a

Baseline Survey of the Project on “EnhancingAccountability and Transparency of Government

Social Protection System in Bangladesh”(SGSP-Civil Society Component)

Submitted to

Manusher Jonno Foundation

Prepared by

Research Evaluation Associates For Development Ltd. (READ)

08 June, 2015

Research Evaluation Associates For Development Ltd. (READ)House # 52, Road # 15/A, Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka- 1209;

Phone # 9137113 & 9116490; Cell # 01714022715; 01819224268E-mail: read@bdcom.net and read_haider2007@yahoo.com;

Web: www.readbd.org

b

Baseline Survey of the Project on “EnhancingAccountability and Transparency of Government

Social Protection System in Bangladesh”

Project Key Personnel

Dr. Syed Jahangeer Haider Team Leader cum Survey Research Expert

Ms. Sharmin Akter Co-Team Leader

Mohammad Iftekher Hossain Economist

Masuda M. Rashid Chowdhury, Sociologist cum Gender Specialist

Ms. Husni Ara Quashem Local Government Specialist

Dr. M. Sheikh Giash Uddin Statistician

Ms. Nadira Sultana Qualitative Research Specialist

AYM Kamrul Islam Resource Management Specialist

Md. Nashir Uddin Computer Programmer/Data Analyst

Ms. Farzana Haque Data Editor

Md. Nazrul Islam Quality Control Officer

Ms. Banani Rani Saha Quality Control Officer

Research Evaluation Associates For Development Ltd. (READ)House # 52, Road # 15/A, Dhanmondi R/A, Dhaka- 1209;

Mobile # 01714022715; 01819224268E-mail: read@bdcom.net and read_haider2007@yahoo.com;

Web: www.readbd.org

c

Abbreviations

AFID = Allowance for the Financially Insolvent DisabledARP = Agriculture Rehabilitation ProgramAWDDW = Allowances for the Widowed, Destitute and DesertedCFW = Combination of Cash for WorkDAE = Directorate of Agricultural ExtensionEGPP = Employment Generation Program for the PoorestFFW = Food for WorkGDP = Gross Domestic ProductGOB = Government of BangladeshGR = Gratuitous ReliefHIES = Household Income and Expenditure SurveysLPL = Lower Poverty LineM&E = Monitoring and EvaluationMA = Maternity Allowance Program for the Poor Lactating OtherMJF = Manusher Jonno FoundationMoDM = Ministry of Disaster ManagementMoE = Ministry of EducationMoF = Ministry of FinanceMoPME = Ministry of Primary and Mass EducationMoSW = Ministry of Social WelfareMoWCA = Ministry of Women and Children AffairsNGOs = Non-Government OrganizationsNSPS = National Social Protection StrategyOAA = Old Age AllowanceOMS = Open Market SalesREAD = Research Evaluation Associates For Development Ltd.SGSP = Strengthening Government Social Protection Systems for the PoorSPPs = Social Protection ProgramsSPS = Social Protection SystemSPSS = Statistical Package for the Social SciencesSSSP = Secondary School Stipend ProgramTA = Technical AssistanceTR = Test ReliefUNDP = United Nations Development ProgramUNO = Upazila Nirbahi OfficerUP = Union ParishadUPL = Upper Poverty LineVGD = Vulnerable Group DevelopmentVGF = Vulnerable Group FeedingWB = World BankWFP = World Food Program

d

Contents

Page #Executive Summary i – viiChapter I: Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….… 1 – 3

Background Information Objectives of the Baseline Survey

Chapter II: Survey Methodology and Data Collection ………………………………………….... 4 – 8 Sample size and sampling: Quantitative Household Survey Samples for Qualitative In-depth Investigation Data Collection

Chapter III: Findings from Literature Review and Documents' Search on Safety NetPrograms in Bangladesh ………………………………………................................... 9 – 18

Chapter IV: Analyses of Findings: Household Survey…………………………………………… 19 – 54 Findings of the Household Survey ……………………………….............................. Focus of Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………. Section 1: On Old age allowances (OAA) ………………………………………………. Section 2: On Allowance for Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women (AWDDW).. Section 3: On Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program (AFID)…………. Section 4: On Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP)…………………………... Section 5: On Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP)……………………………. Section 6: On Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother (APLM)………………. Section 7: On Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)………………………………….. Section 8: On Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP)……….….. Section 9: On Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)…………………………………….…… Section 10: On Test Relief (TR) Program:…………………………………………………

1919

20-2324-2728-3132-3435-3738-4041-4344-4748-5051-53

Chapter V: Qualitative Findings…………………………………………………………………….… 54 – 59 Section 1: Findings of Intensive Interviews with the Service providers Section 2: Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with the Community Leaders

54-5656-59

Chapter VI: Summary of the findings………………………………………………………………... Irregularities/ Problems on selection of candidates for safety net allowances/

Programs Irregularities on disbursement of allowance Strengths and Weaknesses of the Safety net Programs Analyses of findings of selected variables: Bribes paid, Level of Satisfaction,

Grievances/Complaints lodged

60 – 62

Chapter VII: Recommendations………………………………………………………………………. 63 – 64

References: ……………………………………………………………………………………………... 64

Appendix I: Detailed Tables of Survey Findings…………………...……………………………… 66-107

i

Executive Summary

Social Safety Nets are part of a broader poverty reduction strategy. Safety net programsaspire to contribute in the following four areas in addressing extreme poverty: (1) redistributeincome to the poorest and the most vulnerable; (2) enable households to make betterinvestments in their future; (3) help households mange risks; and (4) allow Government tomake choices that support pro-poor growth. ‘Enhancing Accountability and Transparency ofGovernment Social Protection System in Bangladesh’ is one of the programs of MJF thataims to incorporate opinions and feedback of the social protection beneficiaries as well ascommon people so that social protection system of the country is managed more efficientlyand effectively. The specific MJF project is being implemented under the overarching projectnamed “Strengthening Government Social Protection Systems for the Poor (SGSP)” which isto provide Technical Assistance (TA) to the Government of Bangladesh supported by UKAid,AusAid and DFID-Bd. WFP, UNDP, World Bank, Maxwell Stamp Ltd and MJF are the keyactors to work with concern ministries and implementing authorities of country’s socialprotection programs.

Project goal: “Get feedback from the poor on the reach, effectiveness and impact ofgovernment of Bangladesh’s social protection schemes and use the evidence to influencegood governance in the sector”.

Specific Objective of the civil society components are: (1) Build capacity of citizens inproject areas to monitor government social safety net schemes; (2) Generation and analysisof evidence to support advocacy for changes in laws and policies, and coordinatedcampaigns to achieve those changes; (3) Support provided to community groups tochallenge the constraints in accessing their entitlements, social transfers, and activities toprotect and strengthen the rights of poor in receiving these transfers; and (4) Ability of civilsociety organizations supported by the Program to use evidence in advocacy as well aslobbying with the government.

Research Evaluation Associates for Development (READ) Ltd. has been awarded a Contractto conduct the Baseline Survey of the ‘Enhancing Accountability and Transparency ofGovernment Social Protection System in Bangladesh’ project.

Study Methodology and Data Collection: The study employed both quantitative andqualitative research methods. Quantitative methods comprised conducting of householdlevel sample of SSN beneficiaries of ten different safety net programs, such as AWDDW,OAA, VGD, PESP, SSSP, EGPP, VGF, MA, AFID and TR. The sample also included theeligible Non Recipients of these programs who are excluded from the SSN coverage. Thedata collection for the household survey was done using structured and standardizedquestionnaires using 10 safety net wise questionnaires for household surveys; and 2 FGDguidelines and open ended questionnaire for qualitative /investigations. All thequestionnaires were pre-tested and reviewed by READ and MJF professionals.

Population and Sampling for Household Surveys: The sampling was made inaccordance with the present beneficiary list (coverage of year 2014) of the ongoing socialprotection program of the particular working units (Union Parishad and Municipality).Respondents were selected from the undefined households that are eligible to have thebenefit of social protection program. Government social safety-net programs covered anaverage of approximately 2500 households every year in a Union/ Municipality. There arealmost double the households remain (except VGF beneficiary) outside the net who areeligible for those programs. MJF covers 95 unions and 8 municipalities of 12 Upazilas of 12

ii

districts covering all 7 Divisions of Bangladesh. The study sample covered 27 UPs and 3municipalities of 6 upazilas of 6 districts.

Respondents for Quantitative Household Surveys: The study respondents were selectedfrom SSN recipients (category I) and non-recipients who are eligible but not getting SSNservices (category II). In total 2704 respondents from both categories (Recipients: 1781 andNon Recipients: 923) were interviewed from the following selected SSN services:

Respondents types Type of safety net and respondent coverageCategory I (SSNrecipients)

1781 respondents (OAA: 238; AWDDW: 231; VGD: 217;PESP: 231; SSSP: 220; EGPP: 168; VGF: 188; MA: 114;AFID: 126; and TR: 48)

Category II (SSNNon-recipients)

923 respondents (OAA: 121; AWDDW: 123; VGD: 114;PESP: 109; SSSP: 101; EGPP: 86; VGF: 91; APLM: 69;AFID: 73; and TR: 36.)

Respondents for Qualitative Investigations: 24 FGDs: 11 FGDs with UP Members and13 FGDs with Community persons including elites; and 43 Intensive interviews with UNOs,UP Chairmen and relevant officials were also carried out.

Findings of the Household Survey

On Old Age Allowances: 70% of the respondents spent the allowance mostly for theirtreatment; 37% spent for meeting essential expenses for their family (multiple responses).Majority of the respondents (57%) said that they could not meet their medical expensesbefore receiving the allowance. About a quarter of the Respondents (27%) claimed that theystarved in absence of the allowance. 8% of the Recipient respondents said that they on anaverage paid Tk. 1136 (minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk. 2500) as bribes mostly to themale ward member and in some cases to the female ward members too for their enlistment.Only 14% of the beneficiary respondents acknowledged that open publicity was done duringOAA selection. Very meager percent of the respondents (8%) confirmed that there is aselection committee for transparent beneficiary selection. Hundred percent of therespondents receive their allowances from the Bank; and only 6% said that they facedproblems. However 10% of the beneficiaries said that they had some verbal grievances, butmajority (67%) of them said that the grievances were resolved after they had complained tothe respect LG representatives. On average each beneficiary mentioned about 3 personswhom they consider as eligible, but did not get the allowance.

There were selection errors in terms of applying age bar; 18% of the males beneficiarieswere selected below 65 years of age and 12% of the female beneficiaries were selectedbelow the age of 62 years. According to the policy guideline of OAA program, the applicantshaving less than 0.5 acre (50 decimal) agricultural land will be given preference duringbeneficiary selection process. However, the baseline data shows, average Land Holdingstatus of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 6 decimals & NR: 4decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 5 decimals & NR: 4 decimals). Average total landholding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 3% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those having land more than 50decimals. However, 69% of the non recipients applied for the allowance. Only 13% of theNon-Recipients placed verbal complaints against their non-selection of which a few of thegrievances were resolved with assurance to them to be considered during future selection.

On Allowances for the Widowed, Destitute and Deserted Women (AWDDW): 61% of theRecipient Respondents said that the allowance money was spent mostly for their treatmentand 70% spent for meeting essential expenses for their family (multiple responses). Hundred

iii

percent of the respondents receive their allowances from the Bank; and a very smallpercentage (6%) of them said that they faced problems. Majority of the respondents (48%)said that they could not afford medical expenses when they did not receive the allowance.About half of the Respondents (40%) claimed that they starved in the absence of theallowance. Only 18% acknowledged that open publicity was done about the selection for theAWDDW. 4% of the recipient respondents said that they paid on average Tk. 1352(minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk. 3000) as bribes to the Local elected representativesmostly to the male ward members for their enlistment. However 9% of the respondent saidthat they had some verbal grievances, but all of them said that the grievances were resolvedafter they had complained verbally to the respective UP representatives. On average eachrespondent mentioned about 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get theallowance. 81% of the non recipients applied for the allowance. Only 15% of therespondents lodged complaints against their non-selection and none of their complaintswere resolved.

On Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled (AFID): 61% of the Respondents opinedthat the allowance money was spent mostly for their treatment and 54% spent for meetingessential expenses for the family (multiple responses). About a quarter of the Respondents(24%) claimed that they starved and another 24% could not meet family expenses inabsence of the allowance. Only 18% acknowledged that open publicity was done during theselection process. Hundred percent of the respondents receive their allowances from theBank; and a small percentage (9%) of them said that they faced problems. 5% of theRecipient respondents said that they on average paid Tk. 1550 (minimum Tk. 300 andmaximum Tk. 3000) as bribes mostly to the male ward member, female ward member and tothe Social Service Officer too for their enlistment. However 8% of them said that they hadsome verbal complaints on service delivery process and all of them said that theirgrievances were resolved after they had complained verbally to the UP representatives. Onaverage each respondent mentioned about 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but didnot get the allowance. 60% of the non recipients applied for the allowance. Only 23% of therespondents lodged complaints against their non selection of which only 12% were assuredto be considered during future selection.

On Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP): Ninety four percent of the respondentsreceive their allowances from the special camp organized by the Bank in the school. A veryminute percent (2%) of them said that they faced problems. In the absence of stipends, theycould not continue their education (59%); 12% stopped education; and 33% failed to meetthe expenses for the education(multiple response). However 3% of beneficiaries said thatthey had some grievances, but all of them said that their grievances were resolved after theyhad complained to their teachers. On average each respondent mentioned about 6 studentswhom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance. In total 55% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 18% of the respondents lodged complaintsagainst their non selection of which 20% were assured to be considered during futureselection.

On Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP): Ninety eight percent of the respondentsreceive their allowances from the special camp organized by the Bank in the school. Inabsence of the stipends, they could not continue their education (65%); 37% failed to meetthe expenses for the education; 4% could not afford private tuition; and 1% stoppededucation(multiple response). None paid any amount as bribes for their enlistment for theallowances. However 5% of the respondents said that they had some grievances ondistribution process, but all of them said that their grievances were resolved after they hadcomplained verbally to their teachers. On average each respondent mentioned about 2students whom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance. 55% of the nonrecipients applied for the allowance. Only 11% of the respondents verbally complaints totheir teachers against their non-selection and none could have their problems resolved.

iv

On Maternity Allowance Program for the Poor Lactating Mother (MA): The criteria forselection mentioned by the respondents are: 1st pregnancy (50%); Land less families (27%);2nd pregnancy (25%); 3rd pregnancy (10%) (multiple response). Majority RecipientRespondents (53%) said that the allowance money was spent for the cost of baby food; 43%for their treatment; 25% spent for meeting essential expenses for nutritious food. Majority ofthe respondents (54%) said that without the allowance, they could not meet their cost offeeding babies; 45% could not pay medical expenses; and 13% said that they werefinancially dependent on others (multiple response). 10% of the Recipient respondents saidthat they on average paid Tk. 336 (minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk. 500) as bribesmostly to the UP ward member for their enlistment for the allowances. However 12% of themsaid that they had some grievances and all these grievances were resolved after they hadcomplained to the respective UP representatives. On average each respondent mentionedabout 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance. 65% of the nonrecipients applied for the allowance. Only 22% of the Non Recipients respondent lodgedcomplaints against their non selection and none of their complaints were resolved.

On Vulnerable Group Development (VGD): Hundred percent of the respondents said thatthe allocations of VGD assisted them to meet the family/livelihood expenses. In the absenceof VGD support to the families, the families have starved (13%). 77% respondents said thatthey can meet necessary family expenses by means of their limited earning as they aresecuring a significant portion of livelihood with this allowance. Less than half of therespondents mentioned about the existence of Selection Committee at the UP (48%). Therewere some selection errors in terms of: applying age bar (20%); land holding status (1%).Some governance challenge also found during beneficiary selection and service delivery.For instance, 6% selection was influenced by political party affiliations; 11% percentrespondents paid bribes (Taka paid: average Tk. 848; minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk.2500) to be selected for VGD. Almost all respondents mentioned that some fraudulentpractices were there in weighing the commodities by giving commodities lesser than theweight allowed. On average each beneficiary receives around 28 KG rice instead ofallocated 30 KG.

Training on VGD has been observed with very low coverage which is only 2%, which impliesthat the NGOs responsible for imparting training failed to perform their functions effectively.On average each respondent mentioned about 2 persons whom they know are eligible, butdid not get the allowance. 70% of the Non Recipients applied for the allowance. Only 15% ofthe Non Recipients lodged verbal complaints against their non selection to the UPrepresentatives and none of them had their complaints resolved.

On Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP): Selections are donemostly by the UP members (66%) and by the UP Chairman (28%). On average theenlistment of EGPP is done twice annually and on average an incumbent is selected twice ayear for EGPP. The average duration of work is for 40 days and the work assigned is mostlyearth work for road (91%). 63% of the respondents opined that they faced disbursementirregularities/problems during withdraw their allowance. The program guideline clearly entailsthat beneficiaries are supposed to withdraw the allowances from assigned bank. But overtwo thirds of the workers selected for EGPP collect their wages from the Bank (69%), whilethe rest of the respondents said that they collect their payments personally from UPmembers (17%), UP office (10%) and 4% of the incumbents received it at their home. Abouttwo thirds of the Recipient Respondents (99%) said that the allowance money was spentmostly for meeting essential expenses for the family and 1% said for their treatment. Majorityof the respondents (87%) said that they are having hard time in meeting the family/livelihoodexpenses. Eight percent of the incumbents (Respondents) said that they had to payadditional money to obtain job cards and the average payment made was Tk. 171 and thepayment was made to Middle men (Dalal: 57%) and to the UP/Ward member (43%).

v

However 20% of the said that they had some grievances, but all (100%) of them said thatthe grievances were resolved after they had complained to the respective LGrepresentatives. On average each respondent mentioned about 3 persons whom they knoware eligible, but did not get the allowance. 45% of the non recipients applied for theallowance. Only 11% of the Non Recipients lodged verbal complaints to the respective UPrepresentatives against their non selection and none of them had their complaints resolved.

On Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF): Hundred percent of the respondents said that theallocations of VGF assisted them to meet the family expenses. In the absence of VGFsupport to the families, the families would have starved (24%) and 61% could not have metthe food requirements. Selections are done mostly by the UP members (65%), UP Chairmen(33%) and UP Secretaries (2%). Fourteen percent respondents mentioned about thefunctions of Selection Committee at the UP. Very few respondents mentioned about thefunctioning of the Selection Committee at District (3%) and at Upazila levels (3%). Almost allthe respondents (93%) said each family received one card. Hundred percent of therespondents received their allocations from the UP. And only 3% mentioned that somefraudulent practices were involved in weighing the commodities by giving commodities lesserthan the weight allowed. Only one percent of the respondents paid bribes (Taka paid:average Tk. 350; minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk. 500) for selection as VGF beneficiary.On average each respondent mentioned about 8 persons whom they know are eligible, butdid not get the allowance. 62% of the non recipients applied for the allowance. Only 19% ofthe Non Recipients lodged complaints against their non selection and none of them had theircomplaints resolved.

Test Relief (TR) Program: Selections are done mostly by the UP members (75%), UPChairman (23%) and Political Leader (2%). More than a quarter of the respondentsmentioned about the Selection Committee at the UP (27%). On average the enlistment forTR is done once annually and on average an incumbent is selected once a year for TR. Thework assigned is mostly earth work for road (93%) and for mosque, madrasha and school(29%). Most of the respondents received cash as TR grant (88%). None paid any bribes orextra payments for being selected for TR grant. Hundred percent of the respondents saidthat the allocations of TR assisted them to meet the family/livelihood expenses. In theabsence of TR support to the families, the families would have starved (46%); 33% could nothave met the family expenses and 23% said that they had to be dependent on others tosupport their families. On average each respondent mentioned about 1 person whom theyknow are eligible, but did not get the allowance. 70% of the non recipients applied for theallowance. Only 15% of the Non Recipients lodged verbal complaints to the respective UPrepresentatives against their non selection and none of them had their complaints resolved.

Findings of Intensive Interviews with the Service providers: In total 43 Service Providerswere interviewed and their distribution is as follows: UP Chairmen 37%; Upazila EducationOfficer (Primary and Secondary) 17%; Upazila and District Social Welfare Officer 16%;Upazila and District Woman Affairs Officer 14%; Upazila Nirbahi Officer: UNO 9% andProject Implementation Officer 7%. The service providers estimated that 49% of the peoplein the sample areas live below poverty level, and of them only 14% are covered (receiving atleast one type of allowance) by the safety net allowances programs.

