37 males) .

Mandal Peddavaduguru (2011)

In the total identified population of 252 persons with disabilities in Peddavaduguru mandal (2011) 58% are males and 42% are females.

Persons with PI form the largest disability group at 56.7% followed by persons with ID and VI both around 14%, H&SI at 8.7%, and CP&MD and MI both at 2.7%. No person with MUL-DIS has been identified. The gender difference within different impairment groups is most significant among persons with CP&MD (M-71.4%; F-28.5%) and MI (M-71.4%; F-28.5%), followed by persons with PI (M-63%; F-37%). The number of females among persons with ID (M-47%; F-53%) and VI (M-46%; F-54%) is higher than males. No gender difference exists among persons with H&SI (M-50%; F-50%).

The number of disabled persons in all impairment groups is highest in the 19-40 age group at 44% and lowest in the 0-5 age group at 1.1% of the total identified disabled population. Disabled population in the age group of 6-18 is 13.5%. In the 41-60 age group the disabled population comes down to 33% as compared to that of 19-40 age group solely because of number of women with disabilities falling by more than half the number (from 57 to 25 females). The disabled population is 8% in the 61-onwards age group.

Comparative Analysis

Out of a total study population of 1218 disabled participants (BKS-656; Peddavaduguru-562) in both the mandals, a large number of 455 (37%) persons with disabilities have got identified during the course of data collection in 2011. The average male-female percentage in the total study population is 59% males and 41% females with a gender gap of 18%. The highest gender gap is in BKS (2011) - 27% and the lowest is in Peddavaduguru (1999-2010) – 8%. The overall female percentage is better in Peddavaduguru mandal (average 12% gender gap) as compared to that of BKS (average 24.5% gender gap).

In the total study population, the persons with PI are in overwhelming majority (average 57.5%) followed by persons with ID (average 14%), VI (average 10%), H&SI (average 9%), CP&MD (average 6%), MUL-DIS (average 1.6%) and MI (1.2%). No person with mental illness has been identified prior to 2011 in both the mandals.

Although there is a lot of variation in the study population of the two mandals and the two groups of (1999-2010) and (2011), the average gender difference with less females is most pronounced among persons with MUL-DIS (66.5%), followed by persons with MI (51.4%), CP&MD (32%), VI (28%), PI (20%), ID (8%) and H&SI (7%). Yet generally the female representation across impairment groups is slightly better in Peddavaduguru mandal as compared to that of BKS mandal.

The maximum average population is in the age group of 19-40 (49%), followed by age groups of 41-60 (23%), 6-18 (22.3%), 61-onwards (3.7%) and 0-5 (1.3%). Peddavaduguru mandal (2011) shows markedly high disabled population (8%) in the 61-onwards age group, as compared to that of the other three study population groups of the two mandals. The overall age-group wise trend within the study population is represented within different impairment groups as well, with minor deviations. In the age-wise study population groups, the general trend is that the gender gap is much shorter in the 19-40 age group and increases in the other age groups, with just a couple of exceptions where there are more females.

24

3.1.2 Educational Status of Study Population (Annexure VI b)

It is to be noted that out of a total study population of 1218, 17 persons have not been included because of age <5yrs. and 9 persons not included because of lack of information. Thus the educational status has been presented for a total study population of 1192 persons.


Out of a total of 444 persons with disabilities, 256 (57.5% - M-60%; F-40%) persons with disabilities have had some education, whereas 170 (38% - M-57%; F-43%) are non-literates. Among a total of 270 males only, 60.7% have had some education, whereas among a total of 174 females only, 55% have undergone some education.

Out of the 256 disabled persons with some education, 25.3 % have primary education, 19% have elementary education, 33.5% have secondary education, 4% have sr. secondary education, 17.5% have higher education, and about 4% are in special schools. Within each impairment group, who have managed to reach the higher education level are mainly those with PI (18%) and only 7.6% among VI. The rest of the disabled persons including with VI and H&SI are basically going up to secondary education level. The gender equation within impairment groups is more or less reflective of the gender differences mentioned above.

The non-literates within impairment groups are least in numbers among persons with PI (29%) and maximum among persons with MUL-DIS (83%), followed by CP&MD (58%), ID (57.6%), VI (36%) and H&SI (30%).

25

26


Out of a total of 198 disabled persons identified in 2011 in BKS mandal, 84 (42.4% - M-80%; F-20%) have had some education, whereas about 56.5% are non-literates (M-53.5%; F-46.4%). Among a total of 128 males only, 52.3% have had some education, and among a total of 74 females only 24.2% have undergone some education.

Out of the 84 disabled persons with some education, 45.2% have primary education, 24% have elementary education, 16.6% have secondary education, 9.5% have sr. secondary education, 5% have higher education, and about 2.3% are in special schools. Within each impairment group, only persons with PI (5%) have managed to reach the higher education level, otherwise majority are reaching up to secondary education only. The gender equation within impairment groups is more or less reflective of the gender differences mentioned above.

The non- literates within impairment groups are relatively least in numbers among persons with PI (48.3%) and maximum among persons with MUL-DIS (83%), followed by H&SI (77%), ID (75%), VI 62.5%, CP&MD 55% and MI 40%.


Out of a total of 306 persons with disabilities, 176 (57.5% - M-57.6%; F-42.5%) persons with disabilities have had some education, whereas 124 (40% - M-45%; F-55%) are non-literates. Among a total of 164 males only, 64% have undergone some education, and among a total of 142 females only, 50% have had some education.

Out of the 182 disabled persons with some education, 24% have primary education, 17% have elementary education, 44.3% have secondary education, 2% have sr. secondary education, 12% have higher education, and about 2% are in special schools. Among disabled persons, who have managed to reach the higher education level 86% are persons with PI, and 14% with VI. Otherwise all the other persons with disabilities have gone up to secondary education level only. The gender equation within impairment groups is more or less reflective of the gender differences mentioned above.

The non-literates within impairment groups are least in numbers among persons with PI (26.4%) and maximum among persons with ID (73%), followed by CP&MD (68%), MUL-DIS (66.6%), VI (52%) and among H&SI 61%.


Out of a total of 244 disabled persons identified in 2011 in Peddavaduguru mandal, 98 (40% - M-68.3%; F-31.5%) have had some education, whereas 146 (60% - M-50%; F-50%) are non-literates. Among a total of 140 males only, 48% have some education, and among a total of 104 females only, 30% have undergone some education.

27

Out of 98 disabled persons with some education, about 38% have primary education, 22.4% have elementary education, 31.6% have secondary education, 4% have sr. secondary education, 4% have higher education, and none are in special schools. Within each impairment group, only 2 persons with PI and 1 each with VI and H&SI have managed to reach the higher education level. Similarly only 4 persons (PI-3; H&SI-1) have reached the sr. secondary level, otherwise majority are reaching up to secondary education level only. The gender equation within impairment groups is more or less reflective of the gender differences mentioned above.

The non- literates within impairment groups are least in numbers among persons with PI (51%) and maximum among persons with ID (79%), followed by H&SI (76%), VI (73%), CP&MD (60%) and MI (16.6%).


Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, the disabled persons from 1999-2010 groups have overall similar numbers of those with some education (57.5%) and non-literates (average 39%). The male-female percentages (within own gender groups) are marginally different with average 62.3% males and 52.5% females having undergone some education. Out of those with some education an average of 24.6% have done primary education, 18% elementary, 39% secondary, 3% sr. secondary and 15% higher education. About 3% are into special education. Among persons from within own impairment groups, the average minimum number of non-literates is among persons with PI (28%) and the average maximum number of non-literates is among persons with MUL-DIS (75%), followed by ID (65%), CP&MD (63%), H&SI (45.5%) and VI (44%). The noticeable difference between the two 1999-2010 groups is 31% more non-literates among H&SI in Peddavaduguru mandal.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, the disabled persons from 2011 groups have overall similar numbers of those with some education (average 41%) and non-literates (average 58%). The male-female percentages (within own gender groups) are marginally different with average 50% males and 27% females having undergone some education. Out of those with some education an average of 41.6% have done primary education, 23% elementary, 24% secondary, 7% sr. secondary and 4.5% higher education. Peddavaduguru mandal’s 2011 group has no person in special education. Among persons from within own impairment groups the average minimum number of non-literates is among persons with MI (28.3%) and PI (49.6%), and the average maximum number of non-literates is among persons with MUL-DIS (83%), followed by ID (77%), H&SI (76.5%), VI (68%) and CP&MD (62.5%).

Between the averages of 1999-2010 groups and 2011 groups of the BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, there are 16.5% more literates with much less gender gap in the 1999-2010 groups. In the 2011 groups of two mandals, majority have managed to reach primary level of education only. Some have gone up to elementary and secondary levels of education. Only a small number of persons have managed to reach up to the secondary and higher education levels as compared to the 1999-2010 groups. As a general trend the least number of non-literates is among persons with PI and the maximum number of non-literates is among persons with ID, CP&MD and

MUL-DIS. Although, there are many more non-literates among persons with PI, H&SI and VI as well in the 2011 groups as compared to 1999-2010 groups.

In all the groups, mainly persons with PI and a few with VI are managing to reach the higher education levels with VI.

28

29

3.1.3 Status of Reading/Writing, Money Handling Skills and Skill Training (Annexure VI c)


Out of 448 disabled persons (-5 of 0-5 group):

56% (M-64%; F-36%) know reading/writing, 74% (M-64%; F-36%) know money handling, and 13.6% (M-59%; F-41%) have undergone some skill training.



38% (M-78%; F-22%) know reading/writing, 67% (M-71.4%; F-28.5%) know money handling, and 8% (M-80%; F-20%) have undergone some skill training.



52.2% (M-59%; F-41%) know reading/writing, 75.5% (M-55.4%; F-44.5%) know money handling, and 15% (M-47%; F-53%) have undergone some skill training.



34% (M-68%; F-32%) know reading/writing, 72% (M-58%; F-42%) know money handling, and 7.6% (M-63%; F-37%) have undergone some skill training.


There are a lot of similarities in the percentages of disabled persons in regard to reading/writing, money handling skills and skill training between 1999-2010 groups of BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals and between the 2011 groups of the two mandals.

Between 1999-2010 and 2011 groups of the two mandals, the biggest difference is in the percentage of persons knowing reading and writing i.e. 18% fewer persons from the 2011 groups of both the mandals know reading /writing with a much bigger gender gap (less females), when compared for the same with 1999-2010 groups.

30

3.1.4 Occupational Status of Study Population (Annexure VI d)


Out of a total of 448 (5 children 0-5yrs. old excluded) disabled persons, 241 (53% - M-60%; F-40%) are involved in some kind of work, 94 (21% - M-61.5%; F-38.5%) are students; 113 (25.6% - M-63%; F-37%) are not doing any work. Within their own gender groups, 26% males and 24% females have no work.

Within their own impairment groups, only 8% have no work among persons with H&SI as compared to 13% with PI, 32.5% with VI, 42% with ID, 70% with CP&MD, and 75% with MUL-DIS.

Out of 241 doing some kind of work, the largest number - 37% (M-42%; F-58%) is that of domestic workers and only 3 persons (1.2%) are in a Govt. job.


Out of a total of 198 (5 children 0-5yrs. old excluded) disabled persons, 98 (49% - M-63%; F-37%) are involved in some kind of work, 23 (11.6% - M-65%; F-35%) are students; 77 (39% - M-66%; F-34%) are not doing any work. Within their own gender groups, 40% males and 37% females have no work.

Within their own impairment groups, only 13.6% have no work among persons with H&SI as compared to about 35% with PI, 44% with CP&MD, 50% with ID, 56% with VI, 83% with MUL-DIS, and 80% with MI.

Out of 98 doing some kind of work, the largest number - 33.6% (M-42.4%; F-57.5%) is that of domestic workers and no one is in a Govt. job.


Out of a total of 306 (4 children 0-5yrs. old excluded) disabled persons, 175 (57% - M-51.5%; F-48.5%) are involved in some kind of work, 43 (14% - M-60%; F-40%) are students; 88 (29% - M-54.5%; F-45.5%) have no work. Within their own gender groups, 29% males and 28% females are without work.

Within their own impairment groups, only 5.5% have no work among persons with H&SI as compared to about 14.5% with PI, 48% with VI, 58.5% with ID, 80% with CP&MD, and 100% with MUL-DIS.

Out of 175 doing some kind of work, the largest number - 26% (M-41.3%; F-58.7%) is that of domestic workers and only 1 person (0.5%) is in a Govt. job.

31


Out of a total of 249 (3 children 0-5yrs. old excluded) disabled persons, 142 (57% - M-54%; F-46%) are involved in some kind of work, 16 (6.4% - M-50%; F-50%) are students; 91 (36.5% - M-65%; F-35%) are not doing any work. Within their own gender groups, 41% males and 30.4% females are without work.

Within their own impairment groups, only 13.6% have no work among persons with H&SI as compared to about 29% with PI, 43% with MI, 46% with VI, 60% with CP&MD, and 66.6% with ID.

Out of 142 doing some kind of work, the largest number – 35% (M-64%; F-36%) is that of labourers, 24% (M-32.3%; F-67.7%) are involved in domestic work and no person is in a Govt. job.


In both the mandals together, on an average 54.5% (M-57%; F-43%) disabled persons are engaged in some work, 13.5% (M-59%; F-41%) are students and 32% (M-62%; F-38%) have no work.

An average of 10% persons with H&SI, 23% with PI, 45.6% with VI, 54% with ID, 61.5% with MI, 63.5% with CP&MD and 86% with MUL-DIS are not engaged in any kind of work. Within their own gender groups an average of 34% males and 30% females are without any work.

In BKS mandal between persons with disabilities identified in 1999-2010 and 2011, the overall occupational status is better among disabled persons in the former group (1999-2010) that has 4% more with some occupation, 10% more students and about 14% less persons with no work. Within gender groups 14% less males and 13% less females are without any work among disabled persons of 1999-2010 group as compared to that of the other group (2011). But in both the groups an average of about 2.5% more males are without work than females.

Within their own impairment groups in BKS mandal, the general occupational situation is much better for all disabilities (except with CP&MD) among disabled persons of 1999-2010 group vis-a-vis 2011 group, with a trend of least number of persons among PI and maximum among CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS having no work (% ranging from 13% to 75%). But the same varies a bit among disabled persons identified in 2011, where more VI are without work as compared to those with CP&MD and ID (% ranging from 35% to 83%). Yet BKS (2011) has the highest number of persons with PI without work compared to the same in other three groups.

32

In Peddavaduguru mandal between persons with disabilities identified in 1999-2010 and 2011 the overall occupational status is slightly better among disabled persons in the 1999-2010 group with 8% more students and 7% less persons without work, although the percentage of persons engaged in some occupation is same as that of 2011 group. Within gender groups 12% less males and 2% less females are without work among disabled persons of 1999-2010 group as compared to that of the other group (2011). The reverse gender gap in 2011 group is much bigger with 11% more males being without work than females.

Within their own impairment groups in Peddavaduguru mandal, the general occupational situation is slightly better for persons with PI, ID and H&SI but much worse for persons with CP&MD (20% more without work) of 1999-2010 group (overall % ranging from about 14% -100%), when compared with without work persons of 2011 group (% ranging from 29% - 67%). The trend of least without work persons among persons with H&SI and maximum among persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS is apparent in both the groups.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, among those from 1999-2010 group, proportionately there are 5% more disabled persons engaged in some kind of occupation in Peddavaduguru mandal. The other occupational statuses are slightly better in BKS mandal.

Between disabled persons of BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals identified during 2011, the overall occupational statistics are generally better for disabled persons from Peddavaduguru (including persons with MI) mandal and further better for females.

In both the mandals, among the workers, the largest group is that of those involved in domestic work (average 30% - M-39.5%; F- 60.5%) except in Peddavaduguru mandal (2011) group that has 35% working as labourers and 24% doing domestic work. The other most common work areas are agriculture and agriculture labour. There is hardly anybody in a govt. job.

3.1.5 Marital Status of Study Population (Annexure VI e)

Only males and females 18 yrs. and above have been included.


Out of a total of 283 persons with disabilities of marriageable age 136 (48%) are married - out of which 69% are males and 31% are females, 49% are single (M-48%; F-52%), and 3% are deserted or widow/widower that are all females. Within their own gender groups across disabilities about 34.5% females and 59% males are married among disabled persons of marriageable age.

Among marriageable disabled persons, within their own impairment groups 60% (M-70%; F-30%) with PI, 52% with H&SI, 45% with VI, 14% with CP & MD, about 3% with ID, and none with multi-disability are married.

33


Out of a total of 158 persons with disabilities of marriageable age 97 (62%) are married - out of which 71% are males and 29% are females, 31% are single (M-57%; F-43%), and 6.3% are deserted or widow/widower that are mainly females. Within their own gender groups across disabilities 48% females and 69% males are married among disabled persons of marriageable age.

Among disabled persons of marriageable age, within their own impairment groups 76% (M-69%; F-31%) with PI, 53% with H&SI, 46% with VI, 25% with mental illness, 15% with ID, and none with CP & MD and MUL-DIS are married.


Out of a total of 234 persons with disabilities of marriageable age 111 (47.4%) are married - out of which 65% are males and 35% are females, 49% are single (M-45.6%; F-54.4%), and 4% are deserted or widow/widower – all deserted are women. Within their own gender groups across disabilities 37% females and 57% males are married among disabled persons of marriageable age.

Among marriageable disabled persons, within their own impairment groups 57.4% (M-61%; F-39%) with PI, 46% with H&SI (all males), 27% with VI, 12.5% with ID, 9% with CP&MD, and both the eligible persons with multi-disability are married.


Out of a total of 208 persons with disabilities of marriageable age 144 (69%) are married - out of which 55% are males and 45% are females; 55 (26%) are single out of which 62% are males and 38% are females; 4.3% are divorced/widow/widower or deserted (men-women equally). Within their own gender groups across disabilities 71.4% females and 67.5% males are married among disabled persons of marriageable age.

Among disabled persons of marriageable age, within their own impairment groups, 82% (M-60%; F-40%) with PI, 76% with VI, 53% with H&SI, 37.5% with mental illness, 25% with ID (more females), and 0% with CP & MD are married.


In BKS mandal between persons with disabilities of 1999-2010 and 2011 groups the overall marital status is better among the latter (2011) that has 14% more married persons with 14% more females and 10% more males within their own gender groups married than that in the other group (1999-2010).

Among marriageable persons within their own impairment groups, the statistics in the above two groups (1999-2010 & 2011) are very similar except in the case of persons with PI i.e. 16% more with PI are married in 2011 group. These facts point that the

maximum number of married are among persons with PI followed by persons with H&SI, VI, and the least among persons with CP&MD, ID, MUL-DIS and MI.

In Peddavaduguru mandal between persons with disabilities of 1999-2010 and 2011 groups the overall marital status is better among the latter (2011) that has 21.5% more married persons.

Within their own gender groups also, the married male-female percentages reverse among persons identified in 2011 in favour of females. Among disabled persons identified in 2011, proportionately about 34% of more females and 10% of more males are married when compared with that of disabled persons from 1999-2010 group.

The percentages of married persons within their impairment groups are much higher for all disabilities among the 2011 group as compared to that of the 1999-2000 group. The general trend of maximum number of married (percentage wise) among persons with PI and lowest among persons with CP&MD, MUL-DIS, ID and MI is seen here as well.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, the various marital statistics are marginally different among disabled persons identified between 1999-2010, with a few slightly better percentages among females of Peddavaduguru mandal.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals for disabled persons identified during 2011, the overall marital statistics are much better for disabled persons from Peddavaduguru mandal (including persons with MI) and overwhelmingly better for females.

34

3.1.6 Health Status of Study Population (Annexure VI f)


Out of 453 disabled persons:

89.6% (M-61%; F-39%) have good health and 10.3% (M-62%; F-38%) have some health problems. Within their own gender groups, about 90% males and females have good health. Proportionately more numbers of persons with ID and MUL-DIS have health problems.


89.6% (M-66%; F-34%) have good health and 10.3% (M-43%; F-57%) have some health problems. Within their own gender groups, about 93% males and 84% females have good health. Proportionately more numbers of persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS have health problems.


92% (M-54%; F-46%) have good health and 8% (M-48%; F-52%) have some health problems. Within their own gender groups, about 93% males and 91% females have good health. Proportionately more numbers of persons with, CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS have health problems.

35


86% (M-56.6%; F-43.5%) have good health and 13.4% (M-65%; F-35%) have some health problems. Within their own gender groups, about 84% males and 88.6% females have good health. Proportionately more numbers of persons with, CP&MD, ID, MUL-DIS and MI have health problems.


The percentages of persons with good health from the 1999-2010 and 2011 groups of BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals are basically very similar, with Peddavaduguru (2011) having slightly more persons with health problems. There is not a significant gender difference in the good health status of males and females, with a general trend of more males with health problems. Consistently more persons with CP&MD, ID, MUL-DIS and MI have health problems than persons with other impairments.

36

37

3.1.7 Status related to Social Security Cards (Annexure VI g)



98.6% have Disability Certificate with 99% males and 98.3% females within their own gender groups;

96% have Ration Card with 95% males and 97% females within their own gender groups;

50.6% (of 18 and above) have NREGA/Job Card with 58% males and 39% females within their own gender groups;

80% (of 18and above) have Voter ID Card with 83% males and 75% females within their own gender groups.



72.5% have Disability Certificate with 77.5% males and 63.5% females within their own gender groups; 88.6% have Ration Card with 91.4% males and 84% females within their own gender groups; 38% (of 18 and above) have NREGA/Job Card with 38% males and 38% females within their own gender groups; 69% (of 18and above) have Voter ID Card with 69% males and 69% females within their own gender groups. Mandal Peddavaduguru (1999-2010) Out of 310 disabled persons: 96.4% have Disability Certificate with 97.5% males and 95% females within their own gender groups; 96.4% have Ration Card with 97.5% males and 95% females within their own gender groups; 67% (of 18 and above) have NREGA/Job Card with 71.6% males and 61% females within their own gender groups; 86% (of 18and above) have Voter ID Card with 93% males and 79% females within their own gender groups.

38

Mandal Peddavaduguru (2011) Out of 252 disabled persons: 85% have Disability Certificate with 81.5% males and 89.6% females within their own gender groups; 96% have Ration Card with 93% males and 100% females within their own gender groups; 55.6% (of 18 and above) have NREGA/Job Card with 57% males and 53% females within their own gender groups; 83.6% (of 18and above) have Voter ID Card with 89% males and 76.6% females within their own gender groups.


In BKS mandal between persons with disabilities identified in 1999-2010 and 2011, the overall social security status is much better among 1999-2010 group that has 26% more disability certificates, 7.5% more ration cards, 12% more NREGA/job cards and 11% more voter ID cards as compared to the same among the 2011 group. The overall gender difference with less females (ranging: 1999-2010 from1%-21%; 2011 from 0%-14%) is slightly better among disabled persons of 2011 group – with an exception of 2% more females having ration card in 1999-2010 group than males.

In Peddavaduguru mandal between persons with disabilities identified in 1999-2010 and 2011, the overall social security status is marginally better among 1999-2010 group that has 11.5% more disability certificates, 0.4% more ration cards, 11% more NREGA/job cards and 2.5% more voter ID cards as compared to the same among the 2011 group. The overall gender difference with less females (ranging: 1999-2010 from 2.5%-14%; 2011 from 7%-12.5%) is slightly better among disabled persons of 1999-2010 group for social security.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals for disabled persons from 1999-2010 group, the overall social security status is slightly better in Peddavaduguru mandal especially with 17% more NREGA/job cards vis-a-vis BKS mandal.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals for disabled persons from 2011 group, the overall social security status is significantly better in Peddavaduguru mandal.

40

3.1.8 Status of Group Memberships of Study Population (Annexure VI h)



SHG - 85% are SHG members with 84% males and 86% females (within their gender groups) as members. For 25 SHGs 16 males and 12 females have reported themselves as leaders.

Community groups – 5.5% disabled persons are members of other community groups with 1.4% males and 12% females, and with no one as a leader.

Local Self Governing Bodies – 2.4% are members of such local bodies with 1.4% males and 4% females, and no disabled person as a leader.



SHG – Just 5 (2.4%) persons are SHG members with 3 males and 2 females, and no one as a leader.

Community groups – 9.3% disabled persons are members of other community groups with 2.3% males and 21.6% females, and with no one as a leader.

Local Self Governing Bodies – Only 2 females are members of such local bodies.



SHG - 86% are SHG members with an equal male-female representation as members. For 25 SHGs 19 males and 11females have reported themselves as leaders.

Community groups – 7% disabled persons are members of other community groups with 1.8% males and 13% females, and with no one as a leader.

Local Self Governing Bodies – 1.2% are members of such local bodies with 0.3% males and 2% females, and no leaders.

Mandal Peddavaduguru(2011)


SHG – Just 4 (1.5%) persons are SHG members with 3 males and 1 female, and no one as leader.

41

Community groups – 8.3% disabled persons are members of other community groups with 2% males and 17% females, and with no one as a leader.

Local Self Governing Bodies – Only 1 female is a member of such local bodies.


Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals the group membership statuses are very similar for disabled persons from the 1999-2010 groups with about 86% SHG membership but with very low community (average 5%-7%) and local self governing bodies membership (1.2-2.4%). There is marginally better female representation in SHGs of both the mandals but it reverses (more males) marginally for leadership positions. The female representation in community groups, although small is way ahead of that of males.

Between BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals the group membership statuses are very similar for disabled persons from the 2011 groups – SHG and local self governing bodies’ memberships are negligible but the community membership is 2%-3% more as compared to the 1999-2010 groups in both the mandals. The female representation in community groups is much higher than that of males in both the mandals.

3.1.9 Status of Mobility and Self Care of Study Population (Annexure VI i)



72% have independent mobility, 26% have supported mobility and 2.2% have no mobility, with minimal gender differences.

61% are independent in self care, 37% need some support in self care and 2.2% require high support for self care, with minimal gender differences.


71% have independent mobility, 26% have supported mobility and 5% have no mobility, with minimal gender differences.

61.5% are independent in self care, 33.4% need some support in self care and 5% require high support for self care, with no gender differences.


70% (M-73%; F-65% - within their own gender groups) have independent mobility, 25% have supported mobility and 5% have no mobility, with 4% more females requiring high support mobility than males.

64.5% are independent in self care, 30.6% need some support in self care and 5% require high support for self care. 8% fewer females are independent and 4% more females need high support in self care as compared to males.


73% (M-66%; F-82% - within their own gender groups) have independent mobility, 22% (M-25%; F-17% - within their own gender groups) have supported mobility and 5.5% have no mobility.

61% are independent in self care, 33.7% need some support in self care and 5.5% are those who require high support for self care, with either no gender differences or minimal gender differences.


In BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals the mobility status among disabled persons from 1999-2010 and 2011 groups is very similar, except the gender gap apparent in Peddavaduguru mandal i.e. 8% less females have independent mobility in 1999-2010 group and 16% less males have independent mobility in 2011 group.

In BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals the self care status among disabled persons from 1999-2010 and 2011 groups has marginal differences only.

42

43

3.1.10 Status of Social and Cultural Participation (Annexure VIj)


72% have reported full participation, 17% partial and 11% no participation in social and cultural activities with 3% more females participating fully than males.


64% have reported full participation, 15% partial and 21% no participation in social and cultural activities with 3% less females participating fully than males.


72.5% have reported full participation, 13% partial and 14% no participation in social and cultural activities with 6% less females participating fully than males.


67% have reported full participation, 13% partial and 20% no participation in social and cultural activities with 3.5% more females participating fully than males.


Overall the status of social and cultural participation of disabled persons from the 1999-2010 groups of the two mandals is very similar and the same is true for the disabled persons from the 2011 groups of the two mandals.

Even between the 1999-2010 and 2011 groups of the two mandals, the difference in the status is not too large but there are 8% more disabled persons reporting no social participation in the 2011 groups.

Persons with H&SI and PI have reported the least number of people not participating at all in social and cultural activities.

3.1.11 Status of RDT and Govt. Services and Benefits (Annexure VI k)


RDT Services and Benefits

Out of 453 disabled persons about 71% have received one or more RDT services & benefits with 70% males and 73% females within their own gender groups.

Among different impairment groups, average 10% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS (average 80%) have received services as compared to persons with other impairments.

Most commonly availed services and benefits are education related, medical and rehabilitation, land development, children’s savings, IGP loans, PDF, housing and pension scheme to a much lesser extent and just a handful availing vocational training.

Govt. Services and Benefits

Most widely utilized is pension scheme (83%), and to some extent bank loans and travel concessions.

44

45



Out of 203 disabled persons just about 17% have received any RDT services or benefits across disabilities. 7% more females have received services and benefits than males when compared within their own gender groups.

Most commonly received services and benefits are medical, education related, pension scheme, children’s savings, PDF, and housing, although the overall numbers are very small.


About 74% eligible disabled persons are availing pension scheme. Other schemes are being utilized marginally.



Out of 310 disabled persons about 53% have received one or more RDT services & benefits with 53% males and females within their own gender groups.

Among different impairment groups, average 20% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS (average 65%) have received services as compared to persons with other impairments.

Most commonly availed services and benefits are education related, medical and rehabilitation, land development, children’s savings, IGP loans, housing to a much lesser extent and none availing vocational training.


About 96% are utilizing pension scheme and to a lesser extent travel concessions.



Out of 252 disabled persons just about 7% have received any RDT services or benefits across disabilities. 14% males and 1% of females within their own gender groups have received RDT services and benefits.

Although in very small numbers, the two that can be mentioned among availed services and benefits are medical assistance and children’s savings.


About 98% eligible disabled persons are availing pension scheme. Other services and benefits are being availed of very minimally.


In BKS mandal 53% more persons with disabilities from 1999-2010 group have availed of RDT services and benefits when compared to that of 2011 group with marginally more females benefitting in both the groups. Within impairment groups, disabled persons have either accessed equally (2011) or 10% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS (1999-2000), the services and benefits as compared to persons with other impairments.

Most commonly used RDT services and benefits have been related to financial schemes, education, and medical and rehabilitation in both the groups.

Govt. pension scheme has been the most commonly availed scheme among govt. services and benefits by disabled persons (average 78%) from both the groups with many also availing bank loans and travel concessions but only from the 1999-2010 group.

In Peddavaduguru mandal 46% more disabled persons from 1999-2010 group have availed of RDT services and benefits as compared to that of 2011 group. The gender gap in 2011 group (13% less females) is significant as opposed to no gender gap in the other group. Within impairment groups, disabled persons have either accessed equally (2011) or 20% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS (1999-2000) have accessed the services and benefits as compared to persons with other impairments.

47

48

Most commonly used RDT services and benefits have been related to financial schemes, education, and medical and rehabilitation in both the groups.

Average 97% disabled persons are availing Govt. pension scheme in both the groups.

Between BKS and Peddavadyguru mandals among disabled persons from 1999-2010 groups, 18% more BKS persons have received RDT services and benefits. There is no significant gender gap in the two mandals. In both the mandals 10%-20% more persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS have received services and benefits than those with other impairments.

As far as Govt. services and benefits go 13% more persons from Peddavaduguru mandal are availing pension scheme.

Between BKS and Peddavadyguru mandals among disabled persons from 2011 groups, 10% more BKS persons have received RDT services and benefits across impairments - with about 10% more females in BKS & about 10% more males in Peddavaduguru mandals availing of services.

About 22% more persons from Peddavaduguru (2011) have accessed Govt. pension scheme than that from BKS (2011).

3.2 Key Findings

This chapter presents key findings that have emerged from the interpretation of quantitative data for the aforementioned variables. A few interpreted variables have been clubbed together for a better understanding of key findings. The findings have been compared with the similar data available through Census or other sources, wherever possible.

3.2.1 Age and Gender based Key Findings

• Based on RDT CBR report (2009), the Anantpur district’s disabled population is 1.7% of its total population. Projecting this on to the total population of the two study mandals (District Data - Census 2001), the disabled population of BKS mandal would be 900 persons and Peddavaduguru mandal would be 714 persons – i.e. a total of 1614 disabled persons. In comparison, before this study RDT has mainly been in touch with a total of 763 (47% of 1614) disabled persons and now knows of additional 455 disabled persons in the two study mandals.

Such a large number of persons with impairments contacting RDT in 2011, may mean that the ongoing proactive identification of such persons is not systematized – especially taking into account that the maximum number of disabled persons from the total study population came in contact with RDT during its early years of disability work beginning in 1999.

The Andhra Pradesh Govt. on its official website (www.aponline.gov.in) accepts that the population of disabled persons in the state is about 6% (India Country Report, 2009). This takes the number of disabled persons in BKS mandal to 3179 and in Peddavaduguru mandal to 2520. According to these estimates compared with the total study population of the two mandals, RDT is now in touch with 20.6% of disabled population in BKS mandal and 22% of disabled population in Peddavaduguru mandal. It indicates that a large number of disabled persons have not yet reached out to by RDT.

The feedback of the RDT staff in regard to large number of disabled persons contacting RDT during the course of the study has projected certain reasons for the above findings. It has been shared that persons with disabilities from economically well off families or those having government jobs or those having acquired disability recently or persons with age related disabilities generally do not approach RDT for any services. Also persons with severe impairments are often unable to reach RDT for services. But during the data collection for the study, many of these might have decided to participate hoping to avail of some benefits. It was also shared that RDT works only in the central villages of the two mandals, whereas during data collection many new disabled persons came from the outskirts.

• The overall male-female percentage among disabled population in the NSSO (2002) rural survey is M-59% and F-41%, in RDT CBR Report (2009) is M-56.15% and F-43.85%, and this study finds it to be M-59% and F-41% - i.e. same as in NSSO (2002) survey. Logically there could be three reasons for the gender gap i.e. lesser disability prevalence rate among females, poor survival rate of females with disabilities and/or low identification of disabled females. The literature generally points to the latter two reasons. The World Disability Report (WHO, 2011) states that disability prevalence rate in fact is 11% higher in females than in males.

• The comparison of percentages of persons with different impairments in the study population with the same from other sources (Table I) reveals some interesting facts.

Table I: % Population of Impairment Groups

49

PI ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI

NSSO, 2002 52 4 14 15 10 5

RDT CBR Report, 2009

35 12.5 33.6 18.6 -- --

RDT Study 57.5 14 10 9 7.6 (+ CP & MD)

1.2

50

The RDT study’s disabled population comparatively has higher percentages of persons with PI and ID. Comparative percentages of persons with VI, H&SI and MI in the current study are much lower. The higher percentages of persons with VI vis-à-vis persons with H&SI, in the study population and in RDT’s overall disabled population, is contrary to RDT’s own experience. RDT team has been under the impression that the number of persons with H&SI is much higher based on much higher demand for admission in RDT schools for children with H&SI than in RDT schools for children with VI.

RDT report does not show statistics for persons with MI and MUL-DIS. The RDT team has been including the persons with MUL-DIS with persons with PI. The fact that a few persons with MI have been identified only during the data collection for this study and not before, it may be that they are either being identified as persons with ID or not been included because of lack of awareness/training of the RDT team and /or lack of available services for them.

• Table II shows the comparative age specific distribution among the total population in the rural areas of Anantpur district (Census, 2001), India’s disabled population (NSSO, 2002) and the disabled population in the RDT study.

The comparison indicates that the percentage of the 0-5 age-group in the RDT study proportionately is too small. It could be because of inadequate systems and methods to identify young children with impairments. According to RDT team it could also be due to lack of awareness amongst parents and general population.

RDT team reported that their ‘Early Identification & Stimulation’ program started only in 2010 in RDT’s program areas.

The disabled population in the 19-40 and 41-60 age groups is too high proportionately in the RDT study when compared with the trend in the other two - although NSSO (2002) does project a decline in prevalence of different disability types in age groups of less than 15 years and above 45 years (Chaudhary, 2006). NSSO (2002) data also illustrates an increasing trend of prevalence rate for physical impairments for the 15-44 age groups (Walia, 2010; Singhal, 2009). RDT needs to explore if more people are acquiring disabilities in these age groups and what are the possible reasons.

51

Table II: % Population in Age-Groups

0-5 6-18 19-40 41-60 61-

onwards

Census 2001 (Anantpur District’s Total Population)

6.5

(0-4yrs.)

24.9

(5-19yrs.)

24

(20-39yrs.)

13.3

(40-59yrs.)

5.2

(60-79yrs.)

NSSO 2002 (India’s Rural

Disabled Population)

3.1

(<4yrs.)

38.2

(15-44yrs.)

14.7

(45-59yrs.) 25.7

RDT Study Population

1.3 22.3 49 23 3.7

The 61-onwards age-group of the RDT study shows drastically lower percentage especially when compared with that of NSSO (2002) survey. It is also against the global trend. The reasons may have been the use of present definition of disability by RDT for identification that does not take into account old age related disabilities. Also there may be a high mortality rate in this age-group of persons with disabilities. Peddavaduguru mandal (2011) as an exception having 8% disabled persons of the age of 61 or above may be an interesting case to be followed up.

According to NSSO (2002) the gender gap (less females) among the disabled population is more in the 15-45 age group and decreases in the younger and the older age groups. This trend in the RDT study is the opposite as the gender gap is less in the 19-40 age group and increases for lower and higher age groups. According to the World Disability Report (WHO, 2011), the population of females with disabilities in the 60-onwards age group is usually more than the males with disabilities.

3.2.2 Key Findings about Educational Status

The key findings of educational status have been looked at along with the statuses of reading/writing (literacy rate) and money handling skills.

• Table III shows that the literacy rate of BKS mandal’s study population (1999-2010) is not too far behind than that of the general population in BKS mandal. Infact the study population (1999-2010) of BKS mandal has less of a gender gap. But in Peddavaduguru mandal the study population’s (1999-2010) literacy rate is 12% less than that of its general population. In both the mandals proportionately a much larger percentage of disabled males is literate than the non disabled males of their respective mandals, whereas the percentages of literate disabled and non-disabled females are not very different. Yet, it is noteworthy that among non-disabled population the literate female percentage is much higher than literate males, whereas among the study

population the percentage of literate males is much higher than the literate females. When compared with the literacy rate of 41% among country’s rural disabled population (NSSO, 2002), the study population’s (1999-2010) literacy rate is much ahead. But the study population’s 2011 groups are far behind.

Table III: Literacy Rates

RDT Study Population (Mandal Wise) Census 2001(General

Population) Mandal Wise

NSSO 2002

(Rural) 1999-2010 2011

National BKS Peda

vaduguru BKS

Pedda vaduguru

BKS Pedda

vaduguru 58.7 61 64 56 52.2 38 34

M F M F M F

India’s Disabled

Population M F M F M F M F

Literacy Rate

% 70.7 46.1 38 50 36 50 41 60 51.7 57.3 46.4 78 22 68 32

The above findings clearly point to the positive impact of RDT’s educational services for disabled children/persons in the two study mandals and more so in BKS mandal. The low literacy rates among the study population of 2011 groups, who have yet not availed of RDT’s educational services, also reiterate the impact of RDT’s educational services for disabled persons.

• The average percentage of 39% non-literates in the study population of 1999-2010 is much better than the NSSO’s (2002) percentage of 59% non-literate disabled persons in the country, which is similar to the 58% non-literate among 2011 groups of study population.