Problem faced during the enlistment of beneficiaries: One third of the Service Providers(33%) affirmed that there is no problem in Safety Net Allowances Program. Majority of theService Providers (51%) identified 'Shortages of funds for Safety Net Allowance' as the mainproblem, followed by 'Political Interferences' as the next most important problem creatingbiases in the selection of the beneficiaries. Besides, the respondents opined that selectionerrors occur due to not having ground level socio economic data in the UP office. About aquarter of the service providers (23%) think that the eligible Non Recipients also raise their

vi

claims challenging the selection process for the beneficiaries. Renewal of the list ofbeneficiaries on year to year basis is also mentioned as a problem (7%).

Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with the Community Leaders: A Total of 24 FGDs wasconducted in 21 Unions & 3 Municipalities/Pouroshavas. Of these, 10 FGDs were conductedwith the Formal (elected) Public Representatives: Male UP member, Female UP memberand Staff of different agencies working at the Union level with 75 participants, of whom 75%are male and 25% are female. Another 14 FGDs were conducted with the InformalOpinion/Community Leaders/Elite persons: Teacher, Imam, representative from local NGO,Local leader; journalists, and representative from different Committee with 106 participants,of whom 81% are male and 19% are female.

According to the estimates by the formal elected leaders (75), 55% of the rural population ispoor, the informal opinion leaders estimated 48% as poor and the combined average is 51%.According to both the formal elected leaders and the informal opinion leaders, little over athird of the village population (35%) is hardcore poor. Both the formal elected leaders andthe informal opinion leaders opined that 16% of the village population are covered/served bythe social safety net programs, which implies that a half the population are not covered bythe program.

Eighty percent of the Formal elected leaders said that monitoring of the beneficiaries aredone, while 20% said that no such monitoring is done. Of the informal opinion leaders, 64%affirmed that monitoring is done to follow-up on the beneficiaries. However, both the types ofleaders mentioned that the there is no concrete monitoring guideline. Monitoring is donethrough home visits and sometimes the UP Chairman and the UNO also perform monitoringfunctions. Sometimes monitoring is also done using the list of the beneficiaries. Ranking bythe two groups of local leaders implies that Old Age Allowances, Widow Allowances andVGD are the most preferred social safety net work allowances. Almost three fourths of theleaders (both formal and informal) opined that the allowances disbursed through SocialSafety Net will accelerate local development and provide true respite to the distressed,disadvantaged and the hardcore poor.

Problems on selection of candidates for safety net allowances/ Programs: Indulgencein Favoritism/Nepotism: Some elected representatives distribute cards only to those, whohad cast votes for the Selectors; UP Chairmen & UP member give priority to their owncandidates for selection; Selections of incumbents are done by taking bribes (speed money);Beneficiary selection was not done openly/publicly; Administrative interference is not enoughto prevent corrupt practices. Government officials are not involved in the selection process;selected persons who are not eligible consequently eligible candidates are left out;

Irregularities/corruptions/ malpractices/ problems on disbursement of allowance:While distributing allocated amount of rice/wheat instead of distributing 30 KGs, theydistribute around 25-28 KGs; Disbursement of allowances (money) is not done on time,incumbents had to get the amount after several visits; in some areas assigned scheduledbank deducts Tk. 10; Political opponents are harassed while receiving allowances;Sometimes less money is distributed; and delays are made in disbursing the stipends.

Major Strengths: More than 90% of the selected candidates are poor; safety net programshelped them to meet essential expenses of the family; about 10 to 20% said that theallowances saved them from starving; majority of the Recipients said that they could affordmedical treatment by using the allowances;

Major Weaknesses: Selection biases: nepotism and Favoritism; Many genuine and eligiblecandidates were left out mostly due to fund shortages; absence of monitoring encouragedtaking bribes as much as Tk 2500 maximum from a person and on average Tk. 200 to 300;

vii

Banks in some cases deducted money from the Recipients during cash transferdisbursement. Predominant roles played by the Male Members of the UP compared to thefemale members.

Recommendations

In accordance with the opinion- ‘government allocation for social safety-net programs(SSNP) is limited compare to its need’, the study recommends taking long term policy andstrategy to increase SSNP the allocation to meet the needs of the poor and vulnerablepeople. Besides present SSN guidelines for selection of SSNP beneficiaries are not goodenough to reduce targeting errors. Poverty indicators, like- annual income, land ownershipcriteria of these programmes varies widely which makes the right beneficiary selectiondifficult. Thus it is recommended to have a few essential criteria that should be common forall social safety-net programs.

A comprehensive socio-economic database of all households would be useful for reducingtargeting errors as well as framing a long term development vision of the respective UnionParishads, municipalities and the country as well. A combined platform comprising demandand supply side actors should be established to monitor the SSN services properly. So,there is a need for enhancing practices of good governance in general and increasingcapacity of the local government officials in this regard. Consequently, Periodic performanceassessment should be conducted for social safety-net programs; the assessment shouldinclude beneficiaries’ views.

Findings suggest that Ward Shavas are held on irregular basis. Participation of the people inthe ward shavas, as claimed by the respondents, is very low. In accordance with Localgovernment (UP) act 2009, all of the safety-net beneficiaries are supposed to select in theward shava and accordingly develop a priority list of the beneficiaries. It is recommended toensure that the ward shavas are done as per guideline of the act to ensure the opennessand transparency of the beneficiary selection for the safety-net programs. Besides, socialmobilization and awareness program may help them to raise voices against deprivations andirregularities.

Peoples’ friendly grievance lodging and redressing mechanism is needed to establish atcommunity level and be linked to the implementing and monitoring institutions.

1

Chapter I: Introduction

Background InformationBangladesh has made remarkable progress over the past two decades, particularly in poverty reductionand human development. The country has maintained robust economic growth averaging 6% per yearsince 2001. Poverty has decreased from 48% in 2000 to 31.5% in 2010 and the most recent reportpublished in the Daily News Paper estimate further reduction of poverty to around 27%; and the rates ofhardcore poor now stand at 11%. Yet poverty remains a significant and persistent problem inBangladesh. Over 50 million men, women, girls and boys live in poverty and around 28 million of theselive in extreme poverty, without the means to even feed themselves properly. Between 63 - 80% of thetotal population are vulnerable to shocks that could drop them into poverty. With about 40 percent of itspopulation living below the poverty line and an increasing number of population being added below thelower poverty line, Safety Net Program in Bangladesh is more than a necessary element in fightingpoverty (Iqbal, 2008). The Government of Bangladesh spent £1.87 billion in the fiscal year 2012-2013or 2.13% of GDP on social protection. The program reaches around 78 million people. The projectionfor 2013-2014 is £2.05 billion, or 2.05% of GDP. Bangladesh however does not use its resources welland this significant expenditure could generate far greater results. Evidence shows that better sustainedresults require systemic change including more focused strategic leadership; fewer larger Programswhich are better targeted to the poor and more focused on helping them lift themselves out of poverty;larger average transfers; greater coordination across Ministries and transparency of decision making.

Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the Government of Bangladesh (GOB) and DFID agreed that GOB willimprove the efficiency/effectiveness of the expenditure on social protection. Hence, the “StrengtheningGovernment Social Protection Systems for the Poor (SGSP)” project is designed to provide TechnicalAssistance (TA) to the Government of Bangladesh. TA to the Ministry of finance (MoF) will form themajority of the expenditure, including improving social protection policy development across a range ofthematic areas (including cash and productive asset transfers and nutrition) as well as the creation of amanagement information system to track social protection expenditure and results to improveevidenced-based decision making. In other words, DFID support will improve the Government’s use ofits own resources to ensure better targeting of social protection schemes at the poorest and ensure thatthey are supported to lift themselves out of poverty.United Nations Development Program (UNDP), World Bank (WB), Maxwell Stamp Ltd. and World FoodProgram (WFP) will take part in improving the efficiency of the concerned government staff for effectiveimplementation of the social protection Program. It is insufficient to rely on influencing government onlyfrom the inside. Hence, it is also necessary for citizens and civil society to advocate for change. Atpresent, civil society has not effectively advocated for meaningful change to the social protectionsystem and, as noted above, the system has instead been used by local elites to manipulate citizens. Itwill be necessary to strengthen the capacity of civil society to understand social protection policy andadvocate around priority issues with a more unified voice, which will include gaining support from themedia and influential public figures. The strengthening of civil society will be addressed by supporting acivil society platform which will enable civil society organizations to build evidence and undertakeadvocacy for more equitable and inclusive social protection sector.

MJF is implementing the civil society component of the Program with an aim to bring on thebeneficiaries view in the social protection system of Bangladesh.

Project goal: “Get feedback from the poor on the reach, effectiveness and impact ofgovernment of Bangladesh’s social protection schemes and use the evidence to influence goodgovernance in the sector”.

Objectives of the Baseline SurveyThe overall objective of the baseline survey is to get the downside impact of selected social safety netPrograms implemented by the Government of Bangladesh. More specifically the following areas arecovered by the baseline survey:

2

a. The efficiency and practice level of the service providers in providing selected safety net Programsto the actual beneficiaries; and

b. Voice and representation level of the grassroots community people towards establishing theirentitlement on SSN.

Scope of work: The consultant organization concentrated to derive the following issues in order tomeet the aforementioned baseline objectives:

Supply side- Scenario of beneficiary identification (targeting);- Description of the delivery mechanism;- Over head (administrative cost) of the selected SP Programs;- Identify the capacity gap of the duty bearers (administration capacity including, MIS, monitoring,

use of evidence);- Policy and practices for grievances management;- Identify the policy issues/gaps that require attention of policy makers, local government,

researchers and CS organizations for a comprehensive future course of action.

Demand side- Explore the community peoples’ perception on SSN services, rights and their entitlement

(collating feedback on the reach, effectiveness and impact of social protection schemes);- Identify the economic, social, cultural, political factors/deprivation;- Capacity gap of the citizens and civil society organizations for establishing social accountability

mechanisms;- Beneficiary’s grievance lodging and resolution options, practice and effectiveness.

Overall- Government social protection coverage (identifying projects, benefit recipients, potential

beneficiaries, etc in the working units)

Key Issues of the StudyThe following key issues were taken into consideration in the study:

I. Basic profiles of grassroots people living in the respective project areas including householddemography, human capital, asset ownership, employment, income and expenditure, accessto resources and services, social connections etc.

II. Community access to safety net services (targeting error).III. Voice and representation of the community people to address the social protection issues;IV. Percentage of the excluded poorest beneficiaries deprived from their entitlement;V. Identify the capacity gaps of demand side and supply side actors;VI. Existing coping mechanisms - the ways of tackling poverty risks, challenges, formal and

informal protection mechanism;VII. Existing legal frameworks and policy matters related to the social protection in

Bangladesh;VIII. Policy review and gap identification for further investment in policy influence;IX. Social and political connections/networks and uses of social connections in everyday life;X. Draw attention of policy makers as the report focuses on some areas as policy

recommendations to improve the situation.

Table 1.1: Strengthening Government Social Protection Systems for the Poor (SGSP) IndicatorResult SGSP indicatorImpact: A social protection sector thateffectively addresses poverty andenables families to deal with risk.

1. Percentage of poorest 10% households that are excludedfrom social protection programs.2. Percentage of Poor people living below the lower nationalpoverty line.

Outcome: The Government ofBangladesh establishes policies,budgets and plans for a moreeffective and efficient social protection

1. A coherent and progressive vision for social protectionincorporated into national policy documents.2. Cross- Governmental Leadership established and innovativeand more transparent and accountable social protection policies

3

Result SGSP indicatorsystem. developed.

3. Monthly value of transfers per recipient for priority schemes.4. VGD participants receiving cash grants for investment (Tk.15,000) along with orientation on income generating activities,micro-entrepreneurship training and assistance in developingindividual business plans.

Relevant Output (SGSP-CScomponent)

Results produced through Civil society Component

Output-2Ministries & Departments of theGovernment of Bangladesh haveaccess to a strengthened evidencebase on poverty, vulnerability andnutrition aspects of social protection

Feedback from beneficiaries are documented.

Grievance mechanism piloted and rolled out for 2 selectedschemes in five Upazilas (Sub-districts).

Output-3No. of costed plans developed withbeneficiary consultation

NFSP set up and operationalized.

Studies completed on the quality of at least 5 social protectionschemes, report published and disseminated.

Use of evidence into at least 3 GOB social protection Programsin Bangladesh.

Table 1. 2: Thematic Intervention of Different Safety Net Allowances by Executing MinistriesName of the Ministry Types of SSN Allowances Mode of transfer/Disbursement

of funds1. Ministry of SocialWelfare officer (MoSW):

1. Old Age Allowance (OAA),2. Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled

(AFID)3. Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute

Women (AWDDW),

Allowances 1,2 and 3: Cashtransfers

2. Ministry of Women andChildren Affairs

4. Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) &5. Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother

(MA)

Allowances 4: Program Basedor in kind; andAllowances 5: Conditional cashtransfers

3. Ministry of Primary &Mass Education

6. Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP) Conditional cash transfers

4. Ministry of Education(MoE):

7. Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP) Conditional cash transfers

5. Ministry of & DisasterManagement (MoDM):

8. Employment Generation Program for thePoorest (EGPP)

9. Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) and10. Test Relief (TR)

Allowances 8:Program Based or in kindAllowances 9 & 10:Emergency orSeasonal Relief

Table 1.3: Geographic Location of the SGSP-CS Component InterventionSL# District Upazila # Local Government Unit (LGUs)

UPs Municipality1 Rangpur Mithapukur 8 02 Satkhira Kolaroa 10 13 Gaibandha Saghata 10 04 Cox's Bazar Moheshkhali 8 15 Sirajgonj Kazipur 10 16 Sunamgonj Jamalgonj 5 07 Faridpur Sadar 10 18 Chittagong Banshkhali 10 19 Laksmipur Ramgati 8 110 Pabna Sujanagar 6 111 Barisal Banaripara 5 112 Rangamati Borkol 5 0Total 95 8

4

Chapter II: Survey Methodology and Data Collection

The study employed both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Household survey carried outusing structured, semi-structured and open ended questionnaires to assess the status of thehouseholds and its members on various indicators. Focus group discussions were also carried out tounderstand the processes in which they are trapped in.

Population and Sampling: The population of government social protection program is of two types;one is the persons (households) those are the recipients of social protection benefits and the other isthe persons those are eligible for social protection program but not the recipient of the same socialprotection program. The sampling was made in accordance with the present beneficiary list of theongoing social protection program of the particular working units (Union, Municipality and Upazila).Respondents were selected from the undefined households that are eligible to have the benefit ofsocial protection program. Government social safety-net programs covered an average ofapproximately 2500 households every year in a Union/ Municipality. There are almost double thehouseholds remaining (except VGF beneficiary) who are eligible for those programs.

Sampling: Quantitative Household SurveyTarget RespondentCategory-I: The persons (households) those are recipient of social protection benefits.Category-II: The persons (households) those are eligible for social protection benefits but do not receivesuch benefits.

Sample design: The survey was multi-stage random sample designed to provide representativeresults for Bangladesh. At the first stage from 12 districts/upazilas, 6 program upazilas (50% of theprogram upazilas) were randomly selected. In the second stage, from the selected upazila, 5 programunions/municipalities were selected randomly. Finally, from the selected unions proportionately desirednumbers of respondents (households) were selected randomly.

Sample size: The sample size calculation for category-I respondents I given below:n=[z2(1-p)/ ε2p]Design effectWhere n = required sample size, expressed as number of respondents,P = anticipated value of the proportions in the populations (p=0.50, 50% of household has access tosafety net program)Z1-/2: Level of significance .i.e. 95% confidence level=1.96Relative Precision: ε – The sample result should fall within ε% of the true value i.e. 5%Design effect is 1.25 (Generally the design effect is between 1.2 and 3)Using the above information, the sample size is n= 1920The survey team planned approximately 1920 respondents of category I (recipient of benefits) fromsample areas. A total of 960 respondents of category II i.e. non-recipients (50% of category I) toconduct interview. So, a total of 2880 respondents were planned to interview for the study. Targetedsample respondents per union/municipality were approx. 96 (288030) where 64 were recipients and32 were non-recipient. The allocation of the respondents is given in following table below.

Table 2.1: Distribution of Targeted Respondents (“Recipient” and “Eligible but Non Recipient”)Slno

ProjectDistrict

ProjectUpazila

No ofUP

No ofMunicipality

SampleUpazila

No. ofsampleUnion/municipality

Sample respondentRecipient

Non-recipient

Total

1 Rangpur Mithapukur 8 0 Mithapukur 5 320 160 4802 Satkhira Kolaroa 10 1 Kolaroa 5 320 160 4803 Sirajganj Kazipur 10 1 Kazipur 5 320 160 4804 Sunamganj Jamalganj 5 0 Jamalganj 5 320 160 4805 Chittagong Banshkhali 10 1 Banshkhali 5 320 160 4806 Rangamati Borkol 5 0 Borkol 5 320 160 480

Total 48 3 6 30 1920 960 2880

5

Table 2.2: Gender wise targeted respondents by the types of safety net programSafetynetprogram

Recipient Non-recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total

AWDDW 0 235 235 0 118 118 0 353 353

OAA 118 118 236 59 59 118 177 177 354

VGD 0 235 235 0 117 117 0 352 352

PESP 79 156 235 38 80 118 117 236 353

SSSP 79 157 236 39 79 118 118 236 354

EGPP 86 86 172 43 43 86 129 129 258VGF 86 86 172 43 43 86 129 129 258

MA 0 136 136 0 68 68 0 204 204

AFID 66 66 132 33 33 66 99 99 198

TR 66 65 131 32 33 65 98 98 196Total 580 1340 1920 287 673 960 867 2013 2880

% 30 70 100 30 70 100 30 70 100

Achievement and justification of the sample coverage: The survey team faced some unevencommunication problem at local level especially at CHT areas. Besides, TR beneficiary lists were alsohard to find as the beneficiary lists were not preserved at respective UPs. Hence, out of 2880 selectedrespondents, the survey team successfully interviewed 2704 or 94%.Besides, out of total 960 targetedrespondents of category-II (non-beneficiaries), 923 were interviewed. The response rate is similar to anational survey (Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey 2011). For statistical procedures requirea minimum sample size, so understand the requirements associated with the statistical calculations thatintend to use. Acceptable response rates vary by how the survey is administered. For face-to-faceinterview 80-85% response rate is good.Table 2.3: District Wise Sample Data (Both category-I and Category-II)

Safe

ty N

et P

rogr

ams

Districtn% Rangpur Satkhira Sirajganj Sunamganj Chittagong Rangamati Total

OAAn 49 64 48 53 56 89 359% 13 18 13 15 16 25 100

AWDDW

n 49 62 49 53 53 88 354

% 13 18 14 15 15 25 100

AFID

n 45 0 49 58 47 0 199

% 22 0 25 29 24 0 100

PESP

n 50 58 49 55 48 80 340

% 15 17 14 16 14 24 100

FSSP

n 46 60 47 54 48 66 321

% 14 19 15 17 15 20 100

MA

n 48 48 38 0 49 0 183

% 26 26 21 0 27 0 100

VGD

n 48 59 41 52 48 83 331

% 15 18 12 16 14 25 100

EGPP

n 48 60 47 53 46 0 254

% 19 24 18 21 18 0 100

VGF

n 48 72 49 54 56 0 279

% 17 26 18 19 20 0 100

TR

n 18 0 0 18 48 0 84

% 21 0 0 21 58 0 100Total n 449 483 417 450 499 406 2704

% 17 18 15 17 18 15 100

6

Sample frame: Once the union was selected, list of benefits recipients of the selected safety netprograms was collected from local implemented program organization. A random sampling was used toselect respondent from each selected union/municipality in which the respondents were interviewed.