• The trend of average non-literates within different impairment groups (1999-2010) in the study population (PI- 28%; H&SI and VI – 45%; and CP&MD, ID & MUL-DIS – 68%) is very similar to the national trend among disabled persons (NSSO, 2002) i.e. 50% non-literates among persons with mild impairments, 55% among persons with moderate impairments and 72.2% among persons with severe impairments. But the overall percentages of non-literates among different impairment groups of RDT study population are lower than that of the national population with impairments. But the high percentage of non-literates (PI-49.6%; CP&MD, ID & MUL-DIS-74%; H&SI & VI-72%) among 2011 groups of the two study mandals, is indicative of the fact that these groups have not yet benefited from RDT services. This again establishes the impact of RDT educational support services on the disabled persons in the 1999-2010 groups of study population.

• In Table IV the overall percentages of educational status of RDT’s study population for different levels, in comparison to that of NSSO (2002) disabled population, are better especially in case of secondary and higher education – in spite of the fact that the RDT study population here includes the 2011 groups of the two mandals that have a low literacy rates and fewer persons reaching above the secondary level.

52

53

The RDT study population’s trend of mainly persons with PI reaching the higher educational levels and the rest mainly able to come up to secondary educational levels

Table IV: Educational Status (% age) of Disabled Population

Educational Status NSSO 2002 (Rural India) RDT Study Population

Primary 24.4 15.3

Elementary 9.7 10.2

Secondary 3.8 17.5

Sr. Secondary 2.1 2.3

Higher Education 1 6.2

only, has been reported in the World Bank Report (2007) as well in relation to the disabled population of India. A very high percentage of study population with sensory, mental and other severe impairments is either non-literate or able to reach the lowest levels of education only – a fact being confirmed by The World Report on Disability (2011) as a worldwide phenomenon but especially in low income countries.

• In the total study population of two mandals, an average of 72% disabled persons know money handling, which is true of the trend in the general population that many of the non-literate persons also can do money transactions for daily life well. The RDT study also shows persons with more severe impairments have higher numbers of persons not knowing money handling for daily life.

• An average of 17.5% (BKS 1999-2010 – 21%) is the current student population among 1999-2010 groups of the two mandals. Based on an average student-age profile of this group of study population about 30%-35% are likely to be falling out of the education system. With only 9% of student population among 2011 groups of the two mandals, the percentage of student-age study population that has fallen outside the education system increases drastically.

The fact that an average of only 12.8% out of all student population of the two mandals are in RDT’s special schools, it implies that a large percentage of students are attending regular govt. or private schools in these two mandals and availing of RDT’s educational support services.

54

3.2.3 Key Findings about Occupational Status

• This study finds an overall high average of 54.5% disabled persons engaged in doing some kind of work in comparison to country’s average of 37.6% employment rate (World Bank Report, 2007) among disabled persons. Although NSSO, 2002 rural data (quoted in Chaudhari, 2006) shows 53.3% of the country’s disabled population engaged in some kind of work. An average 32% disabled persons are without any kind of work in the study population as compared to 46% among country’s disabled population (NSSO, 2002). The fact that 53% of >18yrs of this study population have NREGA job cards, it may have a bearing on the relatively better occupational status among study population. Also about 14% persons of study population from the 1999-2010 groups of two mandals reported having undergone skill/vocational training.

In spite of the above factor, it is important to find out the economic status of the working disabled persons in the study population, which could not be ascertained because of lack of information on income of disabled individual and the concept of House-Hold Income existing in the village system.

• In the study mandals, the general trend is of average 4% more males being without work than females, whereas World Bank Report (2007) mentions that being a female with disabilities reduces employability prospects. Yet it is to be noticed that the number of females with work may be higher because of more females being involved in domestic work.

• Among the working population of this study, average 30% are involved in domestic work with 20% more females than males working at home. This percentage is more than double in comparison to the percentage of 12.8 projected by NSSO (2002) rural data for the country’s disabled population involved in domestic work. It is not known if these disabled persons doing domestic work have status and rights like other family members or they function mainly as domestic servants in their own homes.

Considering the fact that there is 3% reservation in all govt. jobs for persons with disabilities, only 0.6% disabled persons of the working study population are in a govt. job.

• The average population with no work within different impairment groups is the least among persons with H&SI (10%) followed by persons with PI (23%), and maximum among persons with ID, MI, CP&MD and MUL-DIS (average 66.6%). Even among persons with VI there is a high percentage of persons without work (45.6%). Yet at face value the figures are better for persons with different impairments in the study population when compared with country’s disabled population without work (46%), except for persons with ID, MI, CP&MD and MUL-DIS.

Here it would be useful to look at some of the factors that promote or prevent disabled persons employability in the country (source: World Bank Report, 2007) as given below:

Box I: Factors Promoting/Preventing PWDs’ Employability

• Living in rural areas, where the likelihood of PWD being employed is over 20 percent higher than in urban areas.

• Being a male promotes employment. • Having a disability since birth decreases the employment chances, with the

effect more pronounced in rural areas • Having a hearing, speech, or locomotor disability increases employability. • Being married has a relatively strong positive effect on the probability of

being employed for males, but a negative effect for women. • Increased age is positively associated with the probability of employment. • Having a postgraduate education (with the positive effect much stronger for

women). • Having undergone vocational training promotes employability. • Having a mental impairment (ID or MI) is strongly associated with much

lower prospects for employment.

• Given the fact that the RDT services for disabled persons are less intensive, SHGs are less organized, and there are fewer livelihood opportunities in Peddavaduguru mandal as compared to the BKS mandal, it is to be noted that the occupational status is slightly better in Peddavaduguru mandal, even for 2011 group. Except for the fact that this mandal is politically more aware and active, other reasons for its better occupational status of disabled persons are not clear. It would require further exploration.

3.2.4 Key Findings about Marital Status

• An average of 56.6% disabled persons (>18 yrs.) are currently married in the study population with an average of 65% males and 35% females married. The World Bank Report (2007) on disability mentions only 37% of disabled women married as opposed to 75% of all rural women above the age of 15 yrs.

• In the study population a far better average of only 4% women that are deserted or widowed exists in comparison to 52% among country’s average for disabled women and 10% among country’s average for all rural women (World Bank Report, 2007). NSSO data (2002) quoted by Chaudhary (2006) shows overall 16% of disabled persons as widowed/divorced/separated.

• An average of 38.7% disabled persons (>18 yrs.) of the study population are single (never married) as compared to 27.8% of rural disabled persons above the age of 15 yrs. reported as single in the NSSO (2002) data.

55

56

The World Bank Report (2007) also mentions 12% disabled women and 10% all rural women as single, which is slightly lower percentage when compared with 18.5% single disabled women in the study population.

• In the study population within their own impairment groups, maximum percentage of married persons is that of persons with PI and the least is among persons with CP&MD, ID, MI and MUL-DIS. More persons with H&SI are married than with VI.

• Peddavaduguru mandal shows slightly better statistics (especially for 2011 group) as compared to BKS mandal for marital status, specifically among females with disabilities.

3.2.5 Key Findings about Health Status

• A very high percentage (91%) of persons from the total study population reported a good health status with minimal gender differences.

• Persons with CP&MD, ID, MUL-DIS and MI formed the major share of persons with health problems.

• The most common health problems reported are Epilepsy and Asthma/respiratory conditions.

3.2.6 Key Findings about Social Security Status

• The status related to possession of four main social security/citizenship cards that enable an individual/family to access various social security schemes of Govt. and NGOs appears to be extremely good. In the total study population an average of 88% have Disability Certificates, 94% have Ration cards, 53% have NREGA/Job cards and about 80% have Voter ID cards. The gender gap (less females) for disability certificates and ration cards is very small but is noticeable for the NREGA and Voter ID cards.

• The actual access to the various other schemes is not clear but this study finds >80% disabled persons/families are accessing disability pension scheme. In contrast, a study quoted in World Bank Report (2007) finds only 5.6% disabled persons getting disability pension in Andhra Pradesh.

• Peddavaduguru mandal’s study population fares slightly better in terms of number of disabled persons having the social security cards as well as in relation to the gender gap, when compared with BKS mandal. A more politically aware Peddavaduguru mandal population as reported by RDT CBR team may have been the reason for the above finding.

57

3.2.7 Key Findings about Status of Group Memberships

• In spite of RDT CBR team reporting that the SHGs in Peddavaduguru mandal are less organized and many have disintegrated, about 86% of the study population from 1999-2010 groups of both the mandals has reported being SHG members. But the membership in community groups and local self governing bodies is just about 1.8% (average).

• Expectedly, in the study population of 2011 from BKS and Peddavaduguru mandals, only 1.9% persons have reported as being SHG members. But interestingly, their community group memberships go up to 9% (average).

• Female representation as members is more than that of males, especially in community groups, but among SHG leaders is marginally less than males.

3.2.8 Key Findings about Mobility, Self Care and Social Participation Statuses

• The findings of the above mentioned statuses are somewhat congruent with the percentages of different impairment groups in the study population. There is a high percentage of persons with mild physical impairments in the study population and thus an average of 70% persons are having mobility independence. Similarly a high percentage of disabled persons in the study population have reported social participation. Yet it is to be noted that many persons reporting partial social participation may just be accompanying the family members but may not be truly participating.

• The average percentages in the total study population for self-care (Independent–62%; Supported self-care–33.6%; High Support–4.4%) show a larger group of those needing low to high support (38%) as compared to NSSO (2002) figures (Independent-60.2%; Supported self-care-17.2%; High Support-13.6% ) that show 30.8% needing low to high support, although its high support group is much bigger.

• There are not big enough differences between the 1999-2010 and 2011 groups of the two mandals in regard to the mobility, self care and social participation parameters. This fact may indicate low impact of RDTs medical and rehabilitation services on the disabled persons from 1999-2010 groups of the two mandals.

3.2.9 Key Findings about RDT and Govt. Services and Benefits

• Overall more persons have accessed RDT services and Benefits in BKS mandal.

• As expected, an average of only 12% of the study population from 2011 groups has received RDT services and/or benefits.

• More females have received services/benefits than males.

58

• More (10-20%) persons with CP&MD, ID and MUL-DIS have received RDT services and benefits as compared to persons with other impairments.

• A very high percentage (88%) of study population, inclusive of 2011 groups is availing of govt. disability pension scheme.

• RDT’s disability work seems to have greatly facilitated the access of disabled persons/families to the services and benefits available in their community, including govt.’s schemes.

• Most commonly accessed services and benefits are related to education, medical and rehabilitation, financial aids, and to a lesser extent bank loans and travel concessions.

• In spite of the fact that persons with more likelihood of moderate to high support need (CP&MD, ID, MUL-DIS and others with severe impairments) have been getting more services/benefits, are still far behind in all the parameters looked at. Thus the delivery of RDT services and benefits seem to be more suited to the needs of persons with mild impairments, who access these in the form they are available, are able to make use of them and take off. About 38% of the study population that requires low to high support may not be making full use of these available services/benefits for impacting their quality of life because of services/benefits not customized for their support needs. For example, a high support need disabled person may be having access to children’s savings, education related benefits or loan for livelihood, but to be able to make use of these his priority need may be financial aid for a personal assistant or an accessible environment.

• RDT services are probably addressing life domain needs at an individual level only. It is not working towards inclusive environments, which would then require working with the community services and facilities to make them equally accessible to disabled persons.

3.3 Conclusion

In its 12 years of work with persons with disabilities in the two study mandals, RDT has reached out to less than 50% of the total population with disabilities. Yet a substantial number of disabled persons have been brought under RDT’s service net. The majority of its disabled service users in the study mandals belong to the age group of 19-40 yrs., which are considered as the most productive years of an adult’s life, whereas most of its services seem focused on the age group of apprx. 6-21yrs. RDT’s work with disabled people, especially in the areas of basic survival needs and education, has no doubt resulted in more disabled persons bettering their situation in certain life domains as compared to the other disabled persons in the country. RDT services also do seem to have a special focus on the girl child and women with disabilities.

59

Based on the status of the RDT study population in regard to various quantitative variables, RDT services have resulted in maximum reduction in the impact of disability for persons with physical impairment. Conversely, about 38% of its study population, mainly comprising of persons with severe physical impairments, mental impairments and multi-disability, have least benefitted in spite of receiving 10%-20% more RDT services as compared to persons with other impairments. The reason for this may lie in the overall approach of RDT’s disability work that seems to be largely based on welfare and medical models, although it does have elements of social model as well. Its service delivery system addresses needs at an individual level in certain domains of life only like education, medical and rehabilitation, and financial assistance for livelihoods and other needs. But the delivery system does not seem flexible or innovative enough to adapt itself according to the situational needs and the capacity of its service users.

The fact that the study statistics for some of the significant variables were either better or equal in a) Peddavaduguru mandal (with less intensive RDT services) as compared to BKS mandal, and b) 2011 groups of two mandals as compared to 1999-2010 groups, it points towards other factors impacting the lives of the study population. Finding and understanding such factors may make a strong case for RDT to focus on developing inclusive policies and programmes.

60

4. Qualitative Data Analysis

This chapter analyses the data collected through the individual interviews with 50 study participants with disabilities, and focussed group discussions with the members of RDT supported SHGs and other village community groups. While analysing, the terms “Person with disability” and “Person” are used simultaneously and both of them refer to the “Person with disability”.

There were 2 Mandals covered under this study: Bukkarayasamudram and Peddavaduguru. From Bukkarayasamudram, 24 persons/caregivers were interviewed and rest of the 26 came from Peddvaduguru. Minimum of 1 to maximum of 4 persons with disabilities belonged to the same village from the aforementioned Mandals.

An attempt was made to elicit the in depth information of individuals through the personalised interviews of the persons with disability using an interview guide. However due to the limitations in establishing direct communication with many of the disabled participants in the interviews, 43 of the 50 respondents were the primary caretakers of the persons with disabilities. These respondents included mainly the parents (8), mothers (20), fathers (5), brothers (5), grandmothers (2), sister (1) and sister in law (1). In one of the interviews both the person with disability and her parents were the respondents, as she had intellectual impairment with functional speech and could comprehend a few open ended questions. Rest of the interviews (7) were done with the persons with disabilities. Most of the individuals who themselves participated in the interviews had visual impairment.

The majority of the respondents (43) in the qualitative data collection were caregivers. Therefore, the findings of the study are limited to that extent as the responses are not directly from PWDs. RDT team shared the following possible reasons for most of the disabled persons not being the direct respondents:

- Inadequate communication skills in the participants with disabilities, coupled with absence of training in and the use of Alternative & Augmentative communication methods in RDT’s CBR program as a whole.

- Severity of mental impairment impacting comprehension.

- Persons with disabilities being used to family members responding on their behalf in everyday life. Thus some felt intimidated by having to speak for themselves.

- Difficulty in ensuring privacy in the village scenario preventing the participants from speaking for themselves.

4.1 Insights into the Supported Living Needs of Persons with Disabilities

4.1.1 The General Profile of Individual Participants

Gender and Age

Among the persons with disabilities who participated 26 were females and 24 were males. Out of the total, 14 were children - below the age of 18 years. The age of the youngest respondent was 7 years and that of the oldest respondent was 50 years, with the average age of 23.2 years. The maximum number of persons with disabilities (18) was from the age group of 26-35 years, followed by 15 persons with disabilities of 18-25 years of age. There were only 3 individuals above 35 years of age.

Figure 1: Age Distribution of Participants with Disabilities

Types of Disabilities

A majority of the persons with disabilities under the study had intellectual impairment (20). Those who had multiple disabilities were 13 in number followed by 8 persons with cerebral palsy. There were 6 persons with visual impairment, and one each with mental illness, Down’s syndrome and hunchback.

Figure 2: Disability Profile of the Participants

61

62

Most of the persons with disabilities and/or their families had sufficient information about the disability they/their family member had. 41 of 50 had information about reasons and the prognosis of the disability conditions. There were 8 families who did not have sufficient information about the disability and thought it could be cured by the treatment. One of the families thought that they were paying for their sins of their past lives and after the marriage the disability of their son would disappear.

Caste

Caste wise a majority of the persons belonged to BC with 21 of them, followed by SC with 19 and OC with 10 persons with disabilities.

Educational Status

It was found that 42 out of the 50 respondents had never received any formal or non formal education. There were 6 who had training through the special education provided by the RDT residential institutions. This includes, one girl with intellectual disability who was still a student in RDT residential institute. One child with multiple-disability was attending the mainstream school of the village and was a student of class 3 at the age of 15 years. One young female of 24 years of age, who had visual impairment, had received maximum education out of all. She studied till class 4th in the mainstream school of the village, but could not continue further despite the willingness as the teacher lacked in skill of teaching a visually impaired student within a class of non-disabled students. She aspired to study further.

Employment Status

A majority of the participants (32 persons) with disability remained unemployed. Only 3 females did some work occasionally as agricultural labourer and 2 of them worked only while accompanying their mothers. They were also being offered lower wages than non-disabled workers despite one of them at least doing equal amount of work. Rest of the respondents under the study were children (14).

One person with visual impairment, who had no other family member to support him, had resorted to begging to sustain.

Those persons with disabilities who were involved in domestic work were not given the status of doing productive work in the family by the other members.

Health Status

The general health status of a majority of the persons with disabilities was satisfactory, with 31 persons reporting the same. Whenever they had minor health problems, their needs were met by the local RMPs and other doctors. However, 19 persons with disabilities had some consistent health concerns. Epileptic seizure was the most common health problem in 12 of them, and rest had various other health problems namely: allergy, anaemia, tuberculosis, eating disorder, stomach ache, skin infection

63

and scabies. The treatment was being provided to 10 such persons with disabilities though with 9 of them the health problems remained largely unaddressed. The major causes for this unmet need were noncompliance in the person and the inability to afford a costly or long term treatment by the family.

4.1.2 The Functional Status of Individual Participants

The Self Care in Daily Lives

The daily routine was a fixed routine for 32 persons, whereas 5 of them had an irregular routine. This information was not available for 13 persons with disabilities.

The Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) remained the main problem with the families and persons with disabilities, where the persons themselves were not independent in carrying out the self-care activities. Ten persons with disabilities were independent in ADLs. A majority of the persons with disability (28) could manage their ADLs with support that varied from verbal instructions to partial support in bathing, washing hair, etc. The persons with visual impairment needed support mainly in grooming like combing hair, shaving, being directed towards the toilet and washroom etc. There were 12 persons, who required full support from the family for their daily living activities. Some women, especially with mental impairments were found to be living in poor self hygiene.

Mobility and Accessibility within and outside the House

The houses they were living in were perceived to be accessible by 37 persons with disabilities (or their caretakers). The major reason behind this accessibility in infrastructure was that the houses were constructed with the support of RDT. There were 12 persons who thought that their house was not fully accessible to them. Some had accessibility problem specifically pertaining to the toilet and/or bathroom. The issues related to inadequate space, threshold and height and number of steps which made it difficult to readily use them. One person had no shelter at all.

Most of the persons with disabilities under the study were able to move functionally in their neighbourhood only. Those with the visual impairment could walk around but only with support for directions. There were 6 persons, who were functionally mobile in their homes but not in the community. Their mobility pattern included crawling and walking with support of a mobility aid. Of all, 7 had their mobility completely restricted as they either needed to be carried or used wheel chairs for which the environment was inaccessible.

The facility of public transport was available to 45 persons out of the total, but only 30 of them considered that to be accessible. The rest of the 15 persons thought it was inaccessible to them as it was overcrowded, had lesser space and was unsafe to travel.

64

Communication

Twenty one persons with disabilities in the study used functional speech for communication. They could either speak functionally or used gestures to support their speech of few words or small sentences, which aided them in communication in the community as well – but mainly for their basic needs. However 18 persons with disabilities had the communication pattern which could be understood by the family only. These were mainly some sounds, signs and gestures that only family members could understand what they meant. Then, there was no functional way of communication developed in 10 persons with disabilities. The families faced major problems with them in catering to their hunger, thirst, toileting or health related needs. In one person with mental illness, speech was there but it was incoherent and incomprehensible.

Money Management

Under the study, 37 persons with disability had no skill to manage the money or carrying out any money transactions. Other 11 persons could manage it satisfactorily. There were 2 persons who could carry out small money operations up to the limit of Rs. 50.

4.1.3 The Family and the Individual Participants

Family Size

The data of the family size was not available for 11 participants with disabilities. The rest of the 39 persons had minimum 1 to maximum 11 members in the family. The average family size was 5.

Economic situation of the Family

Except one family, all other families were economically poor. Even the families that possessed cell phones, television or toilets etc. in the house, were actually poor although their superficial economic status was deceptive. Most of the families were living in mud houses. Out of 50 families, 30 were reported to be particularly poor where two or three meals a day was also an issue. Some had no working member in the family. In some other families, the carer/s could not go to work in spite of having NREGA card because of the caring needs of the disabled family member.

Marriage

Out of 36 adults, 34 were unmarried. Those 2 who were married also had their marriages broken on the account of disability. One female developed mental illness after the marriage, which was reported to be an aftermath of her suicidal attempt due to an abusive husband. She also had three children by then, but the husband had deserted her. Another male who had mild intellectual impairment developed deteriorating neurological symptoms soon after the marriage, culminating it into a divorce.

65

Marriage was one of the aspirations for 12 persons with disabilities or their families. Many felt that in their community it was extremely difficult to find a person who would marry a disabled individual and thus had no hopes of fulfilling their wish. One family attempted to marry off the daughter to an uncle as the second wife, but it could not materialize.

Family Relationships

The relationship of the persons with disabilities with other family members was generally cordial and harmonious for a majority of 41 persons. All had a caring and protective approach towards the disabled member. Besides the primary care taker, other family members also offered support to the person with regard to their daily living activities and mobility. Most often they were unhappy for their family member being unable to lead a regular life like others and were concerned about their needs and future. But there were also few instances where, only the primary care givers (mainly the mother, father, grandmother or both the grandparents) had concerns regarding the needs and problems of the person with disability, while the other family members remained either indifferent or negative. They considered the person with disability a burden and treated them with disdain. In such conditions, the level of anxiety amongst the primary carer was very high and they had serious concerns for the future of the person after their death.

There was a grandmother living alone with her grandchild, who had been abandoned by the parents due to his severe impairments. One visually impaired person had no family at all. In another instance an adolescent girl with visual impairment faced ill-treatment at the hands of her father and sister, and her mother was not alive. She was neither supported nor involved in any family matters.

Participation in the Family Affairs

It was found that there was no participation of 21 persons with disabilities in their family affairs and matters. They also had no involvement in decision making. The major reason for this was thought to be the severity of their disability. Otherwise there were low to medium levels of participation by 11 persons with disabilities. Depending upon their functionality, they were involved in helping in household chores of cleaning, washing, collecting water and caring for young children of the family. They also served as guards in the household and did not allow any stranger or animal to enter into the house.

Nonetheless there were 4 persons who had a high degree of participation in the family matters. Their opinion was sought and respected in making crucial decisions in the family.

Social Interactions with Family and Community

The participants with disability, who had any friends, were only 16. Rest of the 34 persons had no one to call as friends. Most of those who had friends were persons with visual impairment, who reported being able to spend quality time with their

66

friends. Some friends were really helpful and helped them in regular cooking, grooming and purchasing grocery for the house.

About half of the participants were able to interact with the relatives - some of them were taken to the relatives’ places, while at other times relatives visited them. They were also involved in the social functions and festivals in their homes and the community at large. This was reported by 29 persons with disabilities and their families. However other 21 of them stated their position otherwise. They were restricted to their houses due to various reasons like social taboos, difficulty in daily living activities and mobility, fear of being laughed at or made taunts etc. There were 30 persons and their families who reported of such negative attitudes of the neighbourhood. Children in their neighbourhood teased or threw stones at them and called them “mad”. Using the labour of the disabled persons for free and cheating them of their money were also reported in some instances. The attitude of community was perceived to be indifferent by 10 persons, where the community did not show any kind of gesture towards the persons as it did not matter to them.

Primary Care Takers

Mothers were the primary care takers for the majority of the participants with disabilities (26), irrespective of their gender. For 6 persons both the parents were equally involved in their care. All the 5 visually impaired persons and one young woman with physical disability were able to care for themselves. There were sisters-in-laws as the primary care takers for 4 persons. However, one of them was an unwilling and fussy carer. She had to take care as the mother was not alive and it was young female with severe disability whom father could not provide support for self-care. Fathers and grandmothers were also taking care of 2 persons each. A married sister was taking care of her younger sister with multiple disabilities.

4.1.4 The Specific Problems and Future Concerns Related to the Disabled Participants

Specific Problems

Besides 10 participants with disabilities who were independent in ADLs, a large number of other participants and their families were facing certain specific issues and problems in their daily lives. The activities of daily living that included eating and drinking, brushing teeth, bathing, toileting, dressing and undressing, and grooming were the most common problems faced by 15 persons with disabilities and their families. In addition to this, 7 felt that difficulty in mobility was also an issue. There were 5 persons with disabilities who had epileptic seizures which were adding to their difficulties in ADLs. However with 4 of them the seizures were an exclusive issue of immediate difficulty. For some socially unacceptable (wandering aimlessly, taking off clothes in public etc.) and/or violent behaviour were of major concern. At least 3 of them were kept tied at times. Families felt the safety and security of the disabled family member were the biggest problem in case of 3 young females with disabilities. One of them had faced sexual assault when there was no one at home; therefore the families didn’t feel their homes were safe when their disabled family members were

67

alone. One male and one female with visual impairment had difficulty in washing clothes and cooking respectively. They particularly needed external help in these activities. The male also reported that he often got cheated by the auto drivers and shopkeepers who didn’t return him right amount of change after money transactions. Others had their specific needs related to treatment of certain medical problems like tuberculosis, skin infection, scabies and mental illness.

Concerns for Future Living Arrangements

With regard to the concerns for future of the persons with disabilities, only 4 persons and/or their families felt that there was no such issue to be worried about. However primary carers of 33 persons with disabilities thought it differently. They had grave concerns about the future care of their disabled family member. They mentioned that they will care for the disabled family member till they were alive but did not know who would do so after their death. Wherever the other family members were indifferent or negative towards the disabled family member, besides the primary care taker, the concern was even higher. One family had started searching for an Ashram for their son having intellectual impairment with behaviour problems. They also felt that having some asset in the name of their child could ensure his care. In addition to the future care, 6 families were worried about the marriage of the family member with disability. Safety along with the future care was felt to be the biggest concern of 4 more families for their disabled family member. Two others expressed that their main concern was health of the disabled member, which they thought would deteriorate even more with time. The financial security of the disabled family members was also a huge concern here, without which they felt their care would become a burden in the future.

4.1.5 Utilization of RDT Services and Benefits by the Individual Participants/Families

Awareness about Rights, Services and Benefits

Of all, families of 18 participants with disabilities seemed to have information about the rights of the disabled persons. They knew that disabled persons have equal rights like others in the community, and that discriminating and name calling were an offence. They also knew government provided various rights and welfare services to the persons with disabilities including right to education, employment, voting, and certain reservations and concessions in traveling. However, a majority of the respondents had only heard a little about such rights but did not know much about them.

Participants/families in general were aware of the services provided by the RDT and 44 persons with disabilities and their families confirmed it. They knew that RDT provides children’s savings, housing, pension, food grains, aids and appliances, school material, education, clothing and IGPs etc. Of all the participants, 36 persons with disabilities/families were also the members of SHG formed by RDT and attended their meetings regularly.

68

Facilities Availed By Participants with Disabilities/Families

All the participants with disabilities/families had availed various facilities of RDT like clothes, children’s savings, food grains, pension, loan, drought fund, medical care etc. Some had received services like physiotherapy, and assistive aids and appliances depending upon their specific needs. Some children had also lived in the hostel of RDT and got training in education, daily living activities and vocations like gardening, book binding etc. RDT had also provided support in building accessible houses. Some family members had availed of RDT’s income generation programmes that had helped in strengthening the financial condition.

Out of 50 participants, 48 had their disability certificates made and 38 of those were also receiving government pension of Rs. 500 per month. A few were also getting the RDT pension of Rs. 150 per month. Some families did save an amount of Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 for the disabled family member, but spent the rest for the other family purposes. A majority of such families were very poor and had these pensions as a main source of income, therefore used the money for running the home. Only 3 of all persons with disabilities had some assets in their name, which was done by their family with the help of RDT to secure their future. This was seen practically helpful in one instance wherein cousins were taking care of an adult with disability after the parents’ death, because they were using the land in his name for farming. However, he has to move from one cousin’s home to another’s every three months and had no fixed place to live.

The disabled persons’ names were included in the ration cards of 44 families. Forty out of the total had health cards (Arogyasree cards) as well, which were used to seek medical help whenever needed. Among other facilities, 24 of 36 adults with disabilities had voter Identity cards also. Although, some of them had casted their votes as well, families reported that many did not know the significance and meaning of voting. There were 11 persons who had Job cards in their names but again were not making any use of them.

Impact on the lives of Participants with Disabilities

The maximum impact reported was that of SHG membership. Almost all talked of positive changes in their lives after becoming members (either as individuals or the family carers) of RDT supported SHGs. They felt the SHG membership provided a unity amongst the persons with disabilities and their families in their villages. This had also led to them experiencing more respect and dignified treatment from the village community. They together were able to stand against the discrimination and ill-treatment whenever faced by any of the members. Many saw SHG membership as a means to access Govt.’s and RDT’s schemes and benefits. One participant stated that SHG members facilitated his access to disability pension by taking the issue to the District Collector’s office, after it was disapproved by the authorities. Those who had no RDT supported SHG in their village, wanted it to exist so that the situation of the persons with disability could be improved. Only one family mentioned that they could still manage to take care of their disabled family member even if RDT were not to be there.

69

RDT presence was felt as a major psychological support by the individuals with disabilities and families, and it provided them with a platform to share their problems and concerns. Some of the expressions of persons with disabilities and their families for the RDT were:

“If RDT was not there, we would have been in bad condition especially economically. Our child is in the centre and because of that we can go for work freely.”

“Without RDT, ours (poor people) and PWDs lives would have been difficult”

“Without RDT services our life will not be like this. Now we get respect in the society”

“If RDT services were not available then our child would have been in bad position with severe disability”

“If RDT services were not there then there would not have been so much of development in our child. We would not have had the awareness about disability and the rights of persons with disability”

Future Expectations from RDT

Many others who were in need of certain specific services expected the same from the RDT. These needs varied from training of their disabled family member in daily living activities, some vocation, construction of an accessible toilet and bathroom at home, construction of a house to live, treatment of medical problems, support through income generation programme, loans, food grains, pension etc. A few mentioned hostel facility for long term future care.

4.1.6 The Community Groups on Disability

The community groups of Bheemanapalli, Peddavaduguru and Kistapadu from Peddavaduguru mandal, and Rotatarypuram, Bommalatapalli and Venkatapuram from Bukkarayasamudram discussed the issues related to the conditions of persons with disabilities in their villages. Those who participated were IKP members, CDC members, Govt School Head Master and teachers, Anganwadi Teachers, Village Sarpanch, Ward members, IKP Animator, MPTC, RDT Women’s group members and the Network group members. They were all together a total of 132 in numbers.

Awareness and Attitudes towards the Persons with Disabilities

All the community groups were aware of the existence of all the disabled persons in their villages and were personally familiar with their name, age, disability, socio-economic status, educational status, marital status etc. The various kinds of disabilities in their villages they named were physical disability, intellectual disability, visual impairment, hearing and speech impairment, dwarfism and leprosy cured.

70

The community groups expressed sympathy for the persons with disabilities in their villages. They felt that lives of such persons were very difficult both in their families and the society.

Interactions with Persons with Disabilities

All community groups besides Bheemannapalli’s and Venkatapuram’s were engaged in welfare services for the disabled persons in their village. One of the community groups shared that it would try to do something for them in the future. They would try to understand their needs and problems, and also think about how to address those. Some other community groups were already helping persons with disabilities both in their daily lives and in organizing some financial security.

In Kistapadu, the community group provided both food and support in the daily activities to an old lady with disability for 3 years. She had no family at all. They also did her funeral with dignity, when she died. The Gram Sangham of this village had identified 15 very needy persons with disabilities and was providing pension of Rs. 50 to each of them. They continued it for the period of three years till they started getting the pension from the government. On the special request they provided an amount of Rs. 200 to a woman with disability.

The community groups reported having facilitated disabled persons access to pension, helped in receiving loans at very low interest rates from the banks, and facilitated enrolment of disabled children in the mainstream schools. They had also helped at times in disabled persons getting their share in the property. Many other examples were shared like help being provided in the preparation of the disability certificates, counselling of parents and other family members and acting as a pressure group in asserting the rights of persons with disabilities in the family, creating awareness in the family and community on prevention and causes of disability.

Opinions on Needs and Rights of persons with Disabilities

All the community groups were aware of the general and specific needs of the persons with disabilities. Besides the basic needs, they said that persons with disabilities needed special education, vocational training, accessible toilets, and aids and appliances including the mobility aids to avail opportunities.

Community groups had the opinion that, persons with disabilities had equal rights and they should be given equal opportunities in the education and employment. They also emphasised that persons with disabilities must be given their share in the property and rather they should be given a larger share in order to ensure the future care after the parents are not there. They had observed many disabled members of their community who were taken care by relatives because they possessed some assets in their names. They mentioned that some families treated their disabled members equally, gave respect to their opinions and decisions and involved them in family and social functions as well. However it was not true for all, especially not for those with severe disabilities and women with disabilities. The fact that women were given lesser care and affection in the family was highlighted by all the groups. They added that when women fall sick, they are not taken for treatment. They also expressed that

71

women with disabilities had lesser security in the community and that they were discriminated more than disabled men.

The community groups reported knowing many persons with disabilities including both men and women, who were married. The community groups thought that persons with disabilities must marry though the same was not required for those with intellectual disability as they would not be able to understand the significance of it. They shared that it was more difficult for the women with disabilities to get married as compared to their male counterparts - as after marriage disabled women faced problems in carrying out the household chores, taking care of the house independently, in taking care of self in pregnancy/delivery and further in taking care of the children. They also mentioned that some non-disabled women do get married to the disabled men, however rarely a non disabled man marries a disabled woman as his first wife.

The community groups believed that persons with disabilities could work and could be productive members of the family and the community. However, they felt it depended upon intellectual capacity, functional level and the skill of the person. Some persons with disabilities were helping the families in the household work and caring for the children, and others through assisting in animal rearing, agricultural work and running a small shop. Hence they were also contributing to the families economically. In Peddavadaguru, the community groups informed that two females with disabilities did run a cold drink shop and a small grocery shop, and one male with physical disability was a newspaper distributer. In Rotarypuram, the disabled members maintained the records of the IKP Sangham and they also participated in the survey of village. Overall, the community groups considered the persons with disabilities as the contributing members to the family and the society however they felt that severely disabled persons were not in this category. For them the severely disabled persons were not able to study, get employment or do any kind of work and thus they remained totally dependent on their family for their daily activities.

Roles and Suggestions in regard to Disabled Persons with High Support Needs

The community groups saw their role in regard to persons with disabilities in terms of facilitating their access to government facilities like disability certificate, pension, travel concessions, loans etc. They also thought of covering them in child protection schemes, facilitating their medical care, creating awareness on the needs and problems of disabled persons, and their rights at village and mandal levels.

They felt that it would be extremely difficult for many disabled persons to lead a life after the death of their parents. All believed that immediate families held the primary responsibility of caring for the disabled member. In the absence of it the other relatives should take over the caring. Besides the above they felt government should take the responsibility of the disabled individuals. They all shared that community could provide for food and clothing, but it could not take the responsibility of assisting them in their self-care activities. All opined that government and RDT should provide for residential institutions for persons with disabilities requiring life-long care. They expected RDT to take more responsibility in this matter.

72

4.1.7 The SHGs of Persons with Disabilities/Carer representatives

The SHGs of persons with disabilities of villages Venkatapuram, Bommalatapalli and Rotarypuram from Bukkarayasamudram, and Peddvaduguru, Kistapudu and Bheemapalli from Peddavaduguru participated in the focussed group discussions on their issues and concerns. In total 123 members of the 6 SHGs were part of the discussions. The oldest groups had come into existence about 10 years ago and the younger ones were there for 7 years. The SHGs were facilitated by the RDT with the common purpose to identify and solve their issues/problems, to provide mutual support, and to aid each other in availing government and RDT services.

Governance and Membership of SHGs

All the SHGs followed a democratic process of governance. They did review of their plans and activities regularly on half yearly, annually or once in two years basis. During this process, they assessed the role of group members, achievements of goals, and mobilization of resources from the RDT and the government. All the SHGs regarded their social connections to be very important for their success.

The members of the groups had various disabilities i.e. physical impairment, intellectual impairment, visual impairment, hearing and speech impairments, and multiple disabilities. Most active members were those with physical, visual, speech and hearing impairments.

Impact of SHG on the Lives of its Members with Disabilities

The group provided its members a conducive atmosphere where the group members received mutual emotional support and other help. The kinds of issues SHGs dealt with were: housing needs; need for accessible toilets and bathrooms within houses; accessing government facilities; loans at very low interest rates; treatment and surgery of disabled members; identification and early intervention of children with disabilities; facilitating enrolment of children with disability in both the mainstream and special schools; helping group members in getting entitlements in property; counselling of families of persons with disabilities; income generation and emergency support to the members.

The groups felt itself to be a helpful platform which they could also utilise for the income generation and help themselves immensely in living a life of dignity in the village. They felt SHG membership helped them to gain respect in the community and not be teased by them. Their economic condition had also improved.

All the groups had sufficient awareness of services and facilities provided by both RDT and the government. They were also availing most of these services and recognised their positive impact on their lives.

73

SHGs and the Community

In carrying out their activities, the SHGs were being supported by their family members, neighbourhood, village Panchayat, government officials (especially from banks, electricity department, DRDA, Mandal offices) and RDT.

These SHGs were also contributing to the community and participating in causes like blood donation, polio eradication, helping flood victims by cash and kind, maintenance of community places, establishing drinking water facility in their village etc.

SHGs and RDT

The SHGs regarded RDT as the “head of the family”. They mentioned that “if RDT was not there, their SHGs would not have formed and functioned for so long”.

The groups needed continued support from RDT in the form of leadership training, health care programmes, setting up hostels, training on rights of the disabled persons and the related legislations, advocacy and their representation in politics. They also wanted RDT’s support in strengthening the groups. The groups of Peddavaduguru and Kistapadu were the only ones that felt that they could self sustain without the help of RDT.

Role and Suggestions in regard to Disabled Persons with High Support Needs

The members had well identified the disabled persons in need of high support. They were mostly persons with severe impairments and were dependent on their families for their daily activities. The SHGs acknowledged their role in such future care needs but did not know what role they could play. For now they could think of only shelter homes by government and/or RDT to meet the needs of such persons.

4.1.8 Case Illustrations

The following case histories would further help in gaining deeper insights into the supported living needs of the participants with disabilities.

All the names have been changed for maintaining confidentiality.

BOX II

Case Illustration 1

Laxman is a 35 year old male who became visually impaired when he was three years old. He has no one else in the family left as he had no siblings and his parents passed away a few years ago. Laxman is unmarried.

He has had no training or education and he begs for his survival. He lives in a temporary shelter at a bus stop. He needs an iron box to keep his belongings safely. He is able to carry out all his daily living activities independently, however he needs help in washing clothes and shaving. He is functionally mobile and sometimes travels by auto or bus while begging. Often auto and bus drivers cheat him while returning balance money to him.