Samples for Qualitative In-depth Investigation

Following methods were applied for Qualitative Investigations Literature Reviews/Documents Search 24 (80%) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were completed:

10 FGDs with Public Representative 14 FGDs with Community Leaders/Elite persons

43 (72%) In-depth Intensive Interviews at upazila/union level with the relevant service providers ofdifferent ministry/agencies of the selected safety net programs: Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Chairmen,Women Affairs Officer, Project Implementation Officer, Education Officer, and Social Welfare Officerwere completed.

Data CollectionThe study was implemented in the three broad phases: Preparatory Phase, Data Collection Phase andData Consolidation, Analyses and Report phase. READ conducted the study in the following steps.

Development of Data Collection Instruments (Questionnaires, Guidelines and Checklists): READdesigned and developed 12 different types of data collection instruments (safety net wisequestionnaires), both for quantitative and qualitative investigations by experienced and expertprofessionals for the study. The data collection instruments were: Structured and standardizedquestionnaires for interpersonal interviews/quantitative interview and semi-structured open endedquestionnaires for intensive interviews; and Guideline for Focus Group Discussions with communityinfluential and opinion leaders.

The above data collection instruments were thoroughly reviewed during training of the FieldInvestigators and each instrument was thoroughly pre-tested at comparable areas of the proposedsample spots. The data collection instruments were finalized incorporating all the feedbacks from thepre-tests and reviewed and approved by the MJF.

Documents Reviewed under Literature Search Bangladesh National Social Protection Strategy, General Economics Division, Planning

Commission, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, First Draft, November 15,2013.

M.A.H. Pradhan, S. Mohd, J. Sulaiman, Social Safety Nets Programs in Bangladesh: Preparingfor Adaption to Demographic Change, Disaster, and Poverty Reduction, Research onHumanities and Social Sciences, ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online), Vol 2,No.10, 2012.

Social Safety Nets and Productive Outcomes: Evidence and Implications for Bangladesh,USAID, 2014.

Pradhan M.A.H., Mohd S., and Sulaiman J., Social Safety Nets Programs in Bangladesh:Preparing for Adaption to Demographic Change, Disaster, and Poverty Reduction, Research onHumanities and Social Sciences, ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online), Vol 2,No.10, 2012.

H. Z. Rhaman, D. Hulme, National Social Protection StrategyA Political Economy Assessment ,Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC), Dhaka, Brooks World Poverty Institute(BWPI), University of Manchester, UK, August, 2014

Survey on Social Safety Nets Programmes (SSNP) in Bangladesh conducted under HouseholdIncome & Expenditure Survey Project of Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics

7

Monitoring, Supervision and Quality Control

Intensive monitoring for quality control was undertaken during data collection. Supervision, monitoringand quality control of field investigations were ensured by the Field Supervisors, Quality ControlOfficers, and Field Coordinator as well as by Study Team Members.

Each Field Team was guided and managed by one Field Supervisor, who maintained regular contactswith the Team Leader, Consultants and Field Coordinator in READ office to report on a day to day basison the progress of data collection at respective unions. The field supervisor in each team wasresponsible for ensuring supervision and management of each team at the field level. The FieldSupervisors, in addition to their supervisory role and field management, ensured quality control checksthrough random recheck and further interviews.

In addition, 2 Quality Control Officers routinely checked data collection through random interviews inorder to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness of the collected data. Quality control interviewfindings were compared with the original interviews and any inconsistencies were resolved accordingly.Moreover the Team Leader, Consultants and Field Coordinator monitored the teams regularly to ensurethe validity, reliability and quality of data collected from the field through random site/spot and back check.Quality control of the filled in questionnaires was ensured by the Consultants, Quality Control Officersand the Supervisors through random checks of selected questions of the completed interviews. Inaddition, concerned personnel of MJF also visited the field for enhanced data quality checking. TheMonitoring, Supervision and Quality Control implemented in the study by following these steps:

Recruitment of Study Manpower: In total, 30 experienced field investigators were recruited byREAD for data collection. The recruitment criteria included their educational background,previous experience on survey data collection, in-depth knowledge about data collection andability to interact with people. In total 24 field investigators, 6 field supervisors and 2 qualitycontrol officers were engaged during field data collection of the study.

Training of Study Manpower: All the recruited manpower for field investigation was trained for5 days, of which, 1 day was for field practices combined with pre-testing of data collectioninstruments. The remaining 4 days were in class lectures and role play practices. The trainingwas conducted from 18th November 2014 to 23rd November 2014 (including 2 days holiday). Thetraining was conducted in a participatory method and all the trainees participated actively indifferent sessions. The training program was conducted by the resource persons of READ andwas enriched by active participation of the concerned MJF officials and concerned officials ofMJF partner NGOs.

Pre-testing and Finalization of Data Collection Instruments: During the training of the studymanpower, 1 field visit was performed for field practice combined with pre-testing of the datacollection instruments under intensive supervision of expert professionals and consultants ofREAD and concerned officials of MJF partner NGOs. The field visit was conducted in areasoutside selected sample sports at Dhamrai Upazila of Dhaka District in between the training (on23rd November 2014). During the field visits, each data collection instrument was pre-tested/completed by the Field Investigators. After the field practice, a whole day training sessionwas held for review of field experiences. Based on the observations in the field practice andsuggestions made by the team and reviewed and approved by the MJF, data collectioninstruments were further modified and finalized. The questionnaires were sent for printing at theend of the training program.

Data Collection from Field: At the end of the training program, 6 field data collection teamswere formed for field level data collection. Each team consisted of one field supervisor and fourfield investigators. In addition, 2 quality control officers for quality control check were provided.All the field manpower were briefed about their overall field assignment and overall managementof data collection activities. A well designed field action plan/schedule for effectiveimplementation of the study was developed showing a specific visit schedule per team bysample spots along with the volume of work to be performed by each team. All the team

8

members were briefed about the action plan properly. Data were collected from Project unions/Municipality both recipients and non recipients. Data for the study were collected duringDecember 2014 (mostly by mid December). The data collection of the study was done throughboth quantitative and qualitative investigations.

Problems Encountered During Data Collection Political unrest situation in Rangamati (Borkor Upazilla) faced difficulty for data collection. Besides,

Borkol Upazilla were not fully reachable due to communication problem. Respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program were not fully available in hand as there are no master

roll copies preserved in the respective UPs. The interviewers visited some UPs more than once as the concerned person (intensive interviews)

were either too busy or were not available. Non-recipients (waiting list) list was not available at Union Parished Office.

9

Chapter III: Findings from Literature Review and Documents' Search onSafety Net Programs in Bangladesh

The Government of Bangladesh is strongly committed to reducing poverty. This commitment is reflectedin Vision 2021, the Perspective Plan 2010-2021 and in the Sixth Five Year Plan FY11-FY15. Thecommitment seeks to build on past progress with poverty reduction and further deepen this progress byboth addressing the root causes of poverty as well as by lowering the impact of vulnerabilities faced bythe poor population. The Government appreciates that notwithstanding the past impressive progresswith poverty reduction, there is a substantial population that remains exposed to poverty owing tovarious vulnerabilities. This includes the population that remains under the poverty line and those thatare just above the poverty line (near-poor) but could easily fall below the poverty line because of thesevulnerabilities. Evidence shows that the poor and near-poor group cannot cope with all the downsiderisks and shocks with their own resources. (Ref. 1)

Demographic structure has been changing rapidly not only in developed countries but also indeveloping countries (Bloom & McKinnon, 2010). Like other developing countries, Bangladesh ispassing the second stage of demographic transition where population growth rate is higher than birthrate. Due to increase in per capita income, literature rate, health facilities, and consciousness about life,life expectancy also increases (Jesmin & Ingman, 2011). Though the per capita income increases todouble or more compared to 1990s and 1980s respectively, income inequality still exists in the country(BBS,2010). For the geographical location, Bangladesh is also a disaster prone country. Every year,lots of people are affected by the natural disaster like flood, cyclone, storm, drought, land erosion, sidreand others (Mirza, 2002). A large share of the rural people are vulnerable especially poor and elderly.As a result, about 31.6 percent people are poor and more than 17.5 percent are hardcore poor (BBS,2010). (Ref. 2)

Current safety net Programs reflect the Government’s response to support the poor and near-poormanage those risks. Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) shows that the coverage ofthese Programs for the poor and near-poor households has increased and they have helped lowerpoverty. But data also suggest that a large proportion of the poor and non-poor households do nothave any access to these Programs. The average benefit of safety net Programs is low and falling.There is considerable leakage of allocated funds and a substantial percentage of householdbeneficiaries are non-poor. Consequently, the impact on poverty reduction from the amount of moneyspent in these Programs is much lower than is potentially possible with a better social protectionsystem.

In recognition of these concerns, the Government of Bangladesh has embarked upon the formulation ofa comprehensive National Social Protection Strategy (NSPS) that seeks to streamline and strengthenthe existing safety net programs with a vision to achieve better results from money spent, and tobroaden the scope of social protection from the more narrow safety net concept to also includeemployment policies and social insurance to address the emerging needs of a middle incomeBangladesh in 2021 and ahead. The NSPS draws on the past experience with social protectionPrograms in Bangladesh and good practice international experience. To facilitate the preparation of theNSPS, ten background papers prepared by a team of international and local experts werecommissioned on the various issues relating to the NSPS.

Present status of the NSPSAs of July 2014, the NSPS has gone through four drafts. While the first two drafts were circulated todevelopment partners the NSPS document became ‘public’ with the 3rd draft dated 23 January, 2014.This was circulated amongst GoB ministries, development partners and panel of experts. Twostakeholder consultations were held – one with policy-makers on 16th February, 2014 and the secondwith academia and civil society on 20th February, 2014.

10

Firstly, top policy-makers which included the Finance Minister, the Planning Minister and theBangladesh Bank Governor voiced strong reservations on some of the key proposals of the NSPSconsultants

Secondly, core members of CMC i.e. secretaries of the main implementing ministries, expressedstrong dis-satisfaction that their substantive comments on the 2nd draft of the NSPS had beenignored in the preparation of the 3rd draft.

Thirdly, key development partners felt the NSPS 3rddraft was insufficiently inclusive of relevantpolicy constituencies and inadequate in its articulation of the key challenges of an effective andintegrated social protection strategy. There was also a common concern that the draft NSPS wasweakened by the absence of a substantive action plan. Tellingly, two key development partnerssupported parallel initiatives which while having potential bearing on NSPS were not coordinated.One was the World Bank support to the Statistics and Informatics Division for developing a data-base on poor households for purposes of a unified targeting system using the proxy means testingapproach (which is favoured by the Bank in Dhaka but not in Washington DC). The World Bank alsohad a pre-existing major engagement with the Ministry of Disaster Management to consolidate andscale up workfare safety net programs around the Employment Generation Program for the PoorestProgramme (EGPP). The other initiative was on SP-related capacity-building in implementingministries and the development of a beneficiary data-base at the Finance Division for purposes ofmonitoring. This latter initiative is supported by DFID. (Ref. 4)

Strengths of the NSPS processNotwithstanding the many twists and turns in the formulation process, the NSPS has three importantstrengths that make it a viable and realistic goal for Bangladesh. Firstly, the need for and utility of a NSPS has come to enjoy broad acceptance across the policy

community. The issue of social protection is no longer on the policy margins but increasingly is seenas central to the goal of the country’s graduation to middle income status.

Secondly, strong foundations have been laid in terms of developing a robust portfolio ofprogrammes and engagement with budgetary processes. An NSPS is seen as likely to enhanceprogram impact through providing coherence, consolidation and efficiency to current portfolio ofprograms.

Thirdly, an extensive preparation process has allowed various viewpoints to surface in public eventhough significant gaps remain and the end-game is not yet clear or certain. The very fact that apolitical economy assessment has been commissioned at the penultimate stage of the preparationprocess is indicative of, if nothing else, a strong desire and commitment of many of the key actors toensure a meaningful and tangible outcome to the process. (Ref. 4)

Key Stakeholders and their buy-in to the NSPS formulation and implementation Public Administration and Public Agencies in Bangladesh: Government of Bangladesh and Political Parties: Civil society Development Partners

Past Progress with Poverty Reduction and Remaining ChallengesRemarkably, there has been a rapid decline in the rate of poverty measured in terms of the percentageof the population falling below the upper poverty line (UPL). Thus the poverty incidence declined from48.9 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2005 and to 31.5 percent in 2010. Commensurately, the percentof chronic poor, defined as population below the lower poverty line (LPL), fell from 34.3 percent in 2000to 17.6 percent in 2010. Progress has also been made in reducing the depth of poverty. There hasbeen a continuous narrowing of this consumption gap between 2000 and 2010. Thus in 2000, the pooron average consumed 26 percent less than the basic needs consumption basket defined by the povertyline. This gap narrowed to 23 percent in 2005 and 21 percent in 2010.

Poverty has declined in both urban and rural areas, although the poverty rate remains much higher inthe rural areas. Looking at the regional dimension, the poverty outcomes shows a similarly decliningpattern. All the Regional Divisions of Bangladesh have registered significant reduction in poverty.

11

The above record of progress with poverty reduction constitutes a major achievement and as a nationhas made Bangladesh proud. It is also a reaffirmation that the development strategy is appropriate,effective and on track. Nevertheless, the poverty challenge moving ahead remains enormous. Thereare several aspects of this poverty challenge that have implications for a future poverty reductionstrategy. Additionally, these aspects have important bearing in judging the adequacy of the socialprotection strategy.

First, notwithstanding past progress, some 31.5 percent of the population (47 million) in 2010 was stillliving below the poverty line.

Second, an additional 35 percent of the population was consuming less than 1.5 times the UPL. Thispopulation can be considered as near poor because a “shock” such as a major illness, a naturalcalamity or other external events could cause a substantial part of this population to fall back intopoverty. The combined total of poor and near poor, amounted to 66.5 percent of the population (99million people) in 2010. While some further progress has been made in reducing poverty since 2010,the total percentage of poor and near-poor families will likely be in the range of 60 percent (90 millionpeople). Reaching out to this combined group of poor and near poor is a major focus of the socialprotection Programs.

Third, the disaggregation of the poverty profile by location in terms of rural and urban and by Divisionsshow substantial variations. This geographic variation in the distribution of poverty underscores theneed to further refine the poverty profile by other characteristics including gender, age, education, assetand employment in order to design an appropriate poverty reduction strategy and associatedinterventions. By implication, the social protection strategy also needs to be aligned to the povertyprofile based on a proper assessment of related risks.

Evolution and Performance of the Current Social Protection System (SPS)The NSPS is grounded in learning from the lessons of past experience with social protection inBangladesh. There is a long history of formal social protection in Bangladesh, which, in part, hasshaped the nature of the current social protection system. At independence, the main social protectionscheme in place was the government service pension. It was complemented by a Provident Fund thatacted as a savings vehicle for government and formal private sector employees, providing them with alump sum amount on retirement. In response to the 1974 famine and floods in the 1980s, new schemeswere developed for poor families that were badly hit. The schemes were mainly public works and otherfood aid Programs, making use of foreign assistance. In the 1990s the Government began to introduceschemes that addressed risks across the lifecycle, such as school stipend Programs and allowances forthe elderly, people with disabilities, and widows. During the 1990s, there was also significant investmentby donors in various Programs managed by non-government organizations (NGOs), providing a rangeof social services, including social transfers. BRAC has become the most notable provider of theseservices.

There has also been a gradual growth in the proportion of transfers provided as cash instead of food,although cash is mainly provided through the lifecycle type Programs. There has also been a significantincrease in small schemes among both NGOs and government that include some element of socialprotection.

Reflecting the Government’s commitment to social protection, budgetary allocations have grown inabsolute terms as well as a share of GDP. The allocation for Social Protection Programs (SPPs)increased from 1.3 percent of GDP in 1998 to 2.5 percent in FY2011. Since then, it has stabilized ataround 2.0 percent of GDP. Although this level of funding is modest by international standards but whenmeasured against the Government’s tight budget situation, this represents a substantial commitment,accounting for 12 percent of total government spending, and reflects the high priority accorded by theGovernment to this aspect of the social development policy.

At the national level the impact of the SPP spending can be assessed by the reduction of hunger, theimpact on poverty and the impact in lowering the depth of poverty (the poverty gap). One majorachievement of Bangladesh, especially since the devastating famine of 1974, is the sharp reduction in

12

the incidence of hunger-based poverty. Furthermore, simulation exercise shows that in the absence ofSSP spending the poverty rate would have been 33.4 percent, almost 2 percentage points higher. Thedepth of poverty would also have been higher. Thus, SPP spending has helped lower poverty and itsdepth.

Simulation exercises, however, also suggest that a more efficient system that seeks to address thevarious programmatic and administrative issues will help achieve better results in terms of lowering thepoverty rate as well as a further reduction in the depth of poverty. While the coverage of SPPs hasincreased over time, some 71 percent of the poor households still do not have access to any socialprotection Program. If the target is broadened to include the near poor, the exclusion share ofhouseholds increases to 74 percent. When this result is combined with the low average benefit providedby most large Programs, the challenge for the social protection agenda moving forward is substantial.

Issues and Challenges of the Present SPS

Bangladesh’s current social protection system (SPS) is complex, comprising a large number ofPrograms and is managed by many ministries. According to a comprehensive official compilationprepared by the Ministry of Finance, there are 95 Programs under the social protection system currentlyfinanced through the budget. The total amount spent on these Programs in FY13 was Tk 231 billion,which was equivalent to 2.2 percent of GDP. These Programs are administered by as many as 30 lineministries/agencies and there is no formal mechanism for sharing information among the implementingministries/agencies.

Because of the proliferation of Programs, the budget for most Programs is small and the averagebenefit per individual is low. While coverage of beneficiaries has increased, the targeting performancesuggests the need for improvement. For example, in 2010, of the 24.5 percent of households whoreported benefitting from at least one of the 30 SSP Program covered in the HIES, 79 percent of thebeneficiaries belonged to the poor and near-poor group while some 21 percent of the beneficiaries werenon-poor. There is an important agenda to improve targeting to lower the percentage of householdswhose income is above that of poor and near-poor households benefitting from social protectionschemes.

A strategic review of Programs shows that some 65 percent of the SPPs are seeking to address life-cycle related risks. Yet, there are significant gaps. Despite a high rate of under-nutrition among veryyoung children, coverage of children aged 0-4 years is almost insignificant. Furthermore, only a smallproportion of people with disabilities and elderly persons receive some form of benefit. Coverage ishighest among school age children but the transfers they receive are low in value, a problem thataffects almost all of Bangladesh’s social protection schemes.

There is a dominance of food-transfer and rural employment Programs in terms of beneficiaryparticipation as well as funding owing to the nation’s focus on eliminating hunger and reducing ruralpoverty. With rapid GDP growth over the past 10 years and good agricultural performance, theincidence of hunger and food poverty is being reduced substantially. There is also evidence that thelabor market in agriculture is tightening as reflected in growing agricultural real wages. In view of thischanging economic landscape, the nature of poverty and the risk profile is also changing. This requiresa reassessment of the adequacy of the present SPS schemes to meet the social protectionrequirements of the Bangladeshi population in the 21st Century.

Much of the SPPs are focused on addressing the risks faced by the rural poor. With the evolvingeconomic transformation in Bangladesh where both the GDP and employment domination of the ruraleconomy is declining and the urban economy is growing with a heavy concentration of poor and nearpoor in the urban areas, the SP system needs to be rethought strategically to anticipate the importanceof these changing economic and social dynamics and develop Programs that do not necessarily focusonly on the rural poor but instead become a more inclusive system whereby the poor and near-poor canexpect to access SPPs irrespective of where they live.

13

Presently, the employment market is dominated by informal employment. Bangladesh is aspiring tobecome a middle-income country by 2021. Already, the per capita annual income level has crossed theUS$ 1000 mark. As the economy grows and the share of modern manufacturing and organizedservices in both GDP and employment grows, the requirements demand from the SPS system willchange dramatically. The approach to delivering social benefits will therefore need to broaden from theconcept of a safety net to a more inclusive concept of a social protection strategy that is aligned to thelife cycle and incorporates formal employment policies as well as social insurance schemes. This will fitmore cogently with the needs of a modern urban-based economy where the demand for this is alreadyseen from the risks faced by the Readymade Garments sector.

Another major shortcoming of the present SPS is the absence of effective monitoring and evaluation(M&E). There is no formal mechanism for reviewing the performance of the SPS either at the nationallevel or by individual Programs. Some limited efforts aimed at studying the impact of a few Programssupported by donors have been done. The absence of a results-based M&E system is a part of thereason for the emergence of such a large number of Programs (Ref. 1).

An Overview of Social Safety Net Programs in Bangladesh: Safety net spending was around 15percent of the government expenditure in Bangladesh in 2010 (Barkat et al., 2011). About 24.6 percentof households received benefit from the SSNPs in 2010 (HIES, 2010). These Programs directly transferresources to poor people. Bangladesh has a comprehensive portfolio of both food and cash-basedSSNPs. Currently, there are about 99 such Programs (the number varies from source to source). Thesafety net Programs can be categorized in accordance with the specific objective that each Program isdesigned to achieve. For example, Programs may be designed to develop infrastructure, provideeducation incentives to the poor students, ease disaster consequences, or provide livelihood support todisadvantaged groups such as the widowed, deserted and destitute, aged and the disabled. They canbe categorized in other ways. In Table 1 present the major types of SSNPs in Bangladesh. There are30 public SSNPs in the country covered in the HIES 2010. From these SSNPs this study considersinterventions such as (1) old age allowance (OAA), (2) allowances for the widowed, destitute anddeserted (AWDDW), (3) agriculture rehabilitation Program (ARP), (4) stipend for primary students, (5)stipend for secondary students and (6) a combination of cash for work (CFW), vulnerable groupdevelopment (VGD), food for work (FFW) and 100 days employment scheme. Of thirty SSNPs, 5 areconditional cash transfer, 10 are unconditional cash transfer, 9 are public works or training basedcash or in kind transfer Program and remaining 6 are emergency or seasonal relief Programs (HIES,2010). (Ref. 3)

Table 3.1: Major types of SSNPs in BangladeshTypes Name of the SSNPsCash Transfer Old age allowances (OAA) (implemented by the Ministry of Social Welfare)

Allowances for the widowed, deserted and destitute (AWDD) Allowance for the financially insolvent disabled Maternity allowances Program for the poor lactating Honorarium for insolvent freedom fighters (implemented by MOFWA) Honorarium for injured freedom fighters Allowances for distressed cultural personalities/activities Allowances for beneficiaries in Ctg. hill tract area Housing support Maternal health voucher allowance

Conditional CashTransfer

Stipend for primary students (implemented by MOPMED) Stipend for drop out students Stipend for secondary and higher secondary /female students Stipend for disabled student (MOSW) Grants for the schools of disabled (MOSW)

Public works ortraining based cashor in kind transfer

Food for works (FFW) Cash for work (CFW) (implemented by MOFDM) Agriculture rehabilitation Program (ARP) (implemented by MOA) Vulnerable group development (VGD) (implemented by MOWCA) Employment generation Program (EGP) for hard-core poor or 100 days Rural employment, social forestation and rural maintenance Program

14

Types Name of the SSNPs(implemented by LGD) School feeding Program (MOPMED) Rural employment opportunity for protection of public Char livelihood

Emergency orseasonal relief

Gratuitous relief (cash) (GR) General relief activities Food assistance in CTG-Hill tracts area Subsidy for open market sales (OMS) Vulnerable group feeding (VGF) (implemented by MOFDM) Test relief (TR)

Source: HIES, 2010

In developing countries like Bangladesh, where most of the poor reside in rural areas and receive alarge share of their incomes from agriculture, agricultural development could be a foremost weapon toreduce poverty. One of the SSNPs that is directly linked with agriculture is the agriculture rehabilitationProgram. This Program is designed to rehabilitate the small and marginal farmers’ and provide themagricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and farm machineries (power tillers, threshers, batch driers,irrigation pumps etc.) through Directorate of Agricultural Extension (DAE). Also, capacity building offarmers and the development of community based farmers organizations are included in the Program.

The table 8 shows the coverage of selected safety net Programs and budgetary allocation in thePrograms for the years 2009-10 through 2012-2013. The budget accounting shows allocations for‘social safety nets’ for selected safety net Programs. In FY 2012-13, Tk. 891 billion, Tk. 331.20 million,Tk.806.84 million, Tk.1439.04 million, Tk.1200.00 million, Tk.52.10 million, Tk.949.00 million and Tk.565million were allocated for selected safety net Programs such as Old Age Allowance (OAA), Allowancefor the Widowed, Deserted and Destitute Women (AWDDW), Cash for Work (CFW), Vulnerable GroupDevelopment (VGD), Food for Work (FFW), Agriculture Rehabilitation (AR), Stipend for PrimaryStudents and Stipend for Secondary and Higher Secondary/Female Student, respectively.

The salient features and more detailed overview of the SSNPs are presented in Table 8. Launched in1998, OAA Program has expanded considerably, benefitting about 2.5 million older people. TheProgram targets poor elderly individuals who are at least 65 years of age (62 years for female), have anincome of less than Tk. 3000/year and have not worked in the formal sector. The beneficiaries get Tk.300/month from the Program. The selection criteria ensure that 50 percent of the beneficiaries arewomen.

The VGD Program exclusively targets poor women and provides a monthly food ration for 24 months.Although it was introduced as a relief Program in the mid-1970s, it has evolved over time to integratefood security with development objectives. The development package includes training on income-generating activities and awareness-raising for social, legal, health, and nutrition issues; and basicliteracy and innumeracy.

The 100-days EGP is a positive and people-oriented Program aimed at helping the extremely poor andunemployed people. In view of this, the Program is definitely a positive one as it will help these peopleearn some money to sustain and contribute to the reconstruction of roads and other works. The mostimportant aspect is that the people involved in the Program will regain self-confidence and the strengthto continue to struggle for survival. Each of the beneficiaries gets Tk. 100 a day for work under thescheme. Registered unemployed people have been issued cards after enlisting. If the registeredunemployed people cannot be given an appropriate job within 15 days after issuance of cards, they willget unemployment allowance. In such cases, they get Tk. 40 each daily for first 30 days and Tk. 50daily for the rest of the period and the Program will last up to 100 days.

Stipend for primary students and stipend for secondary and higher secondary female students areunder cash for education Program. Cash for education Program was named as a food for educationProgram until 2002. At that time this Program distributed monthly food grain rations to the householdsbelow poverty if they sent their children to primary schools. This SSNP terminated in 2002 and hasbeen replaced by the Primary Education Stipend (PES) Program. Now the objectives of this PES are to

15

increase enrolment from poor families, reduce dropout, increase rate of completion, control child laborand raise quality of primary education. Government provides Tk. 100 if one student in the Household,Tk. 125 if more than one student in the household. However, this payment is made to mothers’ bankaccounts. The Government of Bangladesh also provides cash assistance to girls in secondary schoolsthrough the female secondary school assistance Program (FSSAP). The objectives of FSSAP are toincrease the number of girl students in secondary schools, increase employment and self-employmentamong women and reduce underage marriage. Government provides monthly stipend ranging from Tk.150 (class VI), Tk. 180 (class VII), Tk. 210 (class VIII) to Tk. 360 (class IX and X) along with free tuition(Tk. 60 to 120), book allowance (Tk. 250 for class IX and X) and exempted examination fees (Tk. 550for SSC student) (Selim, 2009). However, the Program was redesigned in 2008 and renamed as thesecondary education access and quality enhance Program, which includes boys from poor families aswell as girls.

Table 3.2: Coverage and Budgetary Allocation of Selected SSN Programs (2009-10 to 2014-15)Program Coverage in million (no.) Budget in million (Tk.)

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

Old AgeAllowance (OAA)

22.50 24.75 24.75 24.75 27.23 27.23 810.00 891.00 892.04 891.00 980.10 1306.80

Allowance for theWidowed,Deserted andDestitute (AWDD)

9.20 9.20 9.20 9.20 10.12 10.12 331.20 331.20 331.20 331.20 364.32 485.75

Allowances for theFinanciallyInsolvent Disabled(AFID)

2.60 2.86 2.86 2.86 3.15 4.00 93.60 102.96 102.96 102.96 132.13 240.00

MaternityAllowanceProgramme for thePoorLactating Mothers

0.80 0.88 0.92 0.92 1.16 2.20 33.60 43.20 42.50 42.50 48.88 132.00

Test Relief (TR)Food

38.10(ManMonth)

39.05(ManMonth)

39.05(ManMonth)

39.00(ManMonth)

39.00(ManMonth)

18.75 837.85 953.88 1117.32 1260.25 1291.94 1292.37

Vulnerable GroupDevelopment(VGD)

88.33(person-month)

88.33(person-month)

88.33(person-month)

90.00(person-month)

91.33(person-month)

91.33(person-month)

595.17 729.92 781.02 806.84 851.06 886.92

Food for Work(FFW)

35.71 38.10 40.0 50.00 50.00 18.75 927.66 1294.00 1283.70 1439.04 265.38 1317.74

EmploymentGeneration forHard-core Poor or100 days EGP

45.00 42.00 42.00 45.00 7.72 8.27 1076.11 1000.00

1000.00 1200.00 1400.00 1500.00

AgricultureRehabilitation

25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 29.82 32.22 50.00 50.00 52.07 52.10 62.15 67.15

Stipend forPrimary Students

52.00 78.17 79.95 84.30 78.17 78.17 574.84 865.00 900.00 949.00 1000.00

970.00

Stipend forSecondary andHigherSecondary/Female Student

25.00 38.92 37.41 33.01 26.28 26.28 478.79 672.89 640.29 565.00 449.86 449.86

Source: Ministry of Finance (2012)

16

Table 3.3: An Overview of Selected Safety Net Programs

No. Name of theProgram

Year of Starting Selection Criteria Benefit

1 Old ageallowance

In 1998 under theMinistry of SocialWelfare, TheDepartment of SocialServices

i. Age limit:- Male: 65 or more

years of age- Female: 62 or more

years of ageii. Average annual income of

beneficiaries must belowTk.10,000

iii. Holding agriculture land lessthan .5 acre

iv. Priority must be given to thewidow, divorced women,husband deserted women

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 980.10Coverage: 2,722,500beneficiaries

Benefit: Monthly allowanceof Tk. 300 for wholelifetime.

2. Allowancesfor theWidowed,Destitute andDesertedWomen

In 1999-2000 underthe Ministry of SocialWelfare, TheDepartment of SocialServices

i. Allowance recipient mustbe the citizen ofBangladesh.

ii. Priority must be given tothe widow, divorcedwomen, husband desertedwomen.

iii. Priority must be given tothe wealth less, homelessand landless, respectively.

iv. Allowance recipient musthave annual income notover Tk. 12000.00.

v. Allowance recipient musthave the National IdentityCard/ Birth RegistrationCertificate.

vi. Recipient must be theresident of the concernedlocal area.

vii. Recipient must beselected by the concernedcommittee.

Non- Eligibility: (i) Pension holderof the Government Service will notbe eligible to get the saidallowance. (ii) VGD Card holderswill not be eligible to get the saidallowance. (iii) Those who getregular grant or Allowance fromthe government will not be eligibleto get the said allowance.(iv) Those who get regular grant orAllowance from the Non-government agencies will not beeligible to get the said allowance.

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 364.32Coverage: 1,012,000beneficiaries

Benefit: Monthly allowanceof Tk. 300 for wholelifetime

3. Allowancesfor theFinanciallyInsolventDisabled(AFID)

In 2005-2006 underthe Ministry of SocialWelfare, TheDepartment of SocialServices

i. Allowance recipient must be thecitizen of Bangladesh.ii. Allowance recipient must be theregistered from District SocialWelfare Office according toDisability Welfare Act-2001iii) Allowance recipient must haveannual income not over Tk.36000.00iv) Priority must be given to the

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 132.13

Coverage: 314,600beneficiaries

Benefit: Monthly allowanceof Tk. 350 for wholelifetime

17

No. Name of theProgram

Year of Starting Selection Criteria Benefit

disadvantage disabled.v) Must have the age of 6 yearsand above.vi) Recipient must be selected bythe concerned committee.

4 MaternityAllowanceProgrammefor the PoorLactatingMothers

In 2007-2008 underthe Ministry ofWomen & Children

To be an eligible recipient, a ruralmother is required to meet at leastfour of the following criteria,including the first two mandatoryrequirements:i. Pregnant with her first or

second child;ii. At least 20 years of ageiii. Total household income of

less than Tk. 1500 (~ $20USD)

iv. Poor mother of a femaleheaded household

v. Poor mother with adisability

vi. Not occupying agriculturalland

vii. Not occupying productiveassets, such asagricultural land, livestock,etc.

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 48.88

Coverage: 1.16 lacbeneficiaries

Benefit: Monthly allowanceof Tk. 350

5. VGD(i) IncomegeneratingVGD(IGVGD) and(ii) Foodsecurity VGD(FSVGD).

The starting year ofVGD 1975. TheMinistry of Womenand Children Affairsis implementing thisProgram.

i. Less than 15 decimals of land;ii. VGD aims to reach ultra-poor

rural women withcomplementary inputs that willimprove their nutrition andenhance their livelihoods andself-reliance.

iii. Poor sanitation an housing ispoor

iv. Irregular income/day laborer/v. Female headed familyvi. Absence of male income

source or other income sourcevii. Age must be between 18 to 40viii. Not selected as beneficiary in

the last VGD cycle;

7.5 lac distressed andultra-poor women havebeen receiving foodassistance and training.30 kilogram of Atta/rice(flour) per month.Over 24 months, the VGDassistance packageincludes:- fortified wheat flour or riceto offset the opportunitycosts of participating intraining Programs and toimprove nutrition;- training in health andnutrition, civil and legalrights, literacy andnumeracy, HIV awarenessand prevention measures,child trafficking, budgetmanagement, and income-generating activities;

6. 100-dayemploymentgenerationProgram

September 2008 i. The poorest and joblesspoor.

ii. Age between 18 to 60years

iii. Less than .10 acreagricultural land

iv. Monthly average incomeless than BDT 4,000

v. Unemployed and unskilled(one male/female fromeach family)

vi. 33% female beneficiaries

To increase the purchasingpower of extreme poorrural people, create wealthboth for the people and thenation and to develop andmaintain small scale ruralinfrastructure andcommunication system byproviding employment toextreme poor ruralunemployed people.

18

No. Name of theProgram

Year of Starting Selection Criteria Benefit

7. PrimarySchoolStipendProgram

January 2003Implemented by theMinistry of Primaryand Mass Education

i. Belong to a landless or nearlandless household (one that ownsless than half an acre of land)ii. Have parents who work as daylaborersiii. Belong to a female-headedhousehold (one where the head iswidowed, separated, or divorced orwhere the husband is disabled)iv. Belong to a household thatderives its living from fishing,pottery, weaving, blacksmithing, orcobbling)v. Belong to a household thatderives its living fromvi. Sharecroppingvii. Households with Supportingmore than 5 million pupils.qualifying pupils must attendschool 85 percent of the time

Tk. 100 per month for onechild (about US$1.76) andTk 125 per month for morethan one child.

8. SecondarySchoolStipendProgram

Began as anexperiment in 1982by a local NGO in asingle Upazila withUSAID financialassistance under thesupervision of theAsia Foundation.

i. Attend school for at least 75percent of the days of theschool year

ii. Occupied land less than 50decimal;

iii. Guardian’s annual income lessthan BDT 30,000

iv. Priority should be given toorphan, freedom fighters’children, disabled, rivereroded, day labor

v. Secure marks in annual exam:Class 6-7= at least 33%Class 8-9=at least 40%Class 10= as per

education boardvi. Remains unmarried.

Provides free tuition, yearlybook allowance, and publicexamination fees andstipends to all eligiblefemale secondary schoolstudents enrolled inrecognized institutionsoutside the metropolitanareas The rate of thestipend varies from Tk.150/month - Tk. 360/monthbased on the class ofstudy.

9 VGF i. Daily labor, irregular incomesource

ii. Less than .15 acre agriculturalland

iii. Spouse of disabled personiv. Male/female of climate

affected areas

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 1326.91Coverage: 85 lac person-month

10 Test Relief(TR)

Since 1975 Ministryof Food and DisasterManagement(MODM) has beenimplementing theTest Relief (TR)program every yearduring the lean periodand naturalcalamities (floods,cyclones) in ruralareas

The main objective of this programis to create employmentopportunities for rural poor, wage-laborer and unemployed peoplethrough implementation of smallrehabilitation projects, includingdevelopment of educational andpublic welfare institutions, basedon providing 8 kgs. of rice/wheat toevery person for working 7 hours aday for specific project activitiesand standardized volumes of work.

Budget (Taka in crore:2013-14): 1291.94Coverage: 39 lac person-month

Source: SSNP guidelines, and http://www.mof.gov.bd/en/budget/14_15/ber/bn/Chapter-13_bn_2014.pdf

19

Chapter IV: Analyses of Findings: Household Survey

Focus of Data Analysis

The primary objective of the project is to assess the effectiveness and impact of government ofBangladesh’s social protection schemes and simultaneously implement appropriate evidence basedinterventions to improve quality of good governance in the sector. The current baseline surveyassessed efficiency and practice level of the service providers in providing selected safety netPrograms to the actual beneficiaries; and the level of voice and representation of the grassrootscommunity people towards establishing their entitlement on SSN. The study attempted to assess:

the processes of identification and selection of the eligible population for SSN; in the delivering ofthe services; cost incurred as overhead; capacity of the providers and the policy and gaps as part ofsupply side investigation; and

the community peoples’ perception and their entitlement; the economic, social, cultural, politicalfactors/deprivation; Capacity gap of the citizens and civil society organizations for establishing socialaccountability mechanisms; and Beneficiary’s grievance lodging and resolution options, practice andeffectiveness as part of demand side investigations.

In addition the study further underscored the:

Profiles of grassroots people enjoying the entitlement and those eligible but not enjoying thebenefits (Percentage of the excluded poorest beneficiaries deprived from their entitlement);

Community access to safety net services (targeting error); Identify the capacity gaps of demand side and supply side actors; Existing coping mechanisms - the ways of tackling poverty risks, challenges, formal and informal

protection mechanism; and Policy review and gap for further investment in policy influence.

20

Section 1: On Old age allowances (OAA)

1.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Samples: In total 238 recipients/beneficiaries were interviewed of which 50% are females. On the otherhand, in total 121 non-beneficiaries/non-recipients were interviewed, of them 52% are males and 48%are females.Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Mean age of the sample Recipients is 71 years, while that of the Non Recipients is 68 years. Majority ofthe Recipients (92%) and Non Recipients (89%) are illiterate or they can sign only. In regards to MaritalStatus, 63% of the beneficiaries and 68% of Non non-benebficiaries are currently married and the restof the respondents (slightly above one-third) are widows/widowers.

Table 4.1.1: Characteristics of Old Age Allowance Respondents

Characteristics OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Age in yearsAverage age in years 71 68 70Minimum 51 52 51Maximum 96 95 96Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 92 89 91Class 1 to class 3 3 7 5Class 4 to class 5 3 1 2Class 6 to class 10 2 3 2Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 63 68 64Widow /Widower 37 32 36Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Unemployed (R: 37% & NR: 32%);Housewife (R: 38% & NR: 38%); Farmer (R: 13% & NR: 12%); Day laborers (R: 9% & NR: 14%);Beggars (R: 2% & NR: 3%); and Business (R: 1% & NR: 1%). Average family size for both Recipientsand the Non Recipients is 4. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (73%) and Non Recipients(79%) sample live in Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Respondents as Head of household (R: 46%& NR: 40%); Husbands as Head of household (R: 6% & NR: 11%); Children/Offspring as Head ofhousehold (R: 47% & NR: 48%); and Wife as Head of household (R: 1% & NR: 1%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 75% & NR: 75%); Hindus (R:10% & NR: 12%); Buddhists (R: 13% & NR: 12%) and Christians (R: 2% & NR: 1%).By the status of supporting family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows:Children supporting family expenses (R: 44% & NR: 43%); Do not support family expenses (R: 32% &NR: 33 %); Children do not support family expenses (R: 20% & NR: 18%); Child less (R: 2% & NR: 3%);and Separated from Family (R: 2% & NR: 3%).Table 4.1.2: Earning Member of the Family: in %Earning member of the family:in %

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Offspring 61 59 60Self 33 35 34No earning member of the family 7 4 6Husband 5 10 6Wife 1 0 1

Multiple Responses

21

The offspring are reported as majority family earning members of the both category (R: 61% & NR:59%); Around one third (R: 33% & NR: 35%) of the categories’ respondents said that they have ownincome; Husbands as earning members (R: 5% & NR: 10%); Wives as earning members (R: 1% & NR:0%); and No earning members in the family (R: 7% & NR: 4%). Hundred percent of the respondentsboth Recipients and the Non Recipients are permanent residents of the area.