Laxman is a member of disabled persons’ SHG in his village. With the group’s help he was able to receive pension, which was once declined by the authorities. The members met with the officers at the collectorate level to resolve his pension issue. He also gets food grains from RDT. Being in SHG of RDT he became aware of other persons with disabilities, and the rights and benefits provided by the government. But his housing need has still not been taken care of.

BOX III

Case Illustration 2

Rajan is a 15 yr old boy with multiple-disabilities. He is independent in self-care and mobility. He communicates through single words and gestures. He studies in class 3 in the village government school. He is also a member of SHG of disabled persons in the village.

Parents are satisfied with his development and are hopeful that he will progress with time and with his education. He is availing the pension benefits of the government and also from RDT. He has basic concept of money. He has friends in the village, and interacts well with neighbours and others. He plays with his friends and his favourite game is cricket. He attends social functions in the village.

He does not face discrimination in the society and in the school. Teachers are concerned about him. The family is aware of PWDs’ rights and entitlements, and therefore is not worried about his future.

74

BOX IV

Case Illustration 3

Ramachandra’s parents died in his childhood only and he had no siblings. He is a 28 yr old unmarried man with intellectual impairment. He needs support for his self care activities but he can walk at home and in the community with the help of aids. He uses words with gestures to communicate.

He never received any training or education. At present he is dependent on his cousin brothers for his sustenance and care. Ramachandran has 2 acres of land in his name which his cousin brothers cultivate for their livelihood, and in turn take care of him alternatively. He lives with each of the cousin’s family for 3 months at a time.

Ramachandran is liked and taken care of by all the relatives. They provide for his needs and listen to his concerns. But he has no friends and he also does not attend any social functions. He does not like to travel.

Neither Ramachandran nor his cousins are aware of the rights of the disabled persons. They know a little about the RDT’s services but they have not availed any of them. Ramachandran’s cousins are not worried about his future as they together will take care of him, since they are living on his asset.

BOX V

Case Illustration 4

Vijaya is a 48 yr. old woman with visual impairment and lives with her brother, who is also visually impaired. She is independent in all self care activities and mobility. She never married but sometimes longs for the marriage and a regular life like the non disabled people. The major problem for her is cooking which she cannot do independently. Also when she falls sick, there is no one to take her to the hospital.

She has two good friends who give her emotional support and help her in her daily life. They spend time with her every day. One friend cooks and the other buys grocery for her.

She lives in a rented house and the only source of income is the pension that both the siblings are getting from the government. Sometimes when the pension is delayed their condition becomes miserable and she has to go out and beg.

She has one sister, married and settled in another village. She visits her sometimes. Vijaya has simple wishes like eating sweets made by her sister. She wants toilet facility at home and wants the support from RDT for this. She also wants to make a house in which she can live comfortably. She expects RDT to provide her with pension, food grains, clothes and housing.

75

BOX VI

Case Illustration 5

Shobhana, a 28 yr. old woman has multiple-disabilities - visual impairment with paraplegia. After the death of the parents, her widow sister and children look after her. She requires support for all her self-care activities besides in eating once she is served. She speaks and sings well, and can walk with mobility aid.

She likes eating, dressing, listening to the songs on television, and playing with children. She also interacts well with the relatives when they visit home, but she herself never goes out. She also does not attend any social functions. She does not like the community attitude towards her.

The sister is highly concerned for the safety of Shobhana at home. Once she was abused sexually when left alone at home. For this reason, whenever the family goes out, they request an old woman, whom they trust to be with her at home. The family is worried about the future of Shobhana.

The village SHG membership has provided Shobhana with some psychological support along with the other facilities like pension and housing, but worries of the sister for Shobhana’s future are yet unresolved.

BOX VII

Case Illustration 6

Renuka is a 32yr. old mother of three children. Her husband deserted her when she developed mental illness some years ago. Since then she and her children have been living in a small shed with her mother, who takes care of them. Renuka has a disability certificate. She and the mother are members of the local RDT SHG. She gets Rs. 500 from the govt. and Rs. 150 from RDT as pension. RDT also gives the family food grains. Although the pension money and food grains are helping the family just about survive, it has not changed the situation at home and for Renuka.

According to her mother, Renuka sits outside the house alone most of the times. She is not fully functional and has to be helped even for her self-care activities like bathing. She is anaemic and has contracted scabies as well. The local psychiatrist has prescribed some medicines for her mental illness but Renuka refuses to take them and mother has no guidance as to what to do under the circumstances. Children are getting affected by her condition. They have to be her carers at times. The elder daughter often gets teased by her friends about her mother’s condition. Renuka’s mother often has to miss work. The family has not been able to go out anywhere since long.

Their immediate need is for a house with the toilet.

76

BOX VIII

Case Illustration 7

Nagesh is a 34yr. old person with severe intellectual impairment and lives with his mother in a rented room. He also has epilepsy and his convulsions are not under control. He requires full support for his self care activities. He can walk but not meaningfully. He has no functional communication. Nagesh has been issued all the social security cards and mother is a SHG member. Mother is unable to go to work because of him. They are living on govt. pension and RDT support.

Nagesh does not know socially acceptable behaviour and often gets violent with the villagers. Mother has to tie him often so that he does not wander out of the house aimlessly. Nobody wants to interact with him or want him to be part of anything in the village – including his brother and sister-in-law and other relatives. He and his mother are thus quite cut off from the community. Sometimes Nagesh’s married sister helps out in taking care of him.

Mother is extremely worried about his future care after she is no more. She either wants him to die before her or she would actually want to live in an orphanage with him.

4.2 Key Findings

4.2.1 General Status of Individual Participants

The selection criteria for the qualitative study participants did not include type of disabilities of the participants as one of the criteria. In spite of the fact that the sample participants were not selected randomly based on the criteria (see methodology), it is still significant that all the participants (except one) for this part of the study have turned out to be mainly persons with cerebral palsy, multi-disability, mental impairments and a few with visual impairment. Participants with these disabilities have been identified as most affected in the quantitative key findings as well.

The general life situation of majority participants of the qualitative study seemed quite limiting and meeting the very basic survival needs only. It is significant that majority of them were economically very poor. Almost all of them had been without any education or employment. They were functioning at a very basic level in the management of most life skills. All adult participants were unmarried (with 2 deserted) and many had no social interactions. Even persons with visual impairment with high potential had somehow remained at a low level of functioning and needs fulfillment. The benefits that many SHG members reported having received by being a member, it had not benefited the lives of many of the individual study participants in the same way.

There are two examples that give an insight into the general outside environment of the disabled participants. The only 3 persons doing work occasionally as agricultural labourers were seemingly being discriminated against equal pay for equal work on

77

78

account of their disability. Some reported very negative attitudes of community members towards persons with disabilities. The presence of SHGs in the villages seemed to have caused positive changes in the community members’ outlook vis-a-vis disability.

Participants using mobility aids found their outside mobility severely restricted because of inaccessible environment.

It was surprising that 43 of the respondents were the carers and not the persons with disabilities themselves. Even after accounting for factors like age and intellectual comprehension, there should have been more direct participation (full or partial) of persons with disabilities as respondents. One of the reasons appeared to be that even those, who had communication difficulties because of physical impairments, had developed communication for basic needs only. They did not seem to be using alternate communication systems. There could also have been an attitudinal barrier in family members and the interviewers, who may not have believed in their capacity to respond to such queries regarding their lives. This could also have been the reason for many not being consulted for any decisions within family or concerning their lives.

4.2.2 Factors Causing Maximum Concerns for Future Living Needs of Disabled Participants

- Dependence (complete or partial) on family members for self-care has emerged as the biggest common concern regarding the future of disabled family member. In most of the cases no other family member, apart from the primary carers (mainly mothers) were willing to take up such a responsibility. Even the community and SHGs that showed keenness to provide food, clothing etc. categorically mentioned their inability to provide any help in daily care.

- Difficulty in managing socially unacceptable, aggressive or violent behaviour of disabled family member is also perceived to be a major factor in keeping other family members/community away from wanting to participate in his/her care.

- Financial costs involved in the care and/or the health needs of the disabled family member were the next big concern.

- For some the safety and the security of the disabled family member were serious concerns, especially in the case of women with disabilities.

- Since the respondents were mainly the carers, the concerns and the future needs have also been shared from the carers’ point of view. That is the reason certain crucial life needs like purposeful/meaningful engagement, leisure needs, need for some control on environment and finances, choices in life and choice in kind of living (independent, within family, supported Homes) etc. have not emerged.

79

4.2.3 Factors Precipitating/Increasing the Life-long Care Needs/Concerns of Disabled Participants

The following factors apart from severity of impairments have been deduced that seemed to be precipitating or increasing the care needs of persons with disabilities:

- Non-usage of alternate self-care methods – Although there were examples of persons using mobility aids, no example was shared where persons had used adapted methods or aids for self-care to become more independent or to making daily care easy even in the case of persons with visual impairment.

- Non-adaptation of environment – Inaccessible toilets/bathrooms within homes, non-adapted kitchens and inaccessible outside terrains necessitated support for even those, who could have been more independent otherwise. Awareness about possible adaptations and conviction that even persons with severe impairments could manage a lot on their own with appropriate training and support, may have been lacking.

- Non-outcome oriented RDT services and benefits – Majority participants with disabilities and their families reported having availed of many RDT services and benefits. They had also expressed that they would have been in a much worse situation without these. Yet, these services and benefits do not seem to be targeting either the main issues of concern for future care needs or reducing the overall impact of impairment in some. For example, in spite of provision of some education and vocational/skill training to a few of the participants, these had not helped them to have sustainable livelihoods. Provision of physiotherapy, and aids and appliances had not resulted in life-skills enhancement or desired/meaningful level of independence within and outside homes. Financial (pension, children’s savings, loans etc.) and housing benefits were being utilized by and impacting more the families in most cases rather than the persons with disabilities themselves.

- No services exist to work with the community services and facilities (e.g. schools, places of employment, transport, local markets etc.) in order to make them accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities. This results in persons with disabilities grossly underachieving in many domains of life.

- No services exist for either training of carers or preparation of family members other than primary carers for transition of care of the disabled family member.

4.2.4 Factors Promoting Safe Future or Lifelong Care Provision by Family Members

- The 4 participants/families for whom the future living needs were not a concern yet, had certain things in common. All the 4 of them required very minimal or no support in self-care or mobility. All were contributing within the family in the form of house hold work; or land as an asset that was being used by the extended family carers for livelihood; or in the form of hope for evolving capacities leading to self reliance with the help of RDT services.

80

- Many disabled participants/families viewed training in daily living activities, accessible environment inside and outside homes, financial support, housing, and sustainable livelihoods as facilitators of secure futures.

- Good neighbourhood relationships and close friends proved to be a great support for supported living.

- The presence of RDT supported SHG in the village and its membership had been providing a great sense of belongingness and a source of support for present and future needs.

4.2.5 Emerging Positive Indicators for Supported Family/Community Living

- Except a couple of carers looking for an ashram or an orphanage for their disabled family member, none of the rest had a current need for supported living outside the family – although there were concerns for the future. Even the homeless participant living in a temporary shelter, wanted a house to be built for him and not a residential institute.

- Most of the community groups seemed quite aware of persons with disabilities in their communities along with their situation and needs. They seemed quite willing to take responsibilities like provision of food and clothing for persons with disabilities in need. Even though they did not want to do anything about their self-care needs, yet they had collectively taken full care of an alone disabled woman for three years until she passed away.

- Neighbourhood members and friends were reported helping in cooking and other chores on regular basis for one of the participants.

- SHGs have emerged as a great potential factor for positively contributing to make supported family/community living a reality for persons with life-long high support needs.

- Currently community groups and SHGs do recommend residential institutional care for disabled persons with life-long high support needs to be provided by RDT or Govt. Most likely they are doing so because of lack of awareness about any other sustainable community living models.

4.3 Conclusion

Persons with severe physical impairments, mental impairments, multi-disability and a few with visual impairment in the qualitative study, are emerging as more likely to be having life-long support needs. Associated health conditions (like epilepsy), behaviour problems and poverty make them most vulnerable. This group of persons seems to be also more vulnerable to negative attitudinal beliefs and abuse. The in-depth understanding of the situation of these disabled participants further confirms that many of the RDT services that are reaching out to particularly this group of persons, are not able to reduce the impact of their impairments in their lives. As a result

81

persons initially with low support needs also tend to become individuals requiring high support in their adulthood. This situation exists in spite of the fact that some families are surviving mainly because of RDT’s support services.

The key findings help understand that the supported living needs of persons with disabilities form a range of needs depending on the level of support required by the person in various life domains. This range may vary from low support to very high support needs. It appears that barring a couple of families, all other persons with disabilities/families are looking for life-long care support within the family system. There are also favourable SHG and community indicators for exploring supported living options at family/community level.

82

5. Recommendations

These recommendations are focusing on the alternatives for long-term care and support needs of persons with disabilities. These are based on an understanding that has emerged from the study that the long-term care and support needs of disabled persons are not just dependent on the severity of their impairment. These needs are not delinked from the appropriate opportunities that services/benefits provide for overall capacity building of disabled persons. These also heavily depend on the attitudes and accessibility/inclusivity of family, community and state resources. In other words even a person with severe impairment/s when gets appropriate support for capacity building, and inclusive family and community environment, their long-term care needs may become minimal or their provision better organized for quality of life. Whereas, in the absence of appropriate capacity building support, and presence of barriers within family and community, even a person with mild-moderate impairment may require maximum long-term care with much less quality of life.

5.1 General Recommendations

In the last 12 years of its CBR work, RDT has reached out to many rural communities where persons with disabilities live in darkness figuratively and literally. Thousands of persons with disabilities and their families have been provided many services and benefits over these years. RDT has contributed greatly to the development and capacity building of many persons with disabilities. Yet, the fact remains that a large section of disabled persons is not able to utilize the services/benefits for their development and quality of life. Also a large number of disabled persons in the project areas of RDT have still not been reached out to.

After having built a strong foundation of its disability work, and with all the resources of its development work with the rural communities, RDT has probably reached a critical phase where it needs to reflect upon its overall approach of addressing issues of disabled persons. RDT may have to strategically incorporate the emerging national and international environment vis-à-vis disability rights, laws and policies. This reflection process may greatly facilitate bridging the gaps in the service delivery.

The reflection process may require the following aspects to be considered:

• Specific services for persons with disabilities would need to have a life span approach that seamlessly address the changing development needs of a disabled person in transition from child to adolescent to a young adult to an adult and towards an old age.

• Specific services for persons with disabilities would have to address all domains of life for a quality of life outcome. For example: education, health, sustainable livelihood, socio-political and cultural integration, independent/supported living, accessibility etc.

83

• Specific services for persons with disabilities would need to focus on life skill outcomes. The meaning of life-skill outcomes would have to be broadened to include all persons with disabilities with varying and evolving capacities. In other words for example, the purpose of education would have come out of its shell of 3Rs to address the learning needs of not only persons with physical impairments but that of persons with mental impairments as well. Similarly, sustainable livelihoods may have to be understood in terms of meaningful engagement in daily routine and effective social security measures for persons with very severe impairments. Alternative effective methods with adaptations and innovations for communication, self-care, mobility, etc. would have to be explored and accessed for disabled persons requiring these.

• A strategic approach would have to be developed to link with and build capacities of all community resources and facilities to become equally accessible and inclusive for all persons with disabilities.

There are current opportunities as well in this direction. There is a need to get involved with the Government’s current efforts of bringing in new policies and programmes to ensure these address issues of disabled persons as well – For example, a new National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) with 3% reservation for disabled people, which would also have component of livelihood oriented skill training, must have inclusive processes for training and employment; there is a need to ensure that an adult person with disability is considered an individual entity for issuing of ration card, health insurance, BPL card etc.; there is a need to advocate for and ensure capacity building of regular schools/colleges and teachers to have inclusive practices for all disabled persons for school and higher education.

• There would also be a need for new human resource and additional capacity building of existing human resource.

RDT may not be able to work with all the above mentioned areas by itself, but would need to have an overall view of the ‘whole’, to be able to make strategic and impact oriented choices for its disability work. For this reason RDT may have to first inform itself about the newly emerging national and international disability related environment. There are a few other organizations involved in exploring the strategic direction post United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in the country. It would be useful for RDT to liaison with such organizations and develop a way forward collectively. A few examples of the organizations are like Saarthak, New Delhi; AADI, New Delhi; BasicNeeds India, Bangalore;

5.2 Specific Recommendations for Supported Living for Disabled Persons with Long–Term Care Needs

The following specific recommendations have attempted to address the key findings of the study in relation to supported living of persons with long-term care needs. These are based on the emerging understanding that the supported living measures

84

would have to be flexible and innovative to match up with the varied support needs of persons with different disabilities. The recommendations have been derived from the experiences of and evolving discussions within the larger disability sector among the persons with disabilities and disability NGOs. At this stage these are only ideas, so must be explored extensively with RDTs own disabled persons’ SHGs, their families and other community groups for feasibility, modifications, and/or new ideas. The evolving supported living models at RDT may become pioneer models for the rural India.

The recommendations below do not intend to undermine the efforts of village volunteers, peer group or neighbours in providing care support at times. In fact, an awareness can be generated in the community for such volunteering among youths, women’s groups etc. The SHGs and the other community groups can also support in this endeavour. But it must be understood that any support that is voluntary, may not be sustainable on a long term basis. Thus, sustainable alternatives to long-term care requirements would have to be thought out on appropriate remuneration basis and systematized.

5.2.1 Facility of a trained Community Carer at Panchayat level for Supported Living

One of the main concerns of persons with disabilities and/or their family members in the study was related to life-long self-care support. It has been observed that in case of PWD/family when able to access such a care-support from outside, a lot of the care concerns get addressed and the life of main carer/s is minimally impacted. It also motivates other family members to stay positively involved in the life of the disabled family member.

A trained community carer at a panchayat level would be able to provide exactly such a support to one or more persons with disabilities/families in the village – depending on the intensity of the support required. He/she can also provide the kind of support study participants with visual impairment needed, if so desired and to others as well– for example, support in cooking; in outside mobility for shopping, banking, leisure etc. A community carer can make a huge qualitative difference in the life of a person with severe impairments – a) by providing wider opportunities in the disabled person’s life and b) by relieving family members to do other things, which in turn would improve the quality of their relationship with the disabled family member.

In any panchayat area where such a need arises, a person/s from the community can be identified to work as a carer and undergo the required training. Some persons with disabilities or family members may also be interested in doing such a work. The training can be obtained at centers that run a short term course for community carers (called Sahyogi), supported by National Trust. RDT can also get one or two of their staff members to train as master trainers of community carers at AADI, New Delhi. The master trainers, as RDT’s internal human resource, can then train such community carers at the organizational level only. There can be various options for the source of the salary of the community carer – for e.g. panchayat can utilize the money from the 3% reserved budget for persons with disabilities (a policy most likely to follow from

85

11th Five Yr. Plan and the new disability law); and/or RDT can sponsor such a support; and/or the disabled persons/families using the services of the community carer can themselves contribute towards it. Disabled persons’ SHGs can also advocate for the inclusion of the job of the community carer as a scheduled work under NREGA.

Panchayat, the village SHG and other community groups with the help of the users can supervise the work of the community carer.

5.2.2 Personal Assistant to Person with Disability towards Independent Living

Many disabled persons with severe impairments are unable to achieve their potential in various domains of life because they are dependent on their family members for any movement inside/outside the house. Understandably, family members cannot spend so much time with their disabled family member. As a result such disabled persons end up staying mainly at home and being cared for basic necessities of life (food, self-care) only. Under such circumstances, the lives of many primary carers and especially that of persons with disabilities become very limiting. As time passes the concerns for long-term care grow larger and larger. The current study has also projected such findings.

In contrast, it has been reported that persons with even severe impairments requiring high support have done wonders by utilizing services of a day-time or live-in Personal Assistant. They have shown to manage education, job, leisure, social relationships etc. with the support of such a personal assistant. This arrangement also provides livelihood to another person. The financial support provided by the Govt. and RDT can be directed towards supporting the salary of a personal assistant. As and when the disabled person begins to earn his/her livelihood, he/she may be able to partly or fully support the salary of the personal assistant. It provides an opportunity to a person with disability to think of a life of their own and at their own terms. This is likely to bring more qualitative changes in the life of a person with disability and family.

A personal assistant has now been recognized as fundamental to quality of life of persons with high support needs in UNCRPD and WHO CBR Guidelines.

5.2.3 Community Group/Respite Home at Panchayat Level

For such persons with disabilities, who have no family left and who may not be able/want to live alone even with the services of a community carer or a personal assistant, or those who may choose/need to live away from family, a facility of a Community Group Home could be thought of at a panchayat level. Such a group home should be based within the village community and built on a land provided by the panchayat. It would facilitate the socialization and integration of the residents within the community and their extended family. The Group Home can provide a home not only to persons with disabilities but to any person in the community with such a need – for example, old persons, abandoned/orphaned child, a single woman needing shelter etc. Such a home can also provide temporary respite care to persons with disabilities/families, who may require it from time to time for various reasons.

86

The residents of the home can contribute towards managing the collective living to the extent possible. They can participate in making decisions regarding the running of the house and the activities they want in their lives. Those who can and want to work outside the home, may require services of a personal assistant.

In any village there are not likely to be more than 1-4 persons requiring such a facility. The funds for such a Group Home (Care staff, infrastructure, recurring expense, etc.) can come from the panchayat, and/or RDT, and/or the community. National Trust could also be approached for funding. The residents can avail of all the Govt’s. social security schemes that they are entitled to, which can reduce the need for outside funding. The families of residents and working residents of the group home could also contribute financially.

5.2.4 Independent Living Resource Centre (ILRC)

These kinds of resource centers have been pioneered by the internationally known Independent Living (IL) Movement (http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/), started by persons with disabilities themselves, in many countries. RDT can consider adapting and promoting such resource centers as explained below:

The IL movement emphasizes individual empowerment and control over decision-making of persons with disabilities. The IL concept emphasizes that people with disabilities can best identify their own needs. The IL concept also stresses that people with disabilities can have productive lives in the community through self-help, empowerment, advocacy, and the removal of environmental, social, and economic barriers.

While each ILRC is unique, all are based on a set of guiding principles that are central to the IL philosophy: like consumer control, cross disability, community based, non-profit, and promotion of integration and full participation. In order to ensure consumer controlled policy directions and insights, the majority of the ILRC’s group members are persons who have disabilities.

Among the things that ILRCs do are information and referral, peer support, individual advocacy, and service development in the community. The ILRCs provide people who have disabilities with self-management skills, self-confidence, tools, support, and resources, which make it possible for individuals to achieve their personal goals. ILRCs are not providers of services such as support for independent living or rehab/other day programs. But guide the individuals, help in problem solving, link them to appropriate resources and monitor the existing services. ILRCs, also liaison with the existing community services and facilities to make them more accessible and inclusive for persons with disabilities.

RDT can promote such centers with minimal infrastructure and training of disabled people at mandal level. Such a centre can link effectively with each village SHG and have a much wider reach. The centre may also be linked to mandal level federation wherever it exists. The necessary funding on long term basis can be sought from the Govt.’s mandal level administration.

http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/drilm/

87

5.2.5 The Australian Government’s Inquiry into Long-Term Care and Support to Persons with Disabilities

Source: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/progserv/govtint/Pages/feasibility_study.aspx

As part of the National Disability Strategy, the Australian Government has commissioned an Inquiry into a long-term care and support scheme for people with disability in Australia. The Inquiry is being conducted by an Australian Productivity Commission, which is examining a range of approaches for providing long-term care and support to persons with disabilities. These also include consideration of the costs, benefits and feasibility of a social insurance model. The Productivity Commission's Inquiry began in April 2010 and report will be ready by July 2011. RDT may look at the final report and may consider various ideas emerging from the Inquiry, as this inquiry is focusing on exactly the issues RDT wants to address.

The Inquiry is based on the commitment of the Australian Government to finding the best solutions to improve care and support services for people with disabilities. The Productivity Commission will examine alternative approaches to funding and delivering disability services with a focus on early intervention and long-term care by undertaking an Inquiry into long-term care and support. The Inquiry will assess the costs, including cost effectiveness, benefits and feasibility of an approach which:

• provides long-term essential care and support for eligible people with a severe or profound disability, on an entitlement basis;

• is intended to cover people with disability acquired early in life rather than as

the natural process of ageing; • calculates and manages the costs of long-term care and support for people with

severe and profound disability;

• replaces existing funding for the eligible population;

• ensures a range of support options are available, including individualized approaches;

• provides care and support for each person taking into account their desired

outcomes over their lifetime; • includes a coordinated package of care services which covers accommodation

support, aids and equipment, respite, transport and a range of community participation and day programs available for a person's lifetime;

• assists the person with disability to make decisions about their support; and

• provides supports for people to undertake employment where possible.

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/progserv/govtint/Pages/feasibility_study.aspx

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/disability/progserv/govtint/Pages/nds.aspx

88

The above Inquiry is likely to bring out a lot of insights into the issues in hand, even though these would be from a country very different from India.

5.2.6 Pilots of Supported Living Projects in India

National Trust and PARIWAR (All India Parents’ Association) in collaboration with Inclusion International (http://www.inclusion-international.org/) have piloted a few Supported Living Projects in the country for persons with severe impairments. There is no report yet of their relevance, impact and efficiency. RDT staff can visit these projects for more information.

References

• Census (2001). Census Data of India, Government of India.

• District Data – Census (2001). In Hand Book of Statistics: Anantapur District. Chief Planning Officer, Anantapur.

• D.R.P.I. (July, 2009). Monitoring the Human Rights of People with Disabilities: Country Report, Andhra Pradesh, India. Disability Rights Promotional International (D.R.P.I.), Toronto. Retrieved April, 2011, from http://www.yorku.ca/drpi/files/IndiaCountryReport.pdf

• NSSO (2002). 58th Round. Govt. of India.

• Walia, G.K. (2010). Disability. South Asia Network for Chronic Disease

• WHO (2011). World Report on Disability. World Bank and WHO.

• The World Bank Report (May, 2007). People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes. World Bank.

• Chaudhari, L. (Nov. 2006). Disability, Health and Human Rights. Cehat, Mumbai.

http://www.inclusion-international.org/

http://www.yorku.ca/drpi/files/IndiaCountryReport.pdf

1

Annexures

Annexure I ........................................................................................................3

TERMS OF REFERENCE ............................................................................................. 3

Annexure II a....................................................................................................7

QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOL.......................................................... 7

Annexure II b ...................................................................................................8

REFERENCE GUIDE FOR QUANTITATIVE DATA TOOL...................................... 8

Annexure III a.................................................................................................11

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE............................................................................11

Annexure III b ................................................................................................14

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE........................................................................... 14

Annexure IV a ................................................................................................18

FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR SHGs............................................. 18

Annexure IV b ................................................................................................20

FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS ............ 20

Annexure V.....................................................................................................21

FIELD WORK GUIDELINE ....................................................................................... 21

Annexure VI a ................................................................................................23

AGE AND GENDER BASED COMPILATION OF STUDY POPULATION............ 23

Annexure VI b ................................................................................................25

AGE AND GENDER BASED COMPILATION OF STUDY POPULATION............ 25

Annexure VI c.................................................................................................28

STATUS OF READING/WRITING, MONEY HANDLING AND SKILL TRAINING........................................................................................................................................ 28

2

Annexure VI d ................................................................................................30

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF POPULATION......................................................... 30

Annexure VI e ................................................................................................35

MARITAL STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION........................................................ 35

Annexure VI f .................................................................................................38

HEALTH STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION.......................................................... 38

Annexure VI g ................................................................................................40

STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS................................................................. 40

Annexure VI h ................................................................................................41

STATUS OF GROUP MEMBERSHIPS OF STUDY POPULATION ........................ 41

Annexure VI i .................................................................................................43

MOBILITY AND SELF-CARE STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION ...................... 43

Annexure VI j .................................................................................................46

STATUS OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PARTICIPATION ..................................... 46

Annexure VI k ................................................................................................48

STATUS OF RDT AND GOVT. SERVICES AND BENEFITS................................... 48

3

Annexure I

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Background information and rationale for the study:

A study to develop a need based and appropriate supported living program for persons with disabilities for RDT

Introduction:

The Rural Development Trust (RDT), Anantapur, has been working with disabled people for the last 23 years. This work is both community based and institutional based. Neither of which are mutually exclusive. RDT also works with women, marginalized farmers in the areas of, livelihood, health, education, natural regeneration and so on.

RDT has recognised over the last few years that families, communities and institutions where RDT works find themselves inadequate to support adolescents with severe impairment to live a quality and meaningful life. To address this need, RDT is commissioning a study to develop a need based and appropriate supported living program for persons with severe impairments. RDT’s current understanding of “supported living” is that it addresses all the needs of people with severe impairments to live a quality and meaningful life with the active participation and ownership of such people and other people with disabilities, their organisation, their care givers the community where they live, RDT institutions and RDT as a whole. It is envisaged that the government will also be a stakeholder in this program.

RDT contacted a number of agencies and individuals in different countries to learn about “Supported living” programs. Since it could not find any appropriate program, it has decided to commission this study.

A. Aim of the study

The aim is for RDT to develop a need based and appropriate supported living program for persons with disabilities based on an assessment of RDT’s work with all disabled persons, their families and communities in the selected areas.

To fulfill the above aim, the following study will be carried out:

The study will focus on examining the baseline status and need for supported living of persons with disabilities in the selected areas. It will also analyse the impact of RDTs disability work with all persons with disabilities, their families and communities in the selected areas. Based on the findings and the recommendations of the study the team will identify options and opportunities for quality life with dignity through supported living.

B. Title of the study

‘Study of the social, economic, political, civil and cultural status, and supported living needs of persons with disabilities in selected areas of RDT’s coverage.’

4

C. Objectives of the study

1. To collect and record qualitative and quantitative data on the social, economic, political, civil and cultural status of persons with disabilities in general, and of those in need of supported living in particular, in the selected areas.

2. To identify future living needs and aspirations of persons with disabilities in need of supported living, and related issues, in the selected areas.

3. To analyse the data with reference to universal measurables (such as UNCRC, UNCRPD, Purchasing power parity, Human development index and CEDAW) to assess the present status of quality of life for such persons with disabilities.

4. To undertake a data based assessment on the process and impact of RDT’s (centralized and community based) programs with persons with disabilities, their families and communities in general, and those in need of supported living in specific, in the selected areas.

5. To identify compatibility of and changes required in RDT’s approach to its

work with persons with disabilities, their families and communities, in order to address the supported living needs and issues of persons with disabilities in the selected areas.

D. Methodology for the study Literature review: (available with RDT e.g. annual reports, any evaluation reports, audio & visual materials)

1. Formation of a study team. The team is to consist of: - a principal consultant researcher, who will direct the whole study, collate

and analyse the data, and produce the final study report. - a coordinator and 2-3 study team members at an organizational level, who

will assist in preparation work and collection of data for the study. - an advisory committee of 3 members, which would monitor and validate

the progress of the study (including the ethical issues), and enable course corrections as found necessary.

2. Generation of data: This will be the main body of the study. Primary, secondary and tertiary data for the study will be collected from appropriate and authentic sources. The source for primary data will be the primary stakeholders of the RDT’s program for persons with disabilities. Secondary data will be provided by RDT staff and the data bank maintained by RDT program management. Sources of tertiary data will be referral documents such as policies of the Government, global concept notes and position papers on disability and development. Generation of data for the study will be the key role of the study team. The study team will adopt culturally appropriate, disability friendly and gender equity and sensitivity methods and techniques (such as individual interviews, focus group discussions, small group work, non-verbal communication etc.) for generation of primary data from the primary stakeholders.

5

3. Processing of data: The primary and secondary data that has been generated for the study will be authenticated through appropriate sources for processing, and collated and analysed. The key findings will be discussed in relation to the tertiary data. The recommendations of Phase One will be presented based on the key findings.

4. Documentation of the study: The document of the study will be the final

product which will be in English. The study report will consist of 7 chapters. The main body of the report (chapters 3-6) will contain a maximum of 30-50 pages.

4.1. Executive summary (1-3 pages) 4.2. Chapter 1: General information about the study (2-3 pages) 4.3. Chapter 2: Methodology (2-4 pages) 4.4. Chapter 3: Analysis of quantitative and qualitative data (primary and

secondary) related to persons with disabilities. 4.5. Chapter 4: Analysis of data related to impact assessment of RDT’s

disability work. 4.6. Chapter 5: Discussion based on findings of chapters 3 & 4, and

tertiary data. 4.7. Chapter 6: Recommendations (1-2 pages) 4.8. Annexures

5. Sample for the study: We could have two Mandals as Sample Size:

Mandal “A” – RDT has educational and rehabilitation institutions for persons with disabilities and initiated comprehensive programs for people with disabilities and other marginalised people for a period of 10 years and more.

Mandal “B” – RDT has no educational and rehabilitation institutes but has initiated different programs for people with disabilities and other marginalised people for a period of 5 years and more.

6. Validation of the study: The draft of the study will be circulated to all the stakeholders connected with the study. Feedback received from the stakeholders will be incorporated as found necessary by the advisory committee. The validation of the study will be through a workshop where the outcome of the study will be presented to the invitees. Acknowledgement by the invitees will mark the official validation and conclusion of the study.

G. Duration of the study

The study will be planned and implemented over a period of 30 working days, spread over 3 months.

Breakup of the 30 working days is as follows:

1. Preparatory: team formation, conceptualization of and preparation for the study, marking of the starting point: 7 days

2. Desk study: Collection of secondary & tertiary data 3 days

6

3. Primary data generation: interaction with primary stakeholders: 7 days

4. Analysis of data: collation, analyses and drafting of report: 10 days

5. Validation of report draft: Feedback on draft, validation workshop, final version of the study report: 3 days

7

Annexure II a

QUANTITATIVE DATA COLLECTION TOOL

Name of PWD Year of First

Contact with RDT Village Age

Gen-der

Community Disability and Description

Education

Occu pation

Household Annual Income

Marital Status Health Status Disability Certificate Other Govt. Cards RDT Services RDT Benefits Govt. Services

Govt. Benefits

Status in SHG

Status in other Community

Groups

Status in Local Self Governing Bodies

Self Owned Assets

Aids & Appliances

School/ College

Reading & Writing

Money Handling

Skill Training

Self Care Mobility Communication Leisure House Work Relationships Participation in Social Activities

Support Network Shelter Status Difficult Circumstances Any Other

8

Annexure II b

REFERENCE GUIDE FOR QUANTITATIVE DATA TOOL

Disability and Description

Diagnoses if known, Type of disability, Age of Onset, Any other

Occupation

Agriculture, Agriculture labour, Other labour works, Petty Business, Mini-Hotel, Artisanship (Weaving/Black smith/Goldsmith/ Carpentry), Skill Based Works (Tailoring/Basket Making/Rope Making/ Electricians/Masonry/Driving/Painting/Book Binding/ Others specify, Service oriented works (Barber/Dhobi/ Stone Cutter/Others, specify), Govt./Private Job, Not doing any work/Idle, Domestic works Marital Status

Married, Live-in Relationship, Single, Divorced, Widow/Widower, Married but deserted, Separated

Number of Children

Health Status

General health condition, Any medical condition, on medication or in need of treatment, any surgeries done/pending

Other Govt. Cards

Ration Card, NREGA Card (Job Card), Antyodaya Card, Annapurna Card, Arogyasree Card, Voter ID Card RDT Services

Sprinklers, Drip System, Horti-culture, Land Development, School Material, School Uniform, Education Assistance, Corporate Education, Special Education, Vocational Training, Aids and Appliances, Sanitation, Physiotherapy and other therapies, Surgeries, Medical Assistance (Referrals) RDT Benefits

Children’s Saving, Pension Scheme, IGP Loans, PDF, Housing, Sewing Machine, Solar Systems

Govt. Services

Medical Certificate, Aids and Appliances, Special Schools, A.P.R. Schools, Bridge Schools, Regular Schools/ Colleges, Hostels

Govt. Benefits

Travel Concession, Pension, Student Scholarships, Loans, House sites, Housing

9

SHG Status

Member or not, if yes holding any leadership position (president, secretary etc.)

Status in other Community Groups

Community Development Committee (CDC), Women’s Group, Watershed Committee, Mothers’ Committee, Network Groups

Status in Local Self Governing Bodies

Village Panchayat, Vidhya Committee, Health Committee, Indira Kranti Phatakam (IKP) Women’s Group, Watershed Committee, IKP Women’s Network Group

Self Owned Assets

Land, House, Savings, Milching Animals, Live stock, Gold/Silver etc.

School/College (Past, Present)

Open/Regular/Special/Non formal/Adult Education/ Supplementary Schools; Govt., Private, RDT; At village, town, Boarder- Non-boarder

Class (including Aanganwadi-Balwadi, Preschool)/Course in College

Reading & Writing

Literate/Non-literate, Only reading or both, Basic reading-writing for daily use or advance

Self Care (with or without support)

Eating, Toileting, Washing oneself, Dressing, Brushing teeth, Shaving, Grooming

Mobility

With /without aids, indoor/outdoor, using public transport, driving

Communication

Written, verbal, gestures, signing, no communication

House Work (Independent/Assisting)

Cooking, cleaning, washing, shopping, child care, animal caring, gardening getting water/firewood etc.

Relationships

Family, Relatives, Neighbours, Friends

Participation in Social Activities

Religious activities/functions, Local cultural events, Birthdays, Marriages, Festivals etc.

Support Network

Within Family, Outside Family, personal assistant/carer

10

Shelter Status

Living with family/own shelter/orphanage/Abandoned and living in temporary shelter/ RDT Hostel

Difficult Circumstances

Social: No interaction with others; Is not counted as family member; No education; Not attending social functions; Lack of adequate food/nutrition; Not adequately clothed; Domestic violence; Lack of recreation; Lack of dignity; Health: Poor hygiene, No bathing, Lack of health care; Psychological/Others: Vocally abused, Physically abused, Sexually abused, Locked up, tied up

11

Annexure III a

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE Informant – Person with Disability

1. What do you feel about your life?

Supplementary questions

How satisfied and happy are you with your life?

How is your life different from others in the family and community? If yes, why?

How much control do you have of your own life? How free do you feel to take decisions about your own life by yourself?

What opportunities/options do you feel you have in your life?

How do you communicate with others? What do you feel about it?

What kind of daily routine do you have? Is it according to your needs and choices or is it dependent on others?

How do you manage your daily self-care activities? How do you feel about it?

How do you manage your other life activities like house-hold work, shopping for self and house-hold, banking, collecting water and firewood etc?

How satisfied you are with your health status?

How do you manage when you fall sick or you are in need of medical assistance?

What do you know about your impairment and how do you feel about it?

Why did you - not study at all/ dropped out of school/ not went for higher education?

What problems did you face to continue with your education?

How satisfied are you with your occupation and monthly earnings? Or Why are you not employed? What difficulties are you facing in finding any kind of employment?

How much control do you have of your own money? Or Do you have access to any amount of money for spending on your own needs?

How satisfied are you with your married life? What difficulties are you facing in your marriage, if any? Or Why have you not pursued the idea of marriage for yourself?