By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 4018) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3596) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). . The average monthly familyexpenditures of the Recipients and Non Recipients are Tk. 3810 and Tk. 3493 respectively. Estimatedsocio economic status assessed observing housing conditions and assets by the field investigatorsshow that 95% of the Recipients and 97% of the Non Recipients are poor.

1.2 Findings of the Household Survey on Old Age Allowances

Awareness about Old age Allowances

Recipients came to know about OAA from multiple sources. Overwhelming majority (97%) came toknow about it from the UP; other sources of knowledge were Upazila Parisad (11%), Ward Sava (10%)and from the local NGOs (6%). Key Persons from whom the knowledge was acquired are: UP malemember (54%), female member (28%) and Chairman (22%) (Multiple responses counted).

Table 4.1.3: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by their sources of knowledge about OAA: in %

Sources of knowledge on old age allowance %From where: in %Union Parishad 97Upazilla Parishad 11Ward Shava 10NGO 6From whom: in %Male Member 54Female Member 28Chairman 22NGO worker 8Political leader 7UP Secretary 2Govt Officials 2Family/Neighbor 2Teacher 1

Multiple Responses

Selection processOnly 14% respondents’ acknowledged that open publicity was done about the selection for the old ageallowances. And in support, only 7% respondents claimed that such publicity was done through meetingin an open space (field). Very meager percent of the respondents (8%) confirmed that there is aselection committee for the same.

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances and ProblemHundred percent of the respondents receive their allowances from the Bank; 92% withdrawal money byown/self; and a very minute percent (6%) of them said that they faced problems, such as Waiting in thelong queue (line), Difficult for arranging transportation to reach the bank and some of them said that thebank deducted Tk. 10 from them.

Distance to Bank; time spent and cost of travelThe mean distance from a beneficiary's household to the Bank from which money is transacted is 4 km.About half (40%) of the respondents, however live within 1 to 2 km radius; 28% live within 3 to 4 kmradius and about a third (32%) of the beneficiaries live beyond 4 km.One tenth (11%) of the beneficiaries had to spend up to 30 minutes for Bank transactions; 40% spentmore than 30 minutes to one hour and the rest spent more than an hour.

22

Little over one-tenth of the beneficiaries (13%) did not spend any transportation cost, about two thirds(63%) spent less than Tk.50, while the rest spent more than Tk. 50 for travel to the Bank.

Mode of Use ofallowanceAbout two thirds of theRecipient Respondents(70%) that the allowancemoney was spent mostlyfor their treatment; 37%spent for meetingessential expenses for thefamily; a very minutepercent (3%) to meet theexpenses of drinking teaand chewing betel leaf/pansupari (open-endedmultiple responses) and7% said that they are nowfree from indebtedness(figure 1).In figure 2 the first columnshows majority of therespondents (57%) saidthat they could not meettheir medical expenseswithout receiving theallowance. About a quarterof the Respondents (27%)claimed that they starvedin the absence of theallowance. About a tenth(11%) said that they weredependent on others and6% could not supportchildren's education in theabsence of the allowance.

Level of satisfaction

16% of the beneficiary respondents suggested changes in the selection process; and of them about ahalf (54%) desired changes in the design and mode of publicity on the Selection Process and otherswanted change in the selection policy (51%). About one third of the beneficiary respondents (29%)suggested changes in the disbursement system; and of them 31% desired disbursement throughMobile phone and 29% desired Disbursement through Post Office.

However 10% of them (3 respondents) said that they had some verbal grievances, of which 2respondents said that their grievances were resolved after they had complained to the respective UPrepresentatives. On average each respondent mentioned about 3 persons whom they know are eligible,but did not get the allowance.

Selection/targeting error

Age: There were selection errors in terms of applying age bar; 18% of the males beneficiaries wereselected below age 65 years and 12% of the female beneficiaries were selected below age 62 years.

57

27

117 6 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Could not buy medicine/could not do any treatment

I had to starve

Depended on other'ssupport

Could not spend moneyfor children education

Could not buy dailynecessarythings/food/clothesCould not buy betel-leaf-nut and take tea

Figure 2: Problems Faced in Absence of the Old Age Allowance: in %

70

37

7 3

01020

304050

60708090

100

Spend money fortreatment

Spent money formeeting essentialexpenses for thefamily: food & clothesNow don’t need to loanmoney from others

To meet the expensesof drinking tea andchewing betel leaf/pansupari

Figure 1: Mode of Use of the Allowance (multiple responses): in %

23

Land: According to the policy guideline of selecting OAA beneficiaries, the applicants having less than.5 acre (50 decimal) agricultural land will be given preference during beneficiary selection process. Thisis not a precondition of beneficiary selection criteria. However, the baseline data shows, average LandHolding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 6 decimals & NR: 4 decimalsand Agricultural land holding: R: 5 decimals & NR: 4 decimals). Average total land holding both homestead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family. However, 3% of thebeneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.

Income: According to the eligibility guideline the OAA, beneficiaries annual income supposed to beless than Tk. 10000. The data shows that a very negligible portion of respondents (2%) found whoseincome exceeded the limit of income threshold.

Governance challenge/cause

Political Influence: About one- tenth (9%) of the beneficiary respondents said that the selection wasinfluenced by political party affiliations.

Bribe: Only 8% of the Recipient respondents said that they on average paid Tk. 1136 (minimum Tk.200 and maximum Tk. 2500) as bribes mostly to the male ward member and some to the female wardmember for their enlistment for the allowances.

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Old Age AllowancesHundred percent of the Non Recipients respondents are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 69%of the Non Recipients applied for the allowance. Only 13% of the Non Recipients lodged verbalcomplaints against their non-selection to UP representatives and only in case of 13% of the grievanceswere resolved with assurance to them to be considered for future selection. The non recipientscomplained the following for their non selection:

Figure 3 shows that non-beneficiaries opined that allocationof cards was limited 48%; Cardsare given to them only, who canoffer money 19%; Nepotism/political influences 19%; and didnot deliver the cards 15%. The nonrecipients approached the UPChairmen and members (86%)several times urging for theirselection. Five percent of the nonrecipients offered money for theirselection. Only four percent saidthat their relatives were selected forthe allowance.

Figure 3: Eligible Non Recipients of Old Age Allowances: in %

48

19 1915

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Allocation of cardsw as limited

Cards are given tothem only, w ho canoffer money

Nepotism/ politicalinfluences

They just put me offfrom day to day but donot deliver the cards

24

Section 2: On Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women(AWDDW)

2.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Samples: Samples for AWDDW comprised a total of 354 widows, destitute and deserted women, ofwhom Beneficiaries' Recipient (R) Samples are 65% and the rest 35% are the Non Recipients' (NR)Sample.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 53 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 52 years. Majority of the Recipients (92%) and Non Recipients (93%) areno education/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 99% of the Recipients and 98% of NonRecipients are widows and the rest are separated/ divorced.Table 4.2.1: Characteristics of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women

Characteristics AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Age: in yearsAverage age in years 53 52 53Minimum 26 26 26Maximum 82 84 84Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 92 93 92Class 1 to class 3 4 4 4Class 4 to class 5 2 2 2Class 6 to class 10 2 1 2Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Widow /Widower 99 98 98Separated 0 2 1Divorced 1 0 1Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Housewife (R: 62% & NR: 65%); Daylaborers (R: 20% & NR: 21%); Unemployed (R: 15% & NR: 11%) and the rest of the tiny respondentsare beggars, house maids and in business. Average family size for both Recipients and the NonRecipients is 4. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (87%) and Non Recipients (88%) sample livein Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Respondents as Head of household (R: 54%& NR: 59%); Children/Offspring as Head of household (R: 46% & NR: 39%); and Brother as Head ofhousehold (R: 0% & NR: 2%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 70% & NR: 73%); Hindus (R:16% & NR: 11%); Buddhists (R: 12% & NR: 15%) and Christians (R: 2% & NR: 1%).

By the status of supporting family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Nomaintenance support (R: 47% & NR: 45%); Children provide maintenance support (R: 37% & NR:41%); Children do not provide maintenance support (R: 13% & NR: 11%); Child less (R: 2% & NR: 2%);and Separated from Family (R: 1% & NR: 2%).Table 4.2.2: Earning Members of the Family: in %

Earning member of the family: in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Self (Respondent) earning 50 53 50Offspring earning 52 46 49Father earning 1 1 1No earning member of the family 4 4 4

[Multiple Response]

The distribution of the sample by status of earning members of the family is as follows:Respondents as earning members (R: 50% & NR: 53%); Offspring as earning members (R: 52% & NR:

25

46%); Father as earning members (R: 1% & NR: 1%); and No earning members in the family (R: 4% &NR: 4%). Hundred percent of the respondents both Recipients and the Non Recipients are permanentresidents of the area.

By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 3156) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3304) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family income of Tk.300 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 200 for the Non Recipients' family is much below the averageincome of a hardcore poor family. The maximum monthly family income of Tk. 9000 is below the limitfor the eligibility of safety net allowances.

The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipients and Non Recipients are Tk. 3028 and Tk.3162, respectively. Estimated socio economic status assessed observing housing conditions andassets by the field investigators show that 98% of the Recipients and 98% of the Non Recipients arepoor.

Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 4decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 3 decimals & NR: 2 decimals). Theaverage total land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poorfamily.

2.2 Findings of the Household Survey on Widow, Deserted and Destitute WomenAllowances

Awareness about Widow, Deserted andDestitute Women Allowances: The table 4.2.3shows that recipients of the Widow, Deserted andDestitute Women allowances came to know aboutit from multiple sources. Overwhelming majority(90%) came to know about it from the UP; othersources of knowledge were Upazila Parisad(12%), Ward Sava (13%) and from the localNGOs (4%). Key Persons from whom theknowledge was acquired are: UP male member(45%), female member (32%) and Chairman(18%).

Selection process: Only 18% acknowledged that open publicity was done about the selection for theWidow, Deserted and Destitute Women allowances. And in support, only 7% respondents claimed thatsuch publicity was done through meeting in an open space (field). Very meager percent of therespondents (10%) confirmed that there is a selection committee for the same.

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances: Hundred percent of the respondents receive theirallowances from the Bank; and a very minute percent (6%) of them said that they faced problems, suchas waiting in the long queue (line), and difficult for arranging transportation to reach the bank.

Distance to Bank, time spent and cost of travel: The mean distance from a beneficiary's householdto the Bank from which money is transacted is 4 km. About half (46%) of the respondents, however livewithin 1 to 2 km radius; 24% live within 3 to 4 km radius and about third (30%) of the beneficiaries livebeyond 4 km.

More than half (52%) of the beneficiaries had to spend more than 30 minutes to one hour for Banktransactions; 15% spent more than 1 hour to 2 hours and the rest spent more than 2 hours (33%).

One fifth of the beneficiaries (20%) did not have to spend any money, more than half (57%) spent lessthan Tk.50, while the rest spent more than Tk.50 for travel to the Bank.

Table 4.2.3: Distribution of AWDDW respondents bytheir sources of knowledge about program: in %From whereUnion Parishad 90Ward Shova 13Upazilla Parishad 12NGO 4From whomMale Member 45Female Member 32Chairman 18Family/Neighbor 4NGO worker 3Political leader 2Govt Officials 2UP Sectary 1[Multiple Response]

26

Mode of Use of allowance: Thefigure 4 shows that 61% of thebeneficiaries said that theallowance was spent mostly fortheir treatment; 70% spent formeeting essential expenses forthe family; a very minute percent(1%) to meet the expenses ofdrinking tea and chewing betelleaf (pan supari) and 5% saidthat they met the expenses ofchildren education.

Besides, the figure 5 shows thatmajority of the respondents (48%)said that they could not meet theirmedical expenses when they did notreceive the allowance. About half ofthe Respondents (40%) claimed thatthey starved in the absence of theallowance. Four percent said that theywere dependent on others and samepercentage of respondents’ could notsupport children's education inabsence of the allowance. About aquarter of the Respondents (24%)claimed that they starved in theabsence of the allowance.

Level of satisfaction: However, one fifth (19%) of the beneficiary respondents suggested changes inthe selection process and disbursement system; and of them more than one third desired changes inthe selection policy (38%), changes in committee (18%) and in the design and mode of publicity; andone third (33%) desired disbursement through Bank (already disbursing through bank), 13% desireddisbursement send at home and 11% wanted disbursement through Union Parishad Office.

However 9% (n=2) of them said that they had some verbal grievances and they said that theirgrievances were resolved after they had complained to the respective UP representatives. On averageeach respondent mentioned about 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get theallowance

Selection/targeting errorLand: According to the policy guideline of selecting AWDDW beneficiaries, the applicants having lessthan .5 acre (50 decimal) agricultural land will be given preference during beneficiary selection process.Likewise the OAA selection process, this is not a precondition of beneficiary selection. However, thebaseline data shows, Average Land Holding status of the samples as follows: (Home stead landholding: R: 4 decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 3 decimals & NR: 2decimals). Average total land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimatedfor a poor family. However, only 1% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding landmore than 50 decimals.

7061

5 1

01020304050607080

Spend money for meetingessential expenses for thefamily: food and clothes

Spend money fortreatment

To meet cost for childreneducation

To meet the expenses ofdrinking tea and chew ingbetel leaf/pan supari

Figure 4: Mode of Use of the Allowance (multiple responses): in %

48

40

24

4 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Could not meet medicalexpenses

I had to starve

Could not buy dailynecessarythings/food/clothesDepended on other'ssupport

Could not supportchildren's education

Figure 5: Problems Faced in Absence of Widow, Deserted &Destitute Women Allowances: %

27

Income: Cross tabulation (table 4.2.4) on monthly income by level of education does not show anydifference/correlation,as at all the levels ofeducation (NoEducation-0 to 10grade) more thanthree fourths to 100%income falls beyondTk. 1000 per monthper beneficiary. The reason only could be selection bias; most of the beneficiaries were selected withincome above Tk. 1000. However, if the income cutoff point of Tk. 1000 has been determined 5 to 10years before, the cutoff point may now be reconsidered, as presently the rural wages have increasedmore than 30% (see BBS data on rural income).

Governance Challenge/cause of IrregularityPolitical influence: About a tenth (8%) of the beneficiary respondents said that the selection wasinfluenced by political party affiliations.Bribe: Only 4% of the Recipient respondents said that they on average paid Tk. 1352 (minimum Tk.200 and maximum Tk. 3000) as bribes mostly to the male ward member (75%); some to the femaleward member (12%) and to the Chairman (13%) for their enlistment for the allowances.

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of AWDDWHundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 81% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 15% (n=18) of the Non Recipients verbally complaintsagainst their non selection to the UPrepresentatives and no complaintwas resolved.The non recipients complained thefollowing for their non selection (alsoshown in figure 6):52% opined that allocation of cardsare limited; respondents said thatcards are given to them only: whocan offer money (35%); nepotism/political influences(5%). The nonrecipients approached the UPChairmen and members (84%)several times urging for theirselection.

Table 4.2.4: Monthly Family Income of Recipients of AWDDW by education: in %Monthly Family Income No education Class

1-3Class4-5

Class6-10

Total

<Tk. 1000.00 2 0 0 17 3Tk. 1000.00 7 25 0 0 7>Tk. 1000.00 91 75 100 83 90Total 100 100 100 100 100

52

35

95

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Allocation of cardsw as limited

Cards are given tothem only, w ho canoffer money

Did not deliver thecards

Nepotism/ politicalinfluences

Figure 6: Eligible Non Recipients of AWDDW: in %

28

Section 3: On Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program(AFID)

3.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Samples: In total 126 beneficiaries were interviewed, of them 57% are males and 43% are females.On the other hand, in total 73 non-beneficiaries were interviewed, of them 43% are males and 57% arefemales.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 33 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 31 years. Majority of the Recipients (87%) and Non Recipients (78%) areno education/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 59% of the Recipients and 48% of NonRecipients are currently unmarried; 33% of the Recipients and 44% of Non Recipients are currentlymarried; 6% of the Recipients and 5% of Non Recipients are widows and rest of the respondents areseparated/ divorced.

Table 4.3.1: Characteristics of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents

Characteristics AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Age in yearsAverage 33 31 32Minimum 7 6 6Maximum 80 80 80Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 87 78 83Class 1 to class 3 3 7 4Class 4 to class 5 3 12 7Class 6 to class 10 7 3 6Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Unmarried 59 48 55Married 33 44 37Widow /Widower 6 5 6Separated 1 3 1Divorced 1 0 1Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Unemployed (R: 67% & NR: 63%); Daylaborers (R: 13% & NR: 11%); Housewife (R: 9% & NR: 12%); students (R: 4% & NR: 8%); Business(R: 4% & NR: 1%); Farmer (R: 3% & NR: 4%); and Beggars (R: 0% & NR: 1%). Average family size forboth Recipients and the Non Recipients is 5. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (75%) and NonRecipients (79%) used to live in Single/Nuclear Families and rest of them are living in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: In most cases respondents’ father play roleas household head (R: 55% & NR: 42%); Respondents’ mother reported as second lead category ashousehold head (R: 24% & NR: 26%); Mother (R: 9% & NR: 7%); Husbands as Head of household (R:6% & NR: 15%); Wife as Head of household (R: 3% & NR: 0%); Offspring as Head of household (R: 2%& NR: 10%); and Grand Father (R: 1% & NR: 0%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 84% & NR: 82%); and Hindus(R: 16% & NR: 18%).

By the status of supporting family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Nonesupporting family expenses (R: 38% & NR:38 %); Parents supporting family expenses (R: 29% &NR:26%); Children supporting family expenses (R: 25% & NR:26%); Child less (R: 6% & NR: 4%);Children do not provide family expenses (R: 1% & NR: 6%); and Wife provide family expenses support(R: 1% & NR: 0%).

29

Table 4.3.2: Distribution of AFID Program’s Respondents by the Status of Earning Member in the Family

Earning member of the family: in % AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Father 44 36 41Respondents 22 19 21Offspring/Children 13 16 14Husband 7 18 11Wife 4 0 3Mother 3 6 4Brother 5 3 4No earning member of the family 6 7 6

[Multiple Response]

The above table shows, earning members of the family is as follows: Father (R: 44% & NR: 36%);Respondents as earning members (R: 22% & NR: 19%); Offspring/Children as earning members (R:13% & NR: 16%); Husbands as earning members (R: 7% & NR: 18%); Wives as earning members (R:1% & NR: 0%); Mother as earning member (R: 3% & NR: 6%); Brother as earning member (R: 5% &NR: 3%) (multiple responses); and No earning members in the family (R: 6% & NR: 7%). Hundredpercent of the respondents both Recipients and the Non Recipients are permanent residents of thearea.

By average monthly family income, the Recipients (Tk. 3815) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3299) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family income of Tk.500 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 1000 for the Non Recipients' family is much below the averageincome of a hardcore poor family. The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipients and NonRecipients are Tk. 3716 and Tk. 3288 respectively. Estimated socio economic status assessedobserving housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 94% of the Recipients and97% of the Non Recipients are poor.

Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 5decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 5 decimals & NR: 3 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.

3.2. Findings of the Household Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled ProgramTable 4.3.3: Types of Disability

The table 4.3.3 shows that most of the persons are living withphysical disability (72%), followed by Speech impairment (14%);Intellectual Disability (7%); Visual impairment (5%) and Hearingimpairment (2%).

Awareness about AFID: The table 4.3.4 shows thatthe recipients came to know about AFID from multiplesources i.e. overwhelming majority (86%) came toknow about it from the UP; other sources of knowledgewere Upazila Parisad (8%), Ward Sava (2%) and fromthe local NGOs (8%). Key Persons from whom theknowledge was acquired are: UP male member (54%),female member (22%) and Chairman (32%).Selection process: Only 18% acknowledged thatopen publicity was done about the selection for theFinancially Insolvent Disabled allowances. And insupport, 44% respondents claimed that such publicitywas done through meeting in an open space (field).One third of the respondents (33%) confirmed thatthere is a selection committee for the same.