Are you facing specifically difficult circumstances? What are those and what would you like to do about it?

12

2. How do you feel about being in the family?

Supplementary Questions

What do you think of your relationship with your parents, siblings and others at home?

Do you feel cared for and loved in the family?

Do you feel included as part of your family by your parents/ other family members?

What do you feel about your status within the family? What kind of discrimination (if any) have you faced within your family because of your disability?

Do you get to meet/visit your relatives?

Do you get emotional support from your parents/ other family members to share your feelings/ joys/ sorrows?

Do you participate with your parents/ family members in religious and social functions at home or in the community such as marriages, village festivals or any other village gathering?

Who are your main supporters in the family, and whom can you trust and bank upon in case of a crisis?

3. How do you feel about being in your community (like in school, at work, in the neighbourhood, social gatherings, community meetings etc.)?


How do you feel about the attitude of your close and larger community towards you?

Do you have friends to share your life with? Do you get to spend time with them or go out with them?

What do you think about your status within the community? How have you been able to utilize community memberships (if any) to address your needs or grievances?

What kind of discrimination (if any) have you faced in the community because of your impairment?

Do you know of people in your community who can be/ are your supporters, and whom you can trust and bank upon in case of a need?

4. What obstacles do you face in moving around freely and in making use of services in the community?


How accessible is your house to you according to your impairment needs, especially toilets and bathrooms?

How accessible is the public transport system for you?

13

How do you manage to access community facilities like markets, eating places and recreational places (cinema halls etc.)? If not, why?

How do you manage to access community/ public services like aanganwadis/schools, health services, banks, post-office, religious places, toilets etc? If not, why?

How do you manage to access government authorities at their village, mandal or district headquarters? If not, why?

Have you ever been denied/ prevented from using community facilities/services? How do you feel about it?

5. What do you think your needs/aspirations are and how these are being met?

6. What needs/aspirations are not being met and why?

7. How do you think they can be met?

8. What do you know about your rights/ entitlements?


Have you ever advocated for any of your rights/ entitlements? Give details.

Have you ever voted?

9. How do you feel about your future?


What are your main worries about your future?

How secure (physically, emotionally and financially) do you feel about your future?

What will make you feel secure/address your worries about your future?

10. How do you feel about the future of your family?

11. What are all the RDT services to people that you know of?

12. What RDT services you are getting now and how have they contributed to changes in your life?


How satisfied are you with the services related to your impairment needs and how have they impacted your life?

What impact has SHG membership had on your life?

13. What services would you like to have from RDT to meet your current and future needs?

14. If RDT services were not available to you what would have been your situation today?

14

Annexure III b

INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEW GUIDE Informant – Carer

1. What do you feel about the life of your son/daughter?


How satisfied and happy is your son/daughter (or you) with his/her life?

How is your son’s/daughter’s life different from others in the family and community? If yes, why?

How much control does your son/daughter have over his/her own life? How free does he/she feel to take decisions about his/her own life?

What opportunities/options do you feel your son/daughter has in his/her life?

How does your son/daughter communicate with others? How does he/she (or you) feel about it?

What kind of daily routine does your son/daughter have? Is it according to his/her needs and choices or is it dependent on others?

How does your son/daughter manage his/her daily self-care activities? How does he/she feel about it?

How does your son/daughter manage other life activities like house-hold work, shopping for self and house-hold, banking, collecting water and firewood etc?

How satisfied is your son/daughter (or you) with his/her health status?

How does he/she (or you with him/her) manage when sick or in need of medical assistance?

What does he/she (or you) know about his/her impairment and how does he/she (or you) feel about it?

Why did he/she - not study at all/ dropped out of school/ not went for higher education?

What problems has he/she faced to continue with his/her education?

How satisfied is he/she with his/her occupation and monthly earnings? Or Why is he/she not employed? What difficulties is he/she facing in finding any kind of employment?

How much control does he/she have over his/her own money? Or Does he/she has access to any amount of money for spending on his/her own needs?

15

How satisfied is he/she with his/her married life? What difficulties is he/she facing in the marriage, if any? Or Why has he/she (or you) not pursued the idea of marriage for him/her?

Is your son/daughter facing specifically difficult circumstances? What are those and what would he/she (or you) like to do about it?

2. How does your son/daughter feel about being in the family?


What does he/she (or you) think of his/her relationship with the parents, siblings and others at home?

Does he/she feel loved and cared for in the family?

Does he/she feel being included as part of his/her family by the parents/ other family members?

What does he/she (or you) feel about his/her status within the family? What kind of discrimination (if any) he/she has faced within the family because of his/her disability?

Does he/she get to meet/visit the relatives?

Does he/she get emotional support from the parents/ other family members to share his/her feelings/ joys/ sorrows?

Does he/she participate with the parents/ family members in religious and social functions at home or in the community such as marriages, village festivals or any other village gathering?

Who are his/her main supporters in the family, and whom can he/she trust and bank upon in case of a crisis?

3. How does he/she feel about being in the community (like in school, at work, in the neighbourhood, social gatherings, community meetings etc.)?


How does he/she (and you) feel about the attitude of the close and larger community towards him/her?

Does he/she have friends to share life with? Does he/she get to spend time with them or go out with them?

What does he/she (or you) think about his/her status within the community? How has he/she (or you) been able to utilize community memberships (if any) to address his/her needs and grievances?

16

What kind of discrimination (if any) has he/she (or you) faced in the community because of his/her impairment?

Does he/she (or you) know of people in the community who can be/ are his/her supporters, and whom he/she (or you) can trust and bank upon in case of a need?

4. What obstacles does he/she face in moving around freely and in making use of services in the community?


How accessible is his/her house to him/her according to the impairment needs, especially toilets and bathrooms?

How accessible is the public transport system for your son/daughter?

How does he/she (or you with him/her) manage to access community facilities like markets, eating places and recreational places (cinema halls etc.)? If not, why?

How does he/she (or you with him/her) manage to access community/public services like aanganwadis/schools, health services, banks, post-office, religious places, toilets etc? If not, why?

How does he/she (or you with him/her) manage to access government authorities at their village, mandal or district headquarters? If not, why?

Has he/she ever been denied/ prevented from using community facilities/services? How does he/she (and you) feel about it?

5. What does he/she (or you) think his/her needs/aspirations are and how these are being met?

6. What needs/aspirations are not being met and why?

7. How does he/she (or you) think they can be met?

8. What does he/she (and you) know about his/her rights and entitlements?


Has he/she (or you on his/her behalf) ever advocated for his/her rights/ entitlements? Give details.

Has he/she ever voted?

9. How does he/she (and you) feel about his/her future?


What are his/her (and your) main worries about the future?

17

How secure (physically, emotionally and financially) he/she (or you) feels about the future?

How can his/her living needs in the future be addressed?

10. How does your son/daughter think about the future of the family? What do you feel about it?

11. What are all the RDT services to people that your son/daughter (and you) know of?

12. What RDT services your son/daughter is getting now and how have they contributed to changes in his/her life?


How satisfied your son/daughter (and you) is with the services related to your son’s/daughter’s impairment needs and how have they impacted his/her life?

What impact the SHG membership has had on his/her life?

13. What services would your son/daughter (and you) like to have from RDT to meet his/her current and future needs?

14. If RDT services were not available to your son/daughter (and you) what would have been his/her (or your) situation today?

18

Annexure IV a

FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR SHGs

1 Why have you come together as a group?

2 How do you feel about being as a group?

3 How do you support each other mutually? Give Examples.

4 What would you consider as group achievements, which fall outside of material benefits? Give Examples.

5 What do the people in the village think of you as a group? Give Examples.

6 Has anyone else contributed to the well-being of your group? If yes. Who are they and what were their contributions? Is there anyone else or any other way that people can contribute to the well being of your group?

7 In what way your group has contributed to the well–being of the people in the village?

8 What else would you like to do as a group?

9 Who all are included in this group and who all are active? (Check about inclusion of people with multiple or severe impairments)

10 Who are the persons with disability in your village who are neglected, abundant, needing help even for eating, toileting, bathing, dressing/undressing? 11 How would these people continue to live after the life time of their immediate family members? 12 What do you think that you as a group can do to make their life little better now and help them to continue to live? 13 What are the criteria you have set for yourselves as a group to measure your growth and effectiveness? Give Examples.

14 How often do you examine your effectiveness as a group and how do you do it? Give Examples.

15 What are the govt. entitlements for disabled people you know of and what have you availed so far?

16 Are benefits or the entitlements enjoyed by people with severe and multiple disabilities same as others?

17 What are all the RDT services to people that you know of?

18 What RDT services you are getting now and how have they contributed to changes in your life?

19

19 What are the services you require from RDT other than already being offered to meet your current and future needs?

20 When and how will your group work without the support of RDT?

20

Annexure IV b

FOCUSED GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR COMMUNITY GROUPS

1. Are there disabled people in your village and who are they?

2. What do you think about them and their lives?

3. What do you think their needs are?

4. Who is responsible for meeting their needs?

5. How do disabled people contribute in the families/community/village life?

6. How have you as a group contributed to their well being and how else do you think you can contribute?

7. Do disabled people in your community get married, inherit ancestral property, make a livelihood, involved in decision making and participate in social functions?

8. How different is the situation of women with disabilities compared to others in the village including disabled men?

9. Who are the persons with disability in your village who are neglected, abundant, needing help even for eating, toileting, bathing, dressing/undressing?

10. How would these people continue to live after the life time of their immediate family members?

11. What do you think that you as a group can do to make their life little better now and help them to continue to live?

21

Annexure V

FIELD WORK GUIDELINE (Handout for Data Collection Team)

Preparation for Data Collection

Knowing the sample for your team – For Quantitative – Specific individuals and numbers, and Qualitative – Individuals, Sanghas and Community groups

Contacting the participants - individual/family, Sanghas, Community groups for:

- Explaining the purpose of the study – Using the prepared brief

- Taking informed consent (with a right to refuse participation at any stage)

- Fixing time according to the convenience of the participants

- Explain about the need for privacy while using individual interview guide

- Pre fix place for group meetings

- Plan a strategy for Quantitative data collection in a group

Planning team’s time table

Collecting all tools and guidelines

Have a system for storing the data

Using Tools in the Field

Decide who will ask questions and who will write the data.

After initial greetings settle down at an appropriate place.

Explain in brief the purpose of the study, how the data will be used, and that a report will be prepared – the findings of the report will be shared with them. Ask for permission again – as a participant and for writing the data.

Relax the person/group and say that they have the right to refrain from answering any question that they do not want to answer; tell them about ensuring the confidentiality of the data.

Ask open ended questions from the guide in a sequence one by one as they are written.

Ask questions in a non-threatening way and ask supplementary questions for safe probing – for clarity of information.

Interview PWD when they can speak for themselves; Interview only carer when PWD cannot respond in any way (persons with profound mental disabilities); Interview both PWD and support network person/interpreter when communication is difficult.

Carry quantitative data of the person for qualitative individual interview.

22

Make sure each person in a group participates.

Be aware of fatigue factor.

Documentation

Quantitative data – one sheet for one person

Qualitative data:

Fill up profile sheet

- Interview data on loose sheets in narration form – record whatever the person /group is saying

- Provide enough time to think and provide prompts or supplementary questions in case of person/group feeling lost

- Record own reflection after every interview (individual or group) session

Ethical Considerations

Confidentiality

Authenticity

Gender and Disability Sensitivity

Behaviour

During the use of tools remain completely neutral – no judgmental comments, no suggestions

Maintain an attentive, listening attitude

Thank them for their contribution

23

Annexure VI a

AGE AND GENDER BASED COMPILATION OF STUDY POPULATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Age Group M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T

B.K.Samudram - 1999-2010

0-5 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5

6-18 28 16 16 5 27 20 3 5 9 12 5 2 0 0 88 60 148

19-40 96 55 10 0 17 18 13 10 14 11 2 1 0 0 152 95 247

41-60 24 11 0 0 0 3 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 31 20 51

>=61 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

TOTAL 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453

B.K.Samudram – 2011

0-5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 5

6-18 9 7 3 1 4 5 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 0 23 18 41

19-40 31 19 3 2 6 2 6 0 9 4 0 2 2 0 57 29 86

41-60 32 16 0 0 1 2 5 2 4 0 1 0 1 1 44 21 65

>=61 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6

TOTAL 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203

24


Pedda Vaduguru - 1999-2010

0-5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 2 4

6-18 14 16 7 7 10 7 4 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 37 34 71

19-40 53 64 5 5 11 10 9 6 5 3 1 0 0 0 84 88 172

41-60 26 11 0 1 3 0 5 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 37 16 53

>=61 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 4 10

TOTAL 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310

Pedda Vaduguru - 2011

0-5 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

6-18 9 3 4 1 2 6 2 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 20 15 35

19-40 31 35 0 0 12 8 3 6 4 7 0 0 4 1 54 57 111

41-60 43 9 0 0 3 4 8 9 3 2 0 0 1 1 58 25 83

>=61 7 5 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 12 8 20

TOTAL 91 52 5 2 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 146 106 252

Total Population

0-5 2 2 3 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 8 9 17

6-18 60 42 30 14 43 38 11 11 16 19 7 3 1 0 168 127 295

19-40 211 173 18 7 46 38 31 22 32 25 3 3 6 1 347 269 616

41-60 125 47 0 1 7 9 22 16 11 6 3 1 2 2 170 82 252

>=61 18 10 0 0 0 1 5 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 24 14 38

TOTAL 416 274 51 26 97 87 70 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 717 501 1218

25

Annexure VI b

AGE AND GENDER BASED COMPILATION OF STUDY POPULATION


Bukkaraya Samudram 1999-2010

Primary 23 9 4 1 5 5 3 2 8 4 1 0 0 0 44 21 65

Elementary 17 9 1 0 2 3 2 1 4 10 0 0 0 0 26 23 49

Secondary 40 17 2 1 4 2 7 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 58 28 86

Sr.Secondary 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 11

Higher - Edu 28 14 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 15 45

Non-Literate 37 30 15 3 26 23 7 7 7 8 5 2 0 0 97 73 170

Special School 0 0 3 1 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 18

Total 149 82 25 6 44 41 21 18 25 25 6 2 0 0 270 174 444

Bukkaraya Samudram - 2011

Primary 18 8 0 0 3 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 26 12 38

Elementary 12 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 17 3 20

Secondary 10 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 14 0 14

Sr.Secondary 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 8

26


Higher - Edu 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

Non-Literate 26 32 2 3 8 7 8 2 12 5 3 2 1 1 60 52 112

Special School 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Total 76 44 6 3 11 9 13 3 15 7 3 3 4 1 128 70 198

Mandal Peddavaduguru 1999-2010

Primary 16 14 2 2 3 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 24 18 42

Elementary 14 9 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 16 15 31

Secondary 35 31 1 0 1 1 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 45 33 78

Sr.Secondary 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

Higher - Edu 14 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 4 21

Non-Literate 17 34 8 9 18 12 6 8 6 5 2 0 0 0 56 68 124

Special School 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 6

Total 99 94 12 13 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 164 142 306

Mandal Peddavaduguru - 2011

Primary 17 7 2 0 1 2 2 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 26 11 37

Elementary 13 5 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 7 22

Secondary 16 6 0 0 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 20 11 31

27


Sr.Secondary 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4

Higher - Edu 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

Non-Literate 39 33 2 1 12 15 11 16 8 8 0 0 1 0 73 73 146

Special School 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 89 52 4 1 15 19 17 20 11 10 0 0 4 2 140 104 244

Total Study Population

Primary 74 38 8 3 12 9 10 3 12 7 1 1 3 1 120 62 182

Elementary 56 24 4 1 3 6 4 2 5 14 1 0 1 1 74 48 122

Secondary 101 54 4 1 6 5 17 9 7 3 0 0 2 0 137 72 209

Sr.Secondary 17 5 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 20 7 27

Higher - Edu 46 20 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 52 22 74

Non-Literate 119 129 27 16 64 57 32 33 33 26 10 4 2 1 286 266 552

Special School 0 2 4 2 8 9 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 26

Total 413 272 47 23 94 86 69 50 60 51 12 5 8 3 702 490 1192

28

Annexure VI c

STATUS OF READING/WRITING, MONEY HANDLING AND SKILL TRAINING

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Skills M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T

Bukkaraya Samudram 1999-2010

Reading / Writing 119 55 6 2 9 7 12 9 15 17 1 0 0 0 162 90 252

Money Handling 146 76 10 1 15 14 18 12 22 17 1 1 0 0 212 121 333

Skill Training 20 24 0 0 2 3 0 1 5 6 0 0 0 0 27 34 61

None 3 4 13 4 30 24 3 4 2 3 6 1 0 0 57 40 97

Total 288 159 29 7 56 48 33 26 44 43 8 2 0 0 458 285 743

Bukkaraya Samudram -2011

Reading / Writing 46 10 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 2 0 1 2 0 56 17 73

Money Handling 65 27 3 1 3 2 10 2 13 5 0 1 1 0 95 38 133

Skill Training 10 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 3 15

None 7 6 3 2 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1 26 21 47

Total 128 45 9 4 12 12 15 4 17 10 3 3 5 1 189 79 268

29

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Skills M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Reading / Writing 76 58 3 3 1 2 9 0 3 3 2 0 0 0 94 66 160

Money Handling 95 83 4 5 4 6 14 4 9 5 2 0 0 0 128 103 231

Skill Training 20 23 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 22 25 47

None 1 2 8 9 19 11 4 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 33 29 62

Total 192 166 15 17 24 19 28 9 13 12 5 0 0 0 277 223 500


Reading / Writing 46 19 1 0 2 2 4 4 3 1 0 0 2 1 58 27 85

Money Handling 75 51 1 0 3 3 11 13 11 8 0 0 3 1 104 76 180

Skill Training 9 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 12 7 19

None 3 1 3 2 11 13 6 6 0 1 0 0 1 1 24 24 48

Total 133 77 5 2 16 18 22 24 16 10 0 0 6 3 198 134 332

Total

Reading / Writing 287 142 12 6 13 13 28 14 23 23 3 1 4 1 370 200 570

Money Handling 381 237 18 7 25 25 53 31 55 35 3 2 4 1 539 338 877

Skill Training 59 55 1 0 2 3 3 2 8 9 0 0 0 0 73 69 142

None 14 13 27 17 68 56 14 16 4 8 10 2 3 2 140 114 254

Total 741 447 58 30 108 97 98 63 90 75 16 5 11 4 1122 721 1843

30

Annexure VI d

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF POPULATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Occupation Stauts M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Labour 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 7 1 8

Domestic Work 17 26 1 1 13 14 4 5 1 5 2 1 0 0 38 52 90

Agriculture 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 23 2 25

Agriculture Labour 11 6 2 0 1 1 0 2 5 4 0 0 0 0 19 13 32

Petty Business 12 8 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 25

Mini Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artisanship 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Skill Based Works 8 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 24

Service Based Works 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1 12

Private Jobs 11 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 13 6 19

Govt. Jobs 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

No Work 19 12 17 4 20 15 8 5 1 3 6 3 0 0 71 42 113

Student 31 12 5 0 10 8 4 6 8 10 0 0 0 0 58 36 94

Total 149 82 26 5 44 41 21 18 25 25 8 4 0 0 273 175 448

31


B.K.Samudram - 2011

Labour 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 4 9

Domestic Work 8 13 0 1 3 4 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 14 19 33

Agriculture 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 8


Petty Business 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 6

Mini Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artisanship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Private Jobs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Govt. Jobs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

No Work 30 12 2 2 5 5 7 2 1 2 3 2 3 1 51 26 77

Student 7 6 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 15 8 23

Total 76 44 6 3 11 9 13 3 15 7 3 3 4 1 128 70 198

32



Labour 6 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 14 20

Domestic Work 13 19 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 19 27 46