Types of disability n %Physical disability 90 72Speech impairment 18 14Intellectual Disability 9 7Visual impairment 6 5Hearing impairment 3 2Total 126 100

Table 4.3.4: AFID Program respondents bytheir sources of knowledge about AFID: in %From whereUnion Parishad 86Upazilla Parishad 8NGO 8Ward Shova 2From whomMale Member 52Chairman 34Female Member 22NGO worker 6Family/Neighbor 5Govt Officials 4Political leader 2

[Multiple Response]

30

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances & Problems: Hundred percent of the respondentsreceive their allowances from the Bank; and a very minute percent (9%) of them said that they facedproblems, such as waiting in the long queue (line), difficulty for arranging transportation to reach thebank and some of them (10%) said that the bank deducted Tk. 8 (avg) from them.

Distance to Bank, time spent and cost of travel: The mean distance from a beneficiary's householdto the Bank from which money is transacted, is 4 km. About half (41%) of the respondents, however livewithin 1 to 2 km radius; about one third (33%) live within 3 to 4 km radius and 27% of the beneficiarieslive beyond 4 km.

About half (45%) of the beneficiaries had to spend more than 30 minutes to one hour for Banktransactions; 24% spent more than 1 hour to 2 hours and the rest of the significant number ofrespondents (32%) spent more than 2 hours.

One tenth of the beneficiaries (10%) did not have to spend any money, 80% spent less than Tk.50,while the rest spent more than Tk.50 for travel to the Bank.

Mode of Use of allowance: Abouttwo thirds of the RecipientRespondents (61%) that theallowance money was spent mostlyfor their treatment; 54% spent formeeting essential expenses for thefamily; a very minute percent (2%)to meet the expenses of drinkingtea and chewing betel leaf (pansupari); 2% met expenses ofchildren's education; and 2% savedmoney for future (open-endedmultiple responses count).

Besides figure 8 shows that half of therespondents (50%) said that they couldnot meet their medical expenses whenthey did not receive the allowance.About a quarter of the Respondents(24%) claimed that they starved andanother 24% could not meet familyexpenses in the absence of theallowance. About a tenth (12%) saidthat they were dependent on others inthe absence of the allowance.

Level of satisfactionAbout a quarter (26%) of the beneficiary respondents suggested changes in the selection process anddisbursement system; and of them a quarter (21%) desired changes in the design and mode of

6154

2 2 2 2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Spend money for treatment

Spend money for meetingessential expenses for thefamily: food and clothesSave money for future

To meet cost for childreneducation

To meet cost for betel-leaf-nut/can take tea

Do not Depended on other'ssupport

Figure 7: Mode of Use of the Allowance: in %

50

24 24

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Could not meet theirmedical expenses

I had to starve

Could not meetfamily expenses

Dependent on others

Figure 8: Problems Faced in Absence of the AFIDProgram: in %

31

publicity; 18% desired changes in the selection policy; 12% desired changes in committee (18%).Morethan half (58%) respondents’ opined that current disbursement system is okay to them.However, a single beneficiary said that s/he had a grievance that was resolved after complainedverbally to the respective UP representatives. On average each respondent mentioned about 2 personswhom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance.Selection/targeting errorLand: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 5decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 5 decimals & NR: 3 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 1% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.Income: Cross tabulation onmonthly income by level ofeducation show some difference(table 4.3.5). Except in cases of 'NoEducation' and those educatedabove primary level (6-10 grades),all other categories of beneficiariesthose educated from grade 1 to 4have monthly income within Tk. 3000. Those beneficiaries with No Education (48%) having monthlyincome above Tk. 3000 might have been citing their family income; and those who are educated aboveprimary (56%), particularly at the secondary level may be earning more than Tk. 3000 per month, eitherby themselves or cited their family income.

Governance Challenge/Cause of IrregularityPolitical influence: Less than one tenth (6%) of the beneficiary said that the selection was influencedby political party affiliations.

Bribe: Only 5% of the Recipient respondents said that they on average paid Tk. 1550 (minimum Tk.300 and maximum Tk. 3000) as bribes mostly to the male ward member (67%); 17% to the female wardmember and again 17% to the Social Service Officer for their enlistment for the allowances.Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of AFID allowancesHundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 60% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 23% of (17 respondents) the Non Recipients lodged verbalcomplaints to the respective UP representatives against their non selection and only 12% are assuredto have been considered for future selection.

The figure 9 depicted the opinion ofnon recipients about their nonselection.55% non-beneficiaries’ respondentssaid that cards are very limited; alittle over one fourth said that cardsare given to them only, who canoffer money 27%; Limited allocationof card (10%) and nepotism/ politicalinfluences (8%) reported as a causeof their non-selection.The non recipients approached theUP Chairmen and members (9%)several times urging for theirselection and majority of thebeneficiaries (88%) were lobbed for

their selection. Three percent of the non recipients offered money for their selection. Only 10% said thattheir relatives were selected for the allowance.

Table 4.3.5: Monthly family income of Recipients of AFID Programby education: in %Monthly FamilyIncome

Noeducation

Class1-3

Class4-5

Class6-10

Total

<Tk. 3000.00 34 67 25 22 32Tk. 3000.00 18 33 75 22 19>Tk. 3000.00 48 0 0 56 49Total 100 100 100 100 100

55

27

10 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 Did not deliver thecards

Who can offermoney

Allocation of cardsw as limited

Nepotism/ politicalinfluences

Figure 9: Eligible Non Recipients of the AFID AllowanceProgram: %

32

Section 4: On Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP)

4.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients SampleSamples: Of the total sample 340 students, 68% are Recipients (R) and the rest 32% are NonRecipients (NR) Sample. Of the Beneficiaries Recipients (NR) Sample, 35% are male students and65% are female students; while of the Non Recipients (NR) Sample 39% are male students and 61%are female students.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 10 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 9 years. Majority of the Recipients (52%) are in Class 4 to class 5 and NonRecipients (59%) are in Class 1 to class 3. All the students irrespective of Recipients and NonRecipients are currently unmarried and by occupation all of them are students.

Table 4. 4.1: Characteristics of Primary Education Stipend Program Respondents

Characteristics PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Age in yearsAverage age in years 10 9 10Minimum 6 6 6Maximum 14 14 14Education by groups: class passed: in %Class 1 to class 3 48 59 51Class 4 to class 5 52 41 49Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Unmarried 100 100 100Occupations: in%Students 100 100 100

Average family size for both Recipients and the Non Recipients is 5. Overwhelming majority of bothRecipients (87%) and Non Recipients (83%) sample live in Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live inJoint Families.The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Father (R: 97% & NR: 98%); Mother (R: 3% &NR: 1%); and Brother as Head of household (R: 0% & NR: 1%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 77% & NR: 83%); Buddhists(R: 13% & NR: 11%); and Hindus (R: 10% & NR: 6%).

By the status of livelihood support status, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Almost allrespondents said that parents provide livelihood support to the children..

Table 4.4.2: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the earning member of thefamily: in %

Earning member of the family: in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Father 95 97 96Mother 4 1 3No regular earning member in the family 1 2 1

[Multiple Response]

Hundred percent of the respondents both Recipients and the Non Recipients are permanent residentsof the area.Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: Home stead land holding: (R: 5decimals & NR: 5 decimals) and Agricultural land holding: (R: 5 decimals & NR: 3 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.

33

4.2. Findings of the Household Primary Education Stipend Program

Awareness about Primary Education Stipend: Almost all respondents (93%) came to know about itfrom the School; Key Persons from whom the knowledge was acquired are: Teachers (94%) and theSchool management Committee (3%).

Selection Criteria: Students of the following eligibility criteria (background) were selected for thestipends: Poor Meritorious students (42%), from Insolvent families of selected occupational categories-cobblers, crafts/mechanic men, washer men (18%), Poor widow/Single female headed families (14%),landless or least land holding (less than .5 acre) families (11%), from among the day laborers (11%)and families without any regular earning member (4%).

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances: All respondents receive their allowances from thespecial camp organized by the Bank in the school. A very minute percent (2%) of them said that theyfaced problems, such as their stipends were deducted on their number of days being absent from theschool.

Mode of Use of allowance: Majority of the students (59%) mentioned that they could not continue theireducation without receiving stipends; 35% met the expenses of stationeries; 13% claimed that theydon't have to depend on their parents support for education; and the costs for tiffin and dress (4%). Inthe absence of the stipends12% beneficiaries would have been stopped education; and 33% failed tomeet the expenses for the education.

Level of satisfaction: However 3% of the beneficiaries said that they had some verbal grievances, butthey all said that their grievances were resolved after they had complained to the teachers. On averageeach respondent mentioned about 6 students whom they know are eligible, but did not get theallowance.

Selection/targeting error

Land: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 5decimals & NR: 5 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 5 decimals & NR: 3 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 1% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.

Income: By average monthly family income, the Recipients (Tk. 4090) and Non Recipients (Tk. 4029)samples are much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family incomeof Tk. 120/day for the Recipients' family and Tk. 300/day for the Non Recipients' family is much belowthe average income of a hardcore poor family. Estimated socio economic status assessed observinghousing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 95% of the Recipients and 98% ofthe Non Recipients are poor.

Attendance in school: Most of the attendances to schools irrespective of ethnic backgrounds (GeneralStudents or the Students from Hill Tracts) are above 75%.

3

36

61

0

4753

3

39

58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

GeneralStudent

Students fromHill Tracts

Total

Less than 75%

75-84%

85% and above

Figure 10: Class attendance of PESP beneficiaries program: in %

34

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Primary Education Stipend Program

Hundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 55% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 18% (20 students) of the Non Recipients lodged complaintsagainst their non selection to the respective teachers of which 20% (4 students) are assured to havebeen considered for future selection.

Half of the non recipients think that those students who were awarded with stipends either influencedthe teacher through bribes (8%) or had won the favor of the teacher (42%) by any method. Little lessthan half of the non recipients (40%) did not know about the selection criteria. Rest of the non recipients(5%) did not get minimum marks in the examination to be eligible for the program. While the non-recipients blamed to the teachers for taking bribes, the survey team did not find any evidence of briberyduring recipients’’ interview. This flimsy information might be yielding from the dissatisfaction of non-beneficiaries.

35

Section 5: On Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP)

5.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Samples: Of the total sample 321 students, 69% are Beneficiaries/Recipients (R) Sample and the rest31% are Non Recipients (NR) Sample. Of the Recipients (NR) Sample, 29% are male students and71% are female students; while of the Beneficiaries Non Recipients (NR) Sample 36% are malestudents and 64% are female students.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients and the NonRecipients is 14 years. All the students irrespective of Recipients and Non Recipients are currentlyunmarried and by occupation all of them are students.

Table 4.5.1: Characteristics of Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP)

Characteristics SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Age in yearsAverage age in years 14 14 14Minimum 11 11 11Maximum 18 18 18Marital status: in %Unmarried 100 100 100Occupations: in%Students 100 100 100

Average family size for both Recipients and the Non Recipients is 5. Overwhelming majority of bothRecipients (84%) and Non Recipients (84%) sample live in Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live inJoint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Father (R: 93% & NR: 92%); Mother (R: 6% &NR: 7%); and Brother as Head of household (R: 1% & NR: 1%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 79% & NR: 76%); Buddhists(R: 12% & NR: 9%); and Hindus (R: 9% & NR: 15%).

Table 4.5.2: Distribution of SSSP Respondents by the Earning Member of the FamilyEarning member of the family: in % SSSP

Recipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)Father earning 91 90 91Mother earning 7 9 8Uncle earning 2 3 3Grand-father earning 1 0 1Brother earning 1 0 1No earning member in the family 1 0 1

[Multiple Response]

The above table show the earning members of the family is as follows: Father (R: 91% & NR:90%); Mother as earning members (R: 7% & NR: 9%); Uncle as earning members (R: 2% & NR: 3%);Grand Father as earning members (R: 1% & NR: 0%); Brother as earning members (R: 1% & NR: 0%);and No earning members in the family (R: 1% & NR: 0%). Hundred percent of the respondents bothRecipients and the Non Recipients are permanent residents of the area.

36

5.2. Findings of the Household Secondary School Stipend Program

Awareness about Secondary SchoolStipend Program: The table 4.5.3shows that Hundred percent of theRecipients came to know about it frommultiple sources. Overwhelmingmajority (83%) came to know about itfrom the School. Key Persons fromwhom the knowledge was acquired are:Teachers (88%), the SchoolManagement Committee (8%) UP malemember (4%), and UP female member(4%).

Selection Criteria: Students of the following eligibility criteria (background) were selected for thestipends: Day labor family 68%; Insolvent professional family (Yearly income under 30.000TK) 33%;Poor meritorious student 15%; Poor widow female headed household-8%; Families rendered poor dueto River erosion 6%; Insolvent disabled family2%; and Insolvent freedom fighter family 1%.

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances: Ninety eight percent of the respondents receive theirallowances from the special camp organized by the Bank in the school. None paid any amount asbribes for their enlistment for the allowances.

Mode of Use of allowance: The figure11 shows that majority of the students(65%) mentioned that they couldcontinue their education receivingStipends for Secondary Education; 27%met the expenses of stationeries; 5%claimed that they don't have to dependon their parents support for education;and the costs for Tuition and dress (6%).

In addition to this the figure 12 shows that inabsence of the stipends, they could notcontinue their education (65%); 37% failed tomeet the expenses for the education; 4% couldnot afford private tuition; and 1% stoppededucation.

Table 4.5.3: Respondents of SSSP by their Sources ofKnowledge (from where, whom & media/ how): in %From where %School 83NGO 10Union Parishad 9Upazilla Parishad 1Ward Shova 1From whomTeacher 88School committee 8Male Member 4Female Member 4Family/Neighbor 2NGO worker 2Chairman 1[Multiple Response]

Figure 11: Mode of Use of the Allowance: in %

65

27

5 51

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Continue education

To meet for educationalexpenses (khata, pencil,pen etc)Do not depended onparents support

To meet cost for privatetuitions

To meet cost for schooldress

63

37

4 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Face diff iculty forcontinue study

Could not meet buyexpenses ofeducation: khata,pencil, pen etc

Could not provideprivate tuitions fee

Stopped my education

Figure 12: Problems Faced in Absence of the SSSPProgram: in %

37

Level of satisfaction: 5% of the respondents said that they had some verbal grievances, but thesewere resolved after they had complained to the respective teachers. On average each respondentmentioned about 2 students whom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance.

Selection/targeting error:Land: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 5decimals & NR: 5 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 6 decimals & NR: 7 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 3% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.

Income: By average monthly family income, the recipients (Tk. 4095) and Non Recipients (Tk. 4043)samples are much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family incomeof Tk. 1000 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 1000 for the Non Recipients' family is much below theaverage income of a hardcore poor family. The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipientsand Non Recipients are Tk. 3965 and Tk. 3974 respectively. Estimated socio economic status assessedobserving housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 96% of the Recipients and92% of the Non Recipients are poor. In total 83.2% respondents’ household annual income exceededthe upper threshold (BDT 30,000) of beneficiary selection criteria.Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Secondary School Stipend Program

Hundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 55% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 11% of the Non Recipients lodged complaints verbally totheir teachers against their non selection and none could have their problems resolved.

Half of the non recipients think thatthose students who were awardedwith stipends either influenced theSMC committee (4%) or had won thefavor of the teacher (46%) by anymethod. Little less than half of the nonrecipients (48%) did not know aboutthe selection criteria. Rest of the nonrecipients are either already enjoyingthe benefits of stipends for one theirchild (2%) or did very bad in theexamination (3%) (Figure 13).

46

4 3 2

48

0

10

20

30

40

50 Nepotism by teachers

Nepotism by SMCcommittee

Examination gradesvery poor

Already one childreceiving stipend

No idea on selectioncriteria

Figure 13: Eligible Non Recipients of Secondary SchoolStipend Program: in %

38

Section 6: Maternity Allowance Program for the Poor Lactating Mother6.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients SampleSamples: Samples for Maternity Allowance Programme for the Poor Lactating Mothers comprised atotal of 183 Poor Lactating Mothers, of whom Beneficiaries'/ Recipient (R) Samples are 62% and therest 38% are the Non Recipients' (NR) Sample.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 25 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 28 years. However, Recipients (94%) and Non Recipients (97%) are 20years or above. Near about half of the Recipients (40%) and Non Recipients (49%) are noeducation/only can sign, followed by Recipients (32%) and Non Recipients (23%) educational levels areClass 6 to class 10. In regards to Marital Status, 98% of the Recipients and 99% of Non Recipients arecurrently married and the rest are widows/separated/divorced.

Table 4.6.1: Characteristics of Maternity Allowance Programme for the Poor Lactating MothersrespondentsCharacteristics MA

Recipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)Age in yearsAverage age: in years 25 28 26Minimum 18 19 18Maximum 37 39 39Age bar< 20 years 6 3 520 years or above 94 97 95Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 40 49 43Class 1 to class 3 13 3 9Class 4 to class 5 15 25 19Class 6 to class 10 32 23 29Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 98 99 98Widow /Widower 1 1 1Divorced 1 0 1Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Housewife (R: 94% & NR: 97%); Daylaborers (R: 3% & NR: 2%); and Garment worker (R: 3% & NR: 1%). Average family size for bothRecipients and the Non Recipients is 4. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (84%) and NonRecipients (83%) sample live in Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Husbands as Head of household (R: 93% &NR: 96%); Respondents as Head of household (R: 3% & NR: 3%); and Father as Head of household(R: 4% & NR: 1%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 89% & NR: 83%); Hindus (R:10% & NR: 14%); and Christians (R: 1% & NR: 3%).

By the status of supporting family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows:Husbands provide family expenses (R: 97% & NR: 96%); No body support family expenses (R: 3% &NR: 3%); and Separated from Family (R: 0% & NR: 1%).Table 4.6.2: Distribution of MA by the Earning Member of the Family: in %

Earning member of the family: in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Husband earning 97 94 96Self (Respondent) earning 4 6 5Father earning 2 1 2[Multiple Response]

The table 4.6.2 shows, respondents as earning members (R: 4% & NR: 6%); husbands as earningmembers (R: 97% & NR: 94%); and Father as earning members (R: 2% & NR: 1%). Ninety nine percentof the Recipients are permanent residents of the respective areas. On the other hand, one percent ofthe Non Recipient claimed that they are not permanent residents of the area.

39

6.2. Findings of the beneficiaries of MAAwareness about MA: The Recipients came to know about it from multiple sources. Majority (66%)came to know about it from the UP; other sources of knowledge were FWC (12%), Community Clinic(10%), Ward Sava (10%), the local NGOs (7%) and the Upazila Parishad (1%). Key Persons fromwhom the knowledge was acquired are: UP female member (41%), male member (37%), Chairman(25%) and NGO (16%).Table 4.6.3: Distribution of Respondents for MA by their Sources of Knowledge

Sources of knowledge on Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program: in % %From whereUnion Parishad 66Upazilla Parishad 1Ward Shova 10NGO 7Community clinic 10FWC 12From whomFemale Member 41Male Member 37Chairman 25NGO worker 16FWA 2Political leader 4UP Sectary 3Govt Officials 2Union Health Worker 1

[Multiple Response]

Selection process: The criteria for selection mentioned by the respondents are: 1st pregnancy (50%);Land less families (27%); 2nd pregnancy (25%); 3rd pregnancy (10%); monthly family income below Tk.1500 (23%); and minimum age 20 years (17%) and the disabled (1%).Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances: A very minute percent (4%) of them said that theyfaced problems, such as difficulty for arranging transportation to reach the bank.

Mode of Use of allowance: Thefigure 14 shows that majority of thebeneficiaries (53%) that the allowancemoney was spent for the cost of babyfood; 43% for their treatment; 25%spent for meeting essential expensesfor nutritious food; and 2% to meetthe cost of their family expenses.

The figure 15 depicted some categories ofproblems those the beneficiaries would havebeen faced without having this allowances.Majority of the respondents (54%) said thatthey could not meet their cost of feeding theirbaby; 45% could not pay medical expenses;and 13% said that they were financiallydependent on others.

Figure 14: Mode of Use of the Allowance: in %

53

43

25

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 To meet cost forchildren milk & food

Spend money fortreatment & medicine

To meet cost fornutritious food for me

To meet cost for familyexpenses

Figure 15: Problems Faced in Absence of the MA: in %

54

45

13

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Could not buy milk &food for children

Could not buymedicine/ could not doany treatment

Depended on other'ssupport

Could not buy dailynecessary thing

40

Level of satisfaction: Nearly hundred percent of the respondents expressed their satisfactions on bothselection (95%); and 100% are satisfied with the disbursement system. However 12% of the said thatthey had some grievances and all the grievances were resolved after they had complained. On averageeach respondent mentioned about 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get theallowance.

Selection/targeting error

Land: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 5decimals & NR: 5 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 4 decimals & NR: 3 decimals). Averagetotal land holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 2% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.

Income: By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 4329) and Non Recipients (Tk. 4042)samples are much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family incomeof Tk. 1000 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 800 for the Non Recipients' family is much below theaverage income of a hardcore poor family. The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipientsand Non Recipients are Tk. 4112 and Tk. 3916, respectively. Estimated socio economic statusassessed observing housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 95% of theRecipients and 97% of the Non Recipients are poor. However 95% of the respondents’ opinion datashows that their household monthly income exceeds the eligibility criteria of income threshold of BDT1500 per month.The cross tabulation (table 4.6.4)on monthly income by level ofeducation does not show anydifference, as at all the levels ofeducation (No Education-0 to 10grade) more than three fourths to100% income falls beyond Tk.1500 per month per beneficiary.

Governance challenge/Cause of IrregularityPolitical influence: More than one tenth (14%) of the recipients and one fifth (20%) of the nonrecipients said that the selection was influenced by political leaders.Bribe: 10% of the Recipient respondents said that they on average paid Tk. 336 (minimum Tk. 200 andmaximum Tk. 500) as bribes mostly to the UP and ward member for their enlistment for the allowances.

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother ProgramHundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; but only 65% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 22% (15 respondents) of the Non Recipients lodgedcomplaints against their non selection tothe UP representatives and none of theircomplaints were resolved.The figure 16 shows non recipientscomplained about their non selection. 35%opined that allocation of cards was limited;20% said that cards are given to them only,who can offer money and 23% said thatnepotism and political influences are majorcauses on their non selection. The nonrecipients approached the UP Chairmenand members (82%) several times urgingfor their selection. Four percent of the nonrecipients offered money for their selection.

Table 4.6.4: Monthly family income of Recipients of Maternity AllowanceProgramme for the Poor Lactating Mothers by education: in %Monthly FamilyIncome

No education Class1-3

Class4-5

Class6-10

Total

<Tk. 1500.00 2 0 0 3 2Tk. 1500.00 4 0 0 3 3>Tk. 1500.00 94 100 100 94 95Total 100 100 100 100 100

35

22 2320

05

10152025303540 Allocation of cards

w as limited

Did not deliver thecards

Nepotism/ politicalinfluences

Who can offer money

Figure 16: Eligible Non Recipients of MA: in %

41

Section 7: On Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)7.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients SampleSamples: Samples for VGD comprised a total of 183 Females, of whom Beneficiaries' Recipient (R)Samples are 66% and the rest 34% are the Non Recipients' (NR) Sample.

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 33 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 34 years. Majority of the Recipients (73%) and Non Recipients (78%) areno education/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 88% of both the Recipients; and NonRecipients are currently married; 10% of the Recipients and 11% Non Recipients are widows; and therest are separated/divorced.

Table 4.7.1: Characteristics of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Respondents: in %Characteristics VGD

Recipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)Age: in yearsAverage age in years 33 34 34Minimum 18 18 18Maximum 47 47 47Age bar< 40 years 80 71 7740 years or above 20 29 23Total 100 100 100Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 73 78 74Class 1 to class 3 13 5 11Class 4 to class 5 8 12 10Class 6 to class 10 6 5 5Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 88 88 88Widow /Widower 10 11 11Separated 1 1 1Divorced 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Housewife (R: 71% & NR: 68%); Daylaborers (R: 24% & NR: 24%); and Business (R: 1% & NR: 1%); Farmer (R: 0% & NR: 1%); andUnemployed (R: 4% & NR: 6%). Average family size for Recipients is 5, and for the Non Recipients, it is4. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (84%) and Non Recipients (86%) sample live inSingle/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Husbands as Head of household (R: 80% &NR: 75%); Respondents as Head of household (R: 16% & NR: 20%); Offspring as Head of household(R: 3% & NR: 5%); and Father as Head of household (R: 1% & NR: 0%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 73% & NR: 73%); Buddhists(R: 14% & NR: 12%); Hindus (R: 10% & NR: 11%); and Christians (R: 3% & NR: 4%).

Table 4.7.2: Distribution of VGD Respondents by the Earning Member of the Family: in %Earning member of the family: in % VGD

Recipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)Husband earning 78 74 76Self (Respondent) Earning 20 20 20Offspring earning 4 9 6Father earning 1 1 1No earning member of the family 1 1 1

[Multiple Response]

The table 4.7.2 show, the earning members of the family is as follows: Husbands as earning members(R: 78% & NR: 74%); Respondents as earning members (R: 20% & NR: 20%); Offspring/childrenearning (R: 4% & NR: 9%); Father as earning members (R: 1% & NR: 1%); and No earning member (R:1% & NR: 1%) (Multiple responses). Ninety nine percent of the Recipients and 98% of the NonRecipients are permanent residents of the area. However, 1% of the Recipients and 2% of the NonRecipients are not permanent resident of the area.

42

7.2. Findings of the Household Survey on VGD

Awareness about VGD: The VGD beneficiaries’ came to know about the services from multiplesources. Overwhelming majority (91%) came to know about it from the UP; other sources of knowledgewere NGO (11%), Upazila (2%) and Ward Sava (3%). Key Persons from whom the knowledge wasacquired are: UP male member (51%), Female member (32%) and Chairman (26%).

Table 4.7.3: Respondents’ Sources of Knowledge (from where, whom & media/ how) on VGDSources of knowledge on Vulnerable Group Development (VGD): in % %From whereUnion Parishad 91NGO 11Upazilla Parishad 2Ward Shava 2From whomMale Member 51Female Member 32Chairman 26NGO worker 4Family/Neighbor 3Political leader 2UP Sectary 2Teacher 2Govt Officials 1

[Multiple Response]

Selection process: Selections are done mostly by the UP members (63%), UP Chairman (36%) andUP Secretary (1%). Less than half of the respondents mentioned about the Selection Committee at theUP (48%). Very few respondents mentioned about the functioning of the Selection Committee at District(13%) and at Upazila levels (20%). Almost all the respondents (99%) said each family received onecard; and a family received on average 28Kgs of rice/wheat. On average each respondent mentionedabout 2 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance.

Mode of Use of allocation: The figure 17shows that hundred percent of therespondents said that the allocations ofVGD assisted them to meet thefamily/livelihood expenses. In the absenceof VGD support to the families, the familieshave starved (13%). 77% respondents saidthat they can meet necessary familyexpenses by means of their limited earningas they are securing a significant portion oflivelihood with this allowance (multipleresponse).

Training effectiveness: Training on VGD has been observed to be low coverage of only 2%, whichimplies that the NGOs responsible for imparting training failed to perform their functions effectively.Most of the VGD beneficiaries raised questions about the transparency and accountability of theassigned support service providing NGOs as the training conducted on papers only (Qualitativefindings).

Department of Women Affairs (DWA) designed bunches of training courses for the VGD beneficiariesthose are mandated to deliver to the beneficiaries by the assigned support service providing NGOs. Thesupport service providing NGOs supposed to build capacity of the beneficiaries on “Maternal andneonatal health, food security and nutrition (3 days long)”, “Personal hygiene and health (3 dayslong)”, Disaster risk management (2 days long)”, “UDDOKTA Unnayan (4 days long)”, “HIV/AIDS (2days long)”, “Arsenic mitigation (1 day long)”, “Training on livestock (8 days long)” and “Homesteadgardening (8 days long)” within the two years long VGD cycle. On the other hand, DWA has allocated

Figure 17: Problems Faced in Absence of VGD: in %

77

13 8 2

01020304050607080

Sometimes could notarrange food for family

I had to starve

Could not buymedicine/ could not doany treatment

Depended on other'ssupport

43

taka 425 per beneficiary/annum as support service cost to conduct these aforesaid training courses.Besides, this allocated cost also includes staff salary, logistics and related administrative services whichis also diminishing the allocated fund to carry out these training, hence frustratingly the support serviceproviding NGOs become reluctant to provide these training. In most cases the respective NGOs havecompleted some short discussion on protesting dowry, accelerate savings and homestead gardeningwhile they collected saving amount from the beneficiaries. In that case the enumerators andrespondents did not consider it as a training session. Training refers to a skill development; since thediscussions did not impart any skill, most of the respondents did not distinguish it as training.

The qualitative findings of the survey depicted same findings. Respondents affirmed that most of thetraining providing NGOs conducted training on papers only while they collect saving money from thebeneficiaries and consequently precede these documents for fund disbursement.

Selection/targeting error

Age: There were selection errors in terms of applying age bar; 20% (44 respondents) of thebeneficiaries were wrongly selected who are belonging 40 years or above age group.

Land: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 4decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 4 decimals & NR: 1 decimal). Average totalland holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.However, 1% of the beneficiaries were selected from among those holding land more than 50 decimals.

Income: By average monthly family income the recipients (Tk. 4704) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3386)samples are much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family incomeof Tk. 1000 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 800 for the Non Recipients' family is much below theaverage income of a hardcore poor family. The maximum monthly family income of Tk. 9000 for theRecipients' families and Tk.7000 for the Non Recipients' families.. The average monthly familyexpenditures of the Recipients and Non Recipients are Tk. 3926 and Tk. 3140, respectively. Estimatedsocio economic status assessed observing housing conditions and assets by the field investigatorsshow that 99% of the Recipients and 100% of the Non Recipients are poor.

Governance challenge/cause of irregularities

Political influence: 6% beneficiary said that the selection was influenced by political party affiliations.

Bribe: 11% of the respondents paid bribes (Taka paid: average Tk. 848; minimum Tk. 200 andmaximum Tk. 2500) to be selected for VGD.

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)Hundred percent of the Non Recipients are eligible for receive the allowance; 70% of the NonRecipients applied for the allowance. Only 15% (n=17) of the Non Recipients lodged complaints againsttheir non selection to UP chairmen and UP member and none of them had their complaints resolved.The non recipients complained the following for their non selection:Did not deliver the cards 90%; Allocation of cards was limited 4%; and nepotism/ political influences6%. Hundred percent of the non recipients said that they were submitted written application for theirselection.

44

Section 8: On Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP)

8.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Sample: Total Sample covered for EGPP is 254, of whom 66% are Recipients (males: 49% andfemales 51%) and 34% are Non Recipients (males: 45% and females 55%).

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of both the sample Recipients and the NonRecipients is 42 years. Majority of the Recipients (73%) and Non Recipients (78%) are noeducation/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 80% of the Recipients; and 78% of the NonRecipients are currently married; 14% of the Recipients and 17% Non Recipients are widows; 5% of theRecipients and 4% Non Recipients are unmarried; and the rest are separated (1% Recipients and 1%Non Recipients).

Table 4.8.1: Characteristics of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondentsCharacteristics EGPP

Recipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)Age: in yearsAverage age: in years 42 42 42Minimum 15 20 15Maximum 81 77 81Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 73 78 74Class 1 to class 3 13 5 11Class 4 to class 5 8 12 10Class 6 to class 10 6 5 5Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 80 78 79Widow /Widower 14 17 15Unmarried 5 4 5Separated 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Day laborers (R: 70% & NR: 50%);Housewife (R: 14% & NR: 26%); Farmer (R: 9% & NR: 9%); Business (R: 1% & NR: 1%); andUnemployed (R: 6% & NR: 14%). Average family size for both the Recipients and Non Recipients is 5.Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (81%) and Non Recipients (86%) sample live inSingle/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Respondents as Head of household (R: 66% &NR: 67%); Husbands as Head of household (R: 26% & NR: 26%); Offspring/Children as Head ofhousehold (R: 7% & NR: 7%); and Father as Head of household (R: 1% & NR: 0%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 91% & NR: 84%); Hindus (R: 9% &NR: 14%); and Christians (R: 0% & NR: 2%).

By the status of providing family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Husbandsprovide family expenses (R: 83% & NR: 78%); None provide family expenses (R: 12% & NR: 14%);Children do not provide family expenses (R: 2% & NR: 0%); and Separated from family (R: 1% & NR:4%); and childless (R: 2% & NR: 4%).

45

The Table 4.8.2 shows thatrespondents as earning members(R: 70% & NR: 64%); Husbands asearning members (R: 22% & NR:23%); Offspring/children earning(R: 13% & NR: 16%); and Noearning member (R: 0% & NR:8%). Hundred percent of theRecipients and the Non Recipientsare permanent residents of the

area.

By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 3460) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3316) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again minimum family income of Tk. 500for the Recipients' family and Tk. 500 for the Non Recipients' family is much below the average incomeof a hardcore poor family. The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipients and NonRecipients are Tk. 3328 and Tk. 3209 respectively. Estimated socio economic status assessedobserving housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 99% of the Recipients and100% of the Non Recipients are poor.

8.2. Findings of the Household Employment Generation Program for the Poorest

Table 4.8.3: Respondents’ Sources of Knowledge (from where, whom & media/ how): in %From where %Union Parishad 98NGO 6Ward Shova 3From whomMale Member 60Chairman 30Female Member 19Govt Officials 4NGO worker 9Political leader 1UP Sectary 1Teacher 1

[Multiple Response]

Awareness on EGPP: The above table shows the beneficiaries came to know about the EGPP frommultiple sources, overwhelming majority (98%) came to know about it from the UP; other sources ofknowledge were NGO (6%) and Ward Sava (3%). Key Persons from whom the knowledge wasacquired are: UP male member (60%), Chairman (30%), female member (19%), NGO worker (9%) andGovernment Officials (4%).

Selection process: Selections are done mostly by the UP members (66%) and by the UP Chairman(28%). However, rest of the respondents mentioned that a few community influential i.e. politicalleaders, NGO workers were involved in the selection process. Only 4% of the respondents mentionedabout the functioning of a Selection Committee. The enlistment of EGPP program is done twiceannually and on average an incumbent is selected twice a year for EGPP. The average duration of workis for 40 days mostly for earthen road construction/maintenance (91%).

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances: Over two thirds of the workers selected for EGPPcollect their wages from the Bank (69%), while the rest (31%) said that they collect their payments fromthe UP member personally (17%), from UP office (10%) and 4% incumbent received it at their home.Sixty three percent of the respondents (respondents) faced transport problems while collecting moneyfrom the Bank. Eight percent (n=14) of the incumbents (Respondents) said that they had to payadditional money to obtain job cards and the average payment made was Tk. 171 and the payment wasmade to Middle men (Dalal: 57%) and to the UP/Ward member (43%).

Table 4.8.2: Family Earning members of the EGPP Respondents: in%

Recipient(n=168)

Non-Recipient(n=86)

Total(n=254)

Self (Respondent) 70 64 68Husband earning 22 23 22Offspring earning 13 16 14No earning memberof the family

0 8 2

[Multiple Response]

46

Mode of Use of allowance: The figure 18 shows, almost of the Recipient Respondents’ (99%)allowance money was spent mostly for meeting essential expenses for the family and 1% said for theirtreatment. Besides, the figure 19 shows that majority of the respondents (87%) said that they could notmeet the family/livelihood expenses.

Level of satisfaction: Nearly hundred percent of the respondents expressed their satisfactions onselection (92%) and only 46% expressed satisfaction on disbursement system. Ward Shava is veryimportant for selection of EGPP beneficiaries, 85% respondents said Ward Shava held on their area,but 27% respondents attended in Ward Shava. Only 34% said the selected project list posted on UnionParishad board. However 20% of the respondents (n=3) that they had some grievances, but all of themsaid that they grievances were resolved after they had complained to UP chairmen & UP member. Onaverage each respondent mentioned about 3 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get theallowance.

Table 4.8.4: Distribution of Respondents for EGPP by their Opinion on Ward Shava: in %

Status of Ward Shava: in % % NYes 85 142No 15 26Total 100 168Take part in Ward ShavaYes 27 39No 73 103Total 100 142Status on project list posted on UP boardYes 34 58No 66 110Total 100 168

Selection/targeting error

Land: Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 4decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 3 decimals & NR: 1 decimal). Average totalland holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.According to the policy guideline of selecting EGPP beneficiaries, the selection criteria shows thatbelow 10 decimal agriculture land holder will be selected as beneficiaries, however only 4% (n=11)beneficiaries occupied more than 10 decimal agriculture land.

Table 4.8.5: Agricultural land occupied by the beneficiary respondents: in decimal

Agricultural land % NLandless 92 232Up to 10 decimal 4 11Above 10 decimal 4 11Total 100 254

Income: According to the policy guideline of selecting EGPP beneficiaries’ monthly income must bebelow Tk. 4000. However 22% (n=56) beneficiaries monthly income above Tk. 4000.

Figure 18: Mode of Use of the Allowance: in %

99

1

0102030405060708090

100Spend money tomeet essentialexpenses forthe family

Spend moneyfor treatment

Figure 19: Problem Faced in Absence of EGPP: in %

87%

8%

3%

1%

1%

Face problem to maintain family

Financial problem

Borrow money for treatmentpurpose

There w ere problem to f ind outw ork

Face problem to bear theeducation expenses of thechildren

47

Table 4.8.6: Monthly family income of Recipients of EGPP: in %

Monthly family income % NTk. 4000.00 65 166Below Tk. 4000.00 13 32Above Tk. 4000.00 22 56Total 100 254

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest

Only 45% of the Non Recipients applied for the allowance. Only 11% of the Non Recipients (n=9) to UPmember lodged complaints against their non selection and none of them had their complaints resolved.The non recipients complained the following for their non selection (also shown in figure 20):

62% respondents’ said that job cards are given to them only those who can offer money and 6% saidthat cards are distributed through nepotism/ political influences. One third of the non recipients (32%)did not know about the selection criteria.

Figure 20: Eligible Non Recipients of Employment GenerationProgram for the Poorest: in %

62

6

32

0

10

2030

40

50

60

70

Cards are given tothem only, w hocan offer money

Nepotism/ politicalinfluences

No idea onselection criteria

48

Section 9: On Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

9.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients SampleSample: Total Sample covered for VGF is 279, of whom 67% are Recipients (males: 47% and females53%) and 33% are Non Recipients (males: 44% and females 56%).

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of the sample Recipients is 44 years, whilethat of the Non Recipients is 43 years. Majority of the Recipients (73%) and Non Recipients (76%) areno education/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 91% of the Recipients; and 92% of the NonRecipients are currently married; 7% of the Recipients and 7% Non Recipients are widows; and the restare separated/divorced.

Table 4.9.1: Characteristics of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondentsCharacteristics Recipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)Age: in yearsAverage age: in years 44 43 43Minimum 20 24 20Maximum 81 80 81Education by groups: class passed: %No education/only can sign 73 76 74Class 1 to class 3 11 7 10Class 4 to class 5 10 10 10Class 6 to class 10 6 7 6Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 91 92 92Widow /Widower 7 7 7Separated 1 1 1Divorced 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Day laborers (R: 39% & NR: 35%);Housewife (R: 34% & NR: 40%); Farmer (R: 11% & NR: 13%); Business (R: 5% & NR: 4%); andUnemployed (R: 11% & NR: 8%). Average family size for Recipients is 5, and for the Non Recipients, itis 4. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (88%) and Non Recipients (94%) sample live inSingle/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Respondents as Head of household (R: 55%& NR: 55%); Husbands as Head of household (R: 38% & NR: 36%); Offspring/Children as Head ofhousehold (R: 6% & NR: 6%); and Father as Head of household (R: 1% & NR: 1%).

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 92% & NR: 81%); Hindus (R:8% & NR: 18%); and Christians (R: 0% & NR: 1%).