Agriculture 13 9 0 1 2 0 2 1 3 3 0 0 0 0 20 14 34


Petty Business 6 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 6 13

Mini Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artisanship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0



Private Jobs 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Govt. Jobs 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3 14

No Work 12 16 10 10 15 9 8 5 1 0 2 0 0 0 48 40 88

Student 16 12 1 1 5 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 26 17 43

Total 99 94 12 13 24 17 18 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 164 142 306

33



Labour 20 10 0 0 0 1 4 3 7 3 0 0 1 1 32 18 50

Domestic Work 8 13 0 0 2 3 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 0 11 23 34

Agriculture 10 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 6 17


Petty Business 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 7

Mini Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artisanship 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1



Private Jobs 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 5

Govt. Jobs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Work 31 10 2 1 13 11 10 7 1 2 0 0 2 1 59 32 91

Student 4 3 2 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 16

Total 90 52 4 1 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 144 105 249

34


Total

Labour 33 24 1 0 0 2 5 3 10 7 0 0 1 1 50 37 87

Domestic Work 46 71 2 3 20 25 6 12 4 9 2 1 2 0 82 121 203

Agriculture 47 14 1 1 3 0 4 1 5 8 0 0 0 0 60 24 84


Petty Business 27 15 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 32 19 51

Mini Hotel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Artisanship 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4



Private Jobs 13 10 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 15 10 25

Govt. Jobs 12 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 18

No Work 92 50 31 17 53 40 33 19 4 7 11 5 5 2 229 140 369

Student 58 33 10 1 16 12 12 9 11 14 0 0 0 0 107 69 176

Total 414 272 48 22 96 86 69 50 60 52 13 7 9 3 709 492 1201

35

Annexure VI e

MARITAL STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Marital Stauts M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Married 76 32 1 0 0 1 10 4 7 6 0 0 0 0 94 43 137

Single 32 35 6 0 13 20 8 9 4 6 3 2 0 0 66 72 138

Divorced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Widow/ Widower 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Deserted 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 6

Minor 42 11 20 6 32 18 3 6 14 11 5 2 0 0 116 54 170

TOTAL 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453

B.K.Samudram - 2011

Married 55 25 0 0 1 1 5 1 7 1 0 0 1 0 69 28 97

Single 10 8 3 2 4 6 5 1 3 2 1 2 2 0 28 21 49

Divorced 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Widow/ Widower 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 8

Deserted 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Minor 10 6 3 2 6 2 3 1 4 4 2 1 1 0 29 16 45

TOTAL 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203

36



Married 57 36 1 0 2 1 4 2 6 0 2 0 0 0 72 39 111

Single 25 37 4 6 12 9 10 6 1 4 0 0 0 0 52 62 114

Divorced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Widow/ Widower 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 4 6

Deserted 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3

Minor 15 17 8 8 10 7 4 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 40 36 76

TOTAL 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310


Married 62 41 0 0 3 4 9 13 4 5 0 0 1 2 79 65 144

Single 13 6 0 1 12 7 3 3 3 4 0 0 3 0 34 21 55

Divorced 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Widow/ Widower 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Deserted 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 5

Minor 14 3 5 1 2 6 4 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 29 15 44

TOTAL 91 52 5 2 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 146 106 252

37


TOTAL

Married 250 134 2 0 6 7 28 20 24 12 2 0 2 2 314 175 489

Single 80 86 13 9 41 42 26 19 11 16 4 4 5 0 180 176 356

Divorced 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 3

Widow/ Widower 4 9 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 5 14 19

Deserted 1 7 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 12 16

Minor 81 37 36 17 50 33 14 12 24 19 8 3 1 0 214 121 335

TOTAL 416 274 51 26 97 87 70 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 717 501 1218

38

Annexure VI f

HEALTH STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Health Stauts M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Good Health 145 74 21 6 33 31 21 19 23 25 4 4 0 0 247 159 406

Health Problems 5 8 6 0 12 10 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 29 18 47

Total 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453


Good Health 74 41 5 1 8 7 14 3 15 7 1 2 3 1 120 62 182

Health Problems 2 4 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 9 12 21

Total 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203


Good Health 95 89 10 11 22 14 17 8 8 9 2 0 0 0 154 131 285

Health Problems 4 6 3 3 2 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 12 13 25

Total 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310


Good Health 81 45 3 2 12 16 15 19 10 11 0 0 3 1 124 94 218

Health Problems 10 7 2 0 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 22 12 34

Total 91 52 5 2 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 146 106 252

39

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Health Stauts M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T

Total

Good Health 395 249 39 20 75 68 67 49 56 52 7 6 6 2 645 446 1091

Health Problems 21 25 12 6 22 19 3 2 4 1 7 1 3 1 72 55 127

Total 416 274 51 26 97 87 70 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 717 501 1218

40

Annexure VI g

STATUS OF SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS

B.K.Samudram Mandal Peddavadaguru Mandal

1999-2010 Group 2011 Group 1999-2010 Group 2011 Group Total

Social Security Cards

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Total

Disability Certificate 273 174 100 47 162 137 119 95 654 453 1107

Ration Card 265 172 118 62 162 137 136 106 681 477 1158

Job Card 107 45 40 20 91 66 71 48 309 179 488

Antyodaya Card 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 4

Annapurna Card 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arogyasree Card 210 136 85 42 162 135 128 98 585 411 996

Voter ID 154 86 73 36 118 85 110 69 455 276 731

PAN Card 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Pension Book 25 24 4 4 11 15 3 5 43 48 91

Total 1035 639 420 212 707 575 567 421 2729 1847 4576

41

Annexure VI h

STATUS OF GROUP MEMBERSHIPS OF STUDY POPULATION

Male Female Total Groups

Member Leader Member Leader Male Female Total


SHG 216 16 140 12 232 152 384

Community Groups 4 0 21 0 4 21 25

None 42 0 20 0 42 20 62

Local Self Governing Bodies 4 0 7 0 4 7 11

Total 266 16 188 12 282 200 482


SHG 3 0 2 0 3 2 5


None 124 0 52 0 124 52 176


Total 130 0 72 0 130 72 202


SHG 124 19 112 11 143 123 266


None 22 0 13 0 22 13 35


Total 150 19 147 11 169 158 327


SHG 3 0 1 0 3 1 4


None 138 0 90 0 138 90 228


Total 144 0 110 0 144 110 254

42

Male Female Total Groups

Member Leader Member Leader Male Female Total

Total

SHG 346 35 255 23 381 278 659


None 326 0 175 0 326 175 501


Total 690 35 517 23 725 540 1265

43

Annexure VI i

MOBILITY AND SELF-CARE STATUS OF STUDY POPULATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Activities M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T

B.K.Samudram - 1999-2010 Mobility

Independent 112 52 13 2 39 36 9 12 22 24 2 2 0 0 197 128 325

Supported 37 30 9 3 6 5 12 7 3 1 3 2 0 0 70 48 118

Dependent 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 1 10

Total 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453 Self Care Activities

Independent 104 50 10 2 24 26 8 10 17 20 2 2 0 0 165 110 275

Supported 45 32 12 3 21 15 13 9 8 5 3 2 0 0 102 66 168

Dependent 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 9 1 10

Total 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453 B.K.Samudram - 2011 Mobility

Independent 51 31 4 1 10 9 8 3 15 6 1 1 3 1 92 52 144

Supported 22 12 2 1 1 1 5 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 32 17 49

Dependent 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 5 10

Total 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203 Self Care Activities

Independent 49 28 4 1 6 7 7 3 11 5 1 1 1 1 79 46 125

Supported 24 15 2 1 5 3 6 0 4 3 1 1 3 0 45 23 68

Dependent 3 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 5 5 10

Total 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203

44



Mobility

Independent 75 62 3 7 22 12 12 4 9 9 1 0 0 0 122 94 216

Supported 24 28 5 2 2 5 6 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 39 40 79

Dependent 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 15

Total 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310

Self Care Activities

Independent 71 59 4 6 18 9 10 4 9 9 1 0 0 0 113 87 200

Supported 28 31 4 3 6 8 8 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 48 47 95

Dependent 0 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 15

Total 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310


Mobility

Independent 58 42 2 0 14 16 9 16 10 10 0 0 4 2 97 86 183

Supported 24 10 0 1 1 2 10 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 37 18 55

Dependent 5 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 4 13

Total 87 54 5 2 16 19 19 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 143 108 251


Independent 58 34 1 0 9 12 8 12 8 7 0 0 2 2 86 67 153

Supported 28 16 1 1 7 6 9 8 3 4 0 0 2 0 50 35 85 Dependent 5 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 4 14

Total 91 52 5 2 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 146 106 252

45


Total

Mobility

Independent 296 187 22 10 85 73 38 35 56 49 4 3 7 3 508 360 868

Supported 107 80 16 7 10 13 33 16 4 4 6 3 2 0 178 123 301

Dependent 9 9 13 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 28 20 48

Total 412 276 51 26 96 87 72 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 714 503 1217


Independent 282 171 19 9 57 54 33 29 45 41 4 3 3 3 443 310 753

Supported 125 94 19 8 39 32 36 22 15 12 6 3 5 0 245 171 416

Dependent 9 9 13 9 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 29 20 49

Total 416 274 51 26 97 87 70 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 717 501 1218

46

Annexure VI j

STATUS OF SOCIAL AND CULTURAL PARTICIPATION

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Participation in Social Activities

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Full Participation 130 60 10 3 25 25 15 14 24 20 0 1 0 0 204 123 327

Partial Participation 13 14 9 2 13 8 3 2 1 5 5 3 0 0 44 34 78

No Participation 7 8 8 1 7 8 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 28 20 48

Total 150 82 27 6 45 41 21 19 25 25 8 4 0 0 276 177 453

B.K.Samudram - 2011




Total 76 45 6 4 11 10 14 3 15 8 3 3 4 1 129 74 203

Pedda Vaduguru – 1999-2010




Total 99 95 13 14 24 17 18 9 9 9 3 0 0 0 166 144 310

47

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Participation in Social Activities M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T





Total 91 52 5 2 17 19 17 20 11 11 0 0 5 2 146 106 252

Total




Total 416 274 51 26 97 87 70 51 60 53 14 7 9 3 717 501 1218

48

Annexure VI k

STATUS OF RDT AND GOVT. SERVICES AND BENEFITS

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL RDT Services M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Sprinklers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Land Development 31 12 7 1 8 8 5 3 1 6 1 0 0 53 30 83

School Material & Uniform 47 30 9 5 25 18 4 10 16 13 2 1 0 0 103 77 180

Drip System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Edu. Assistance 25 18 0 0 1 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 22 51

Corporate Eduation 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Special Education 2 0 0 2 9 7 2 3 10 9 2 1 0 0 25 22 47

Vocational Training 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 6

Aids & Appliances 21 21 4 0 2 2 1 0 3 5 1 1 0 0 32 29 61

Sanitation 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6

Physio and other Therapies 3 4 8 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 7 19

Surgeries 14 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 9 23

Medical Assistance 42 20 6 1 8 10 1 6 5 4 2 2 0 0 64 43 107

No Services 48 23 5 2 13 9 8 7 8 6 1 1 0 0 83 48 131

Clothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 235 143 39 14 21 55 23 36 44 44 10 6 0 0 418 298 716

49


B.K.Samudram - 2011

Sprinklers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Land Development 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2


Drip System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Edu. Assistance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2




Aids & Appliances 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Sanitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Surgeries 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6


No Services 62 35 4 4 12 6 11 4 16 6 3 2 1 1 109 58 167

Clothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

Total 79 43 10 4 12 8 11 4 16 9 4 4 3 1 135 73 208

50


Peddavaduguru – 1999-2010

Sprinklers 2 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 4 9

Horticulture 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 1 5



Drip System 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Edu. Assistance 8 5 1 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 7 20




Aids & Appliances 20 22 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 23 26 49

Sanitation 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1


Surgeries 7 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 11 18


No Services 45 41 3 3 7 8 13 7 6 3 1 0 0 0 75 62 137

Clothing 3 2 2 0 3 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 10 7 17

Total 132 130 22 20 31 26 22 11 12 11 4 0 0 0 223 198 421

51


Peddavaduguru - 2011

Sprinklers 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Horticulture 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2



Drip System 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Edu. Assistance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1




Aids & Appliances 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7

Sanitation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Surgeries 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1


No Services 77 53 4 2 14 19 17 17 11 11 2 0 2 3 127 105 232

Clothing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 358 316 49 42 77 71 64 42 37 33 10 0 2 3 597 507 1104

52


Total

Sprinklers 3 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 5 11

Horticulture 3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 2 7



Drip System 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Edu. Assistance 36 23 1 0 2 1 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 45 29 74




Aids & Appliances 48 44 6 2 3 2 1 0 4 7 1 1 0 0 63 56 119

Sanitation 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7


Surgeries 24 20 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 22 48


No Services 232 152 16 11 46 42 49 35 41 26 7 3 3 4 394 273 667

Clothing 3 2 2 0 3 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 11 7 18

Total 540 372 76 40 125 108 76 71 85 75 20 10 5 4 927 680 1607

53

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Govt. Services



Aids & Appliances 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 10

Bank Loans 25 17 1 1 2 1 3 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 36 23 59

Govt. Regular Schools/ Colleges 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Housing 5 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 4 12

Job Card 148 71 22 7 60 30 23 18 28 18 5 1 0 0 286 145 431

Medical Certificate 10 6 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 9 24

No Services 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Pension 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surgery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 196 98 28 8 65 33 27 24 35 22 5 1 0 0 356 186 542

54



B.K.Samudram - 2011

Aids & Appliances 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3

Bank Loans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1


Housing 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Job Card 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2


No Services 4 10 1 1 1 3 4 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 13 20 33

Pension 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 4

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surgery 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7

Travel 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Total 98 42 7 5 13 9 13 2 14 9 4 4 2 1 151 72 223

55



Pedda Vadaguru – 1999-2010

Aids & Appliances 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7

Bank Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Job Card 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


No Services 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6

Pension 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surgery 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5

Travel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 112 16 14 26 19 22 11 10 9 4 0 0 0 209 165 374

56



Pedda Vadaguru – 2011

Aids & Appliances 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5

Bank Loans 11 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 5 18


Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Job Card 80 48 3 1 12 18 18 16 11 8 2 0 2 3 128 94 222


No Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pension 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surgery 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Travel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 105 59 5 2 15 19 21 21 12 10 2 0 2 3 162 114 276

57



Total

Aids & Appliances 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 7 25

Bank Loans 37 21 1 1 3 1 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 50 28 78


Housing 6 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 4 13

Job Card 230 119 25 8 72 48 41 34 39 26 7 1 2 3 416 239 655


No Services 5 11 4 2 2 3 4 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 18 22 40

Pension 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 3 6 9

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Surgery 9 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 12

Travel 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Total 530 311 56 29 119 80 83 58 71 50 15 5 4 4 878 537 1415

58

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL RDT Benefits M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F T


Children Saving 50 26 16 6 33 23 5 11 15 14 3 1 0 0 122 81 203

Aids & Appliances 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7

Pension Scheme 6 11 2 0 4 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 17 32

IGP Loans 57 24 4 2 16 11 9 5 7 4 2 0 0 0 95 46 141

PDF 59 19 6 2 10 14 4 7 6 4 1 1 0 0 86 47 133

Housing 18 7 2 0 2 5 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 26 17 43

None 50 23 5 2 13 9 8 7 9 6 1 1 0 0 86 48 134

Sewing Machine 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 9 13

School Material / Uniform 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5

Edu. Assistance 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Solar Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RDT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Corporate Education 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Clothes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 247 120 40 12 82 65 32 36 38 31 7 3 0 0 446 267 713

59


B.K.Samudram - 2011

Children Saving 5 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 7 4 11

Aids & Appliances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pension Scheme 5 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 11

IGP Loans 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5

PDF 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 6

Housing 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 6

None 62 35 4 4 12 6 11 4 16 6 3 2 1 1 109 58 167

Sewing Machine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Edu. Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1

Solar Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RDT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2




Clothes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 83 45 5 5 13 6 12 6 17 8 3 5 2 1 135 76 211

60


Pedda Vadaguru – 1999-2010

Children Saving 13 22 8 6 11 8 3 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 38 40 78

Aids & Appliances 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3

Pension Scheme 0 4 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 10

IGP Loans 28 23 2 2 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 30 67

PDF 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Housing 14 7 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 9 27

None 52 48 2 4 10 9 9 6 8 4 2 0 0 0 83 71 154

Sewing Machine 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 6


Edu. Assistance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Solar Systems 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

RDT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Clothes 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Total 114 117 15 5 16 24 19 9 10 7 3 0 0 0 188 171 359

61


Pedda Vadaguru – 2011

Children Saving 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4

Aids & Appliances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pension Scheme 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

IGP Loans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

PDF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

None 82 52 5 2 15 19 18 17 12 11 2 0 2 3 136 104 240

Sewing Machine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Edu. Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Solar Systems 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

RDT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0




Clothes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 88 53 5 2 15 19 18 18 12 11 2 0 2 3 142 106 248

62


Total

Children Saving 71 50 25 12 44 31 8 13 17 19 4 1 1 0 170 126 296

Aids & Appliances 2 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2 10

Pension Scheme 11 17 3 2 5 5 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26 27 53

IGP Loans 87 51 6 4 20 14 12 7 7 4 2 0 0 0 134 80 214

PDF 66 19 6 2 10 14 4 8 6 4 1 2 0 0 93 49 142

Housing 37 14 4 0 4 7 3 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 49 28 77

None 246 158 16 12 50 43 46 34 45 27 8 3 3 4 414 281 695

Sewing Machine 6 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 13 19


Edu. Assistance 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 4

Solar Systems 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

RDT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2




Clothes 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4

Total 532 335 65 33 137 114 81 69 77 57 15 8 4 4 911 620 1531

63

PI CP&MD ID VI H&SI MUL-DIS MI TOTAL Govt. Benefits

M F M F M F M F M F M F M F M F

Bukkarayasamudram – 1999-2010

Pension 130 68 24 7 27 36 17 18 23 19 6 0 0 1 227 149 376

Student Scholarship 26 8 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 30 12 42

Aid & Appliances 5 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 2 9


Edu. Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bank Loan 15 7 1 1 5 1 1 2 4 2 1 0 0 0 27 13 40

House Sites 48 23 7 0 16 17 6 5 6 9 2 0 0 0 85 54 139

Housing 13 1 0 0 1 4 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 17 6 23

Travel 12 6 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 17 8 25

Total 261 120 36 9 54 62 30 29 37 33 11 0 0 1 429 254 683

64



Bukkarayasamudram – 2011

Pension 47 20 5 5 11 4 4 1 11 5 3 1 1 0 82 36 118


Aids & Appliances 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Loans 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

PDF 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Housesites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 11 3 14

Children Saving 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 4

Travel 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 10 4 14

Job Card 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

No Benefits 16 15 1 2 2 5 8 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 33 28 61

Medical 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 3 7

Total 93 41 6 11 14 9 12 3 16 10 4 4 3 1 148 79 227

65



Pedda Vaduguru – 1999 - 2010

Aids & Appliances 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 7

Special Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Surgery 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 5


Travel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bank Loans 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pension 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Job Card 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

No Services 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 6

Total 131 112 16 14 26 19 22 11 10 9 4 0 0 0 209 165 374

66




Pension 73 50 2 1 11 17 16 14 10 10 2 0 2 2 116 94 210


Aids & Appliances 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Edu. Assistance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

None 18 8 3 1 3 3 4 6 2 2 0 0 0 1 30 21 51

Bank Loan 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 8

House Sites 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 7 9

Housing 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 13 18

Travel 4 2 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 6 11

Total 105 75 5 2 15 21 20 27 13 17 2 0 2 3 162 145 307

status of persons with disabilities and their supported

Documents