By the status of providing family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Children providefamily expenses (R: 83% & NR: 81%); Children do not provide family expenses (R: 10% & NR: 17%);Separated from family (R: 1% & NR: 1%); and Child less (R: 1% & NR: 0%).

Table 4.9.2: Distribution of VGF Respondents by the Earning Member of the Family: in %Earning member of the family: in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Self (respondent) 52 51 52Husband 38 39 38Offspring 11 9 10Wife 0 1 0Father 1 0 0Mother 1 2 1No earning member of the family 3 3 3

[Multiple Response]The table 4.9.2 show, the earning members of the family is as follows: Respondents as earningmembers (R: 52% & NR: 51%); Husbands as earning members (R: 38% & NR: 39%); Offspring/children

49

earning (R: 11% & NR: 9%); Wife as earning member (R: 0% & NR: 1%); Father as earning members(R: 1% & NR: 0%); Mother as earning members (R: 1% & NR: 2%); and No earning member (R: 3% &NR: 3%). Ninety nine percent of the Recipients and 100% of the Non Recipients are permanentresidents of the area. However, 1% of both the Recipients and the Non Recipients are not permanentresident of the area.

By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 3785) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3745) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again minimum family income of Tk. 500for the Recipients' family and Tk. 400 for the Non Recipients' family is much below the average incomeof a hardcore poor family. The average monthly family expenditures of the Recipients and NonRecipients are Tk. 3552 and Tk. 3667, respectively. Estimated socio economic status assessedobserving housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that 100% of the Recipientsand 98% of the Non Recipients are poor.

Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 4decimals & NR: 4 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 3 decimals & NR: 2 decimal). Average totalland holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.

9.2. Findings of the Household Survey on Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Awareness about Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF): The respondents came to know about the VGFfrom multiple sources. Overwhelming majority (84%) came to know about it from the UP; other sourcesof knowledge were NGO (14%), Upazila (5%) and Ward Sava (2%). Key Persons from whom theknowledge was acquired are: UP male member (61%), Chairman (20%), Female member (17%) andNGO (8%).Table 4.9.3: Distribution of respondents by their sources of knowledge (from where, whom & media/ how)on VGF: in %

Sources of knowledge on Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF): in % %From whereUnion Parishad 84NGO 14Upazilla Parishad 5Ward Shova 2From whomMale Member 61Chairman 20Female Member 17NGO worker 8Govt Officials 4Political leader 3UP Sectary 2Family/Neighbor 1Teacher 1

[Multiple Response]

Selection process: Selections are done mostly by the UP members (65%), UP Chairman (33%) andUP Secretary (2%). 14% respondents mentioned about the Selection Committee at the UP. Very fewrespondents mentioned about the functioning of the Selection Committee at District (3%) and at Upazilalevels (3%). Almost all the respondents (93%) said each family received one card.

Processes of the Allocation: Hundred percent of the respondents received their allocations from theUP. And only 3% mentioned that some fraudulent practices were indulged in weighing the commoditiesby giving commodities lesser than the weight allowed. Only one percent of the respondents paid bribes(Taka paid: average Tk. 350; minimum Tk. 200 and maximum Tk. 500) for selection.

50

Mode of Use of allocation: Hundredpercent of the respondents said that theallocations of VGF assisted them to meetthe family/livelihood expenses. In theabsence of VGF support to the families,24% respondents said their families wouldhave starved and 61% could not have metthe family expenses (figure 21).

Level of satisfaction: Around 9% respondents expressed their dissatisfactions both in selection anddisbursement process. None complained about the services, on average each respondent mentionedabout 8 persons whom they know are eligible, but did not get the allowance.

Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)62% of the Non Recipients applied for the allowance. Only 19% of the Non Recipients lodged verbalcomplaints against their non selection but none of them had their complaints resolved.

Figure 21: Problems Faced in Absence of VGF: in %

61

24

14

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Sometimes could notarrange food for family

I had to starve

Depended on other'ssupport

Could not buymedicine/ could not doany treatment

51

Section 10: On Test Relief (TR) Program

10.1 Socio Demographic Characteristics of Recipients and Non Recipients Sample

Context of the Test Relief program: The TR program designed mostly to develop the rural infrastructure.Apart from this substantial objective this program also focused providing benefits of the unskilledworkers/labors who work under the TR program. The research team faced some problem identifyingthese workers as respondents of the program. Like all other beneficiary list, the TR workers list couldnot collect from UP or upazila parishads due to their unwillingness. Few UP representatives said thatthe program generally implement to provide undue benefit to the politically influenced person and thereare so many ghost beneficiaries. Hence, the service provider did not provide the workers lists to theproject staff. Besides, the community people are less informed about the TR program as the selectionand implementation criteria of the TR program is not tangible enough in comparison to other SSNprojects. So, it would be tough to find out the targeting errors of TR program. So, at the initial stage ofthe baseline designing, the research team determined to interview these workers in a structured waylikewise the other safety net programs. At the same time, the baseline survey team adopted qualitativeanalyses of social data to assess the effectiveness of the TR program. FGD, KII and observationconducted as a part of qualitative investigations. Thus the qualitative findings supplemented thequantitative findings of the TR program.

Sample: Total Sample covered for TR is 84, of whom 57% are Recipients (males: 65% and females35%) and 43% are Non Recipients (males: 53% and females 47%).

Socio Demographic and Economic Status: Mean age of both the sample Recipients and the NonRecipients is 41 years. Majority of the Recipients (80%) and Non Recipients (86%) are noeducation/only can sign. In regards to Marital Status, 81% of the Recipients; and 78% of the NonRecipients are currently married; 6% of the Recipients and 6% Non Recipients are widows; and 13%Recipients; and 17% of the Non Recipients.

Table 4.10.1: Characteristics of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondentsCharacteristics TR

Recipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)Age: in yearsAverage age: in years 41 41 41Minimum 16 16 16Maximum 65 75 75Education by groups: class passed: in %No education/only can sign 80 86 82Class 1 to class 3 8 3 6Class 4 to class 5 6 8 7Class 6 to class 10 6 3 5Total 100 100 100Marital status: in %Married 81 78 80Unmarried 13 17 14Widow /Widower 6 6 6Total 100 101 100

The distribution of the sample by occupation is as follows: Day laborers (R: 52% & NR: 39%);Housewife (R: 21% & NR: 28%); Farmer (R: 13% & NR: 19%); Business (R: 4% & NR: 3%); andUnemployed (R: 10% & NR: 11%). Average family size for both the Recipients is 5 and for the NonRecipients, it is 6. Overwhelming majority of both Recipients (96%) and Non Recipients (72%) samplelive in Single/Nuclear Families and the rest live in Joint Families.

The distribution of Head of Households is as follows: Respondents as Head of household (R: 77%& NR: 53%); Husbands as Head of household (R: 21% & NR: 36%); Offspring/Children as Head ofhousehold (R: 0% & NR: 6%); and Father as Head of household (R: 2% & NR: 5%).

52

The distribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (R: 71% & NR: 67%); and Hindus(R: 29% & NR: 33%).

By the status of providing family expenses, the distribution of the sample is as follows: Husbandsprovide maintenance, support (R: 83% & NR: 69%); No maintenance, support (R: 17% & NR: 17%);Children do not provide maintenance, support (R: 0% & NR: 11%); and childless (R: 0% & NR: 3%).

Table 4. 10.2: TR Respondents’ family earning member: in %

Earning member of the family Recipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)Myself (Respondents) 77 61 70Husband 23 28 25Wife 2 0 1Children 0 6 2Father 4 8 6

[Multiple Response]

The distribution of the sample by status of earning members of the family is as follows:Respondents as earning members (R: 77% & NR: 61%); Husbands as earning members (R: 23% &NR: 28%); Wife as earning member (R: 2% & NR: 0%); Offspring/children as earning (R: 0% & NR:6%); and Father as earning member (R: 4% & NR: 8%). Hundred percent of the Recipients and the NonRecipients are permanent residents of the area.

By average monthly family income the Recipients (Tk. 3560) and Non Recipients (Tk. 3094) samplesare much below the average income of poor family (Tk. 6500). Again, minimum family income of Tk.1000 for the Recipients' family and Tk. 500 for the Non Recipients' family is much below the averageincome of a hardcore poor family. The maximum monthly family income reported Tk. 7000 for theRecipients' families and Tk.9000 for the Non Recipients' families. The average monthly familyexpenditures of the Recipients and Non Recipients are Tk. 3500 and Tk. 3003, respectively. Estimatedsocio economic status assessed observing housing conditions and assets by the field investigatorsshow that 98% of the Recipients and 100% of the Non Recipients are poor.

Average Land Holding status of the samples is as follows: (Home stead land holding: R: 4decimals & NR: 3 decimals and Agricultural land holding: R: 1 decimal & NR: 1 decimal). Average totalland holding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family.

10.2 Findings of the Household Test Relief (TR) Program

Awareness about Test Relief (TR) Program: The respondents came to know about it from multiplesources. Overwhelming majority (78%) came to know about it from the Upazila Parishad; other sourcesof knowledge were Ward Sava (30%), UP (11%), and NGO (3%). Key Persons from whom theknowledge was acquired are: UP male member (60%), Female member (25%) and Chairman (23%).[see the table below]

Table 4.10.3: Distribution of Respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their Sources of Knowledge(from where, whom & media/ how) on Test Relief (TR) Program: in %

Sources of knowledge on Test Relief (TR) Program: in % %From where N=84Upazilla Parishad 78Ward Shova 30Union Parishad 11NGO 3From whom N=84Male Member 60Female Member 25Chairman 23Govt Officials 6Political leader 2UP Sectary 2[Multiple Response]

53

Selection process: Selections are done mostly by the UP members (75%), UP Chairman (23%) andPolitical Leader (2%). More than a quarter of the respondents mentioned about the SelectionCommittee at the UP (27%). Very few respondents mentioned about the functioning of the SelectionCommittee at District (2%) and at Upazila levels (8%). On average the enlistment for TR is done onceannually and on average an incumbent is selected once a year for TR. The work assigned is mostlyearth work for road (93%) and for mosque, madrasha and school (29%).

Processes of the Allocation: Most of the respondents received cash as TR grant (88%). None paidany bribes or extra payments for being selected for TR grant.

Mode of Use of allocation: Thefigure 22 shows that 100% percent ofthe respondents said that theallocations of TR assisted them tomeet the family/livelihood expenses.In the absence of TR support to thefamilies, the families would havestarved (46%); 33% could not havemet the family expenses and 23%said that they had to be dependenton others to support their families.On average each respondentmentioned about 1 person whomthey know are eligible, but did not getthe allowance. On the other hand,among the non-recipients category70% applied for the allowance.

Allocations for TR (qualitative findings)Funds for TR is allocated mostly for local development components .The allocations are given for repairof Mosque, Temples, Roads, Schools and Madrashas. Allocation of TR is determined by consideringthe proportion of population of a union and usually it was made through recommendations of the LocalMPs. Local population, particularly the poor are the primary beneficiaries of the program. Besides, theworker/labor of the program also considered as beneficiaries. Qualitative Findings also depicted that,huge ghost beneficiaries whose hypothetical names are written on papers only and their wages moneyunduly depart to some LG representative and local political person. The respondents said thatallocations for TR can be made and placed directly to the respective UPs and it should be freed frompolitical and bureaucratic interferences.Only three Non Recipients respondents lodged verbal complaints to UP chairmen against their nonselection but none of them had their complaints resolved.

Table 4.10.4: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their grievancesabout the system of allocation: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 8No 92Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 100Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Figure 22: Mode of Use of the Allowance: in % (Multipleresponses)

100

2

0102030405060708090

100To meet cost forlivelihood and familyexpenses: essentialdaily items like food

To meet cost fortreatment

54

Chapter V: Qualitative Findings

Section 1: Findings of Intensive Interviews with the Service providers

Sample of service Providers covered: In total 43 Service Providers were interviewed and theirdistribution is as follows: UP Chairmen 37%; Upazila Education Officer (Primary and Secondary) 17%;Upazila and District Social Welfare Officer 16%; Upazila and District Woman Affairs Officer 14%;Upazila Nirbahi Officer: UNO 9% and Project Implementation Officer 7%.

Opinion on percentage of Poor people living below the poverty line: The service providersestimated that 49% of the people in the sample areas live below poverty level, and of them only 14%are covered (receiving at least one type of allowance) by the safety net allowances programs.Upazila level officials of the multi-sectoral development programs are involved in the processes ofdisbursements of allowances across their own programs (allowances), UNOs and the UP Chairmen arelikely to be involved in all types of Safety net programs.

Opinion on Beneficiary Selection ProcessThe service providers envisaged that initially the selection process starts with the processing by theward committee; subsequently the list is submitted to the UP Chairman who along with the UPmembers and the respective committees finalizes the preliminary list and thereafter, the list is sent tothe Upazila Committee for information. Further, the service providers mentioned that selection of thenumber of beneficiaries is proportionate to the size of population of a ward.

Table 5.1: Distribution of Service Providers by Their Responses on Beneficiary Selections: in %

Responses %UP Chairmen and members with involvement of local committee finalize the preliminary list forselection

40

Inform the Upazila committees about the selection 37Selection List is finalized ultimately by UP Chairmen, Ward committee with the help of Upazilalevel Govt. Senior officers

35

Beneficiaries' selection for allowances are distributed according to the size of ward 26Selection process starts from the ward 19Selection of the students for the stipend program by the teacher, PTA and SMC 16Head master selects all the students 12Preference is given to poor & land less student 12Beneficiary selection for old age allowances through social welfare survey 7Selection is informed to general people through Gram-police and miking 5

[Multiple Response]

Other specific issues underscored are that: Students for stipends are selected by the Head Master and the School Management Committee

(SMC); Poor students preferably from landless families get priority;

Publicity for the AllowancesThree fourths (79%) of the service providers claimed that the provisions for selection for allowances aregiven wide publicity through: UP members, Union and Upazila level Government officials and workers,miking/drum beating, NGOs, Gram Police and also through ward level meetings.

55

Table 5.2: Distribution of service providers by the status of makes publicity or advertisement of thebeneficiary selection process for social safety net Programs publicity: in %

Responses MoSW MoWCA MoDM MoPME/MoE

UPChairmen

UNO

Publicity Through UP member 60 20 0 0 43 100Publicity Through Miking/ drum beating (Dhol) 40 40 100 50 78 33Publicity Through responsible committee 40 60 33 25 36 33Publicity Through Chairmen & Elite person ofthe society

40 20 33 25 14 67

Publicity Through Gram-police 20 0 0 0 29 0Publicity Through NGO 0 0 0 0 14 0Publicity Through ward Meeting & notice 0 20 0 50 21 0Publicity Through Leaflet 0 40 0 25 0 0Publicity Through Mother Meeting 0 20 0 0 0 0Publicity Through Head Master of the School 0 20 0 25 0 0Publicity Through Educational institution bynotice

0 20 0 0 0 0

Publicity Through Upazila Govt. representative 20 0 33 0 0 15[Multiple Response]

Opinion on commencement of Ward ShavaAll interviewed UP Chairmen and 50% of UNOs opined that ward shava was held regularly as per localgovernment act 2009. To the contrary, 60% percent of the service providers affirmed that Ward Shavawas held in their area, According to the service providers out of total mandated 9 ward shava, onaverage 7 ward shavas were held in the last year. They also said that some NGOs facilitated UPrepresentatives to conduct ward shava but the selection of the beneficiaries for the safety netallowances were discussed negligibly in ward shava meeting.

Opinion on Service Providers' Contacts with the beneficiariesOn average, 79% of the service providers affirmed that they had contacts with the beneficiaries andsuch contacts mostly happened during beneficiary selection and distribution process. (Table 5.3).

Table 5.3: Distribution of service provider by their opinion on how to they communicate withbeneficiaries: in %

Sources of contact with beneficiaries %During the time when the beneficiary received allowances 71During selection of beneficiaries 39During visit of UP by the beneficiaries 35During visit to the locality 24When the beneficiaries came to express any problem 18During award of stipends 6During the ward meeting 3During invigilation of examination, met the students 3

[Multiple Response]

Opinion on Communication with eligible but not recipientPrimary reason for non selection of eligible recipients for the safety net allowances is shortages of fundscompared to demands as the number of hard core poor is greater than the allocations. Other subsidiaryreasons are: nepotism, factional conflicts in rural areas, and the absence of priority list of the potentialmost deserving beneficiaries. Other minor problems mentioned are: absence of a priority list of thebeneficiaries (5%); selection bias due to political interference (5%) and factional conflicts (7%).

Opinion on Monitoring of SSN programOverall only 33% of the Service Providers affirmed that monitoring is done for the Safety NetAllowances Program. Currently, major responsibility on monitoring is discharged by Upazila levelofficials and the committee (79%). The stipend programs are also partly monitored by the SchoolManagement Committee (SMC) and the head master (30%). Very rarely when complaints are receivedby the people investigations are conducted (7%) and MOWCA officials monitor the training program onVGD (4%).

56

Perception on Grievance mechanismOne third of the service providers claimed that there are existing grievance registering mechanisms toreceive/accept beneficiaries’ complaints as mandates of the respective circulars. But the beneficiariesare not aware about the processes rather very meager portion of beneficiaries tend to claim about theirentitlements informally/verbally to the respective UP representatives. For instance, most of the serviceprovider said that complaints are usually lodged to ward members and UP Chairmen.. Often thebeneficiary and potential beneficiaries’ complaints are placed to the local elites (14%) for onwardplacing to the respective UP representatives.

Problem faced when enlisting beneficiariesOne third of the Service Providers (33%) affirmed that there is non problem in Safety Net allocations.Majority of the Service Providers (51%) identified 'Shortages of funds for Safety Net Allowance' as themajor problem, followed by 'Political Interferences' as the next most important problem creating biasesin the selection of the beneficiaries (28% of service providers opined). About a quarter of the serviceproviders (23%) think that few eligible non recipients also raise their verbal claims challenging theselection process for the beneficiaries.

Recommendations for improving the Safety Net ProgramRecommendations by service providers overwhelmingly (75%) underscored increase in the funds forthe Safety Net Allowances facilitating coverage of a larger proportion of the deserving beneficiaries.About a half the service providers (46%) thought proper empowerment of the local government officialsand the community influential through training and delegation of relevant authority on selection,screening and removing nepotism and political interferences would improve the quality of the Safety NetProgram. The service providers also recommended to create comprehensive data base of the eligiblebeneficiaries (through local survey) to strengthen the selection process. The service providers also thinkthat the safety net program is a useful program for the poor and disadvantaged, and this should becontinued with as a measure of major rural poverty alleviation strategy. Besides, mass awarenessinitiatives on SSN issues should be taken by the relevant ministry to aware the grassroots citizens.However, in order to increase the accountability of the service providers, citizen’s voice andrepresentation on complaining against any irregularities of SSN programs should be enhanced bytaking appropriate measurement of the lodged complaints. Lack of monitoring mechanism is also aconcerns for the effective SSN service delivery. So, it should be enhanced.

Section 2: Focus Group Discussions (FGD) with the Community Leaders

A Total of 24 FGDs were conducted in 21 Unions & 3 Municipalities/Pouroshavas. Of these, 10 FGDswere conducted with the Formal (elected) Public Representatives: Male UP member, Female UPmember and staff of different agencies working at the Union Parishads level with 75 participants, ofwhom 75% are males and 25% are females.

Another 14 FGDs were conducted with the Informal Opinion/Community Leaders/Elite persons:Teacher, Imam, representative from local NGO, Local leader; male & female, journalist, andrepresentative from Different Committee with 106 participants, of whom 81% are males and 19% arefemales.

Socio Economic Characteristics of the FGD Participants

Formal Elected Male Leaders are on average 43 years old, with minimum age being 21 years andmaximum age being 68 years; while the female are on average 39 years old, with minimum age being22 years and maximum age being 50 years.

Informal Male Opinion Leaders are on average 45 years old, with minimum age being 22 years andmaximum age being 70 years; while the female are on average 35 years old, with minimum age being25 years and maximum age being 50 years.

57

Formal Elected Male and Female Leaders are on average SSC qualified, and none of them is illiterate(non school going). Most of the Informal Male Opinion Leaders (64%) are either SSC or above qualified;while most of the female Leaders (75%) are either SSC or above qualified.

Major occupations of the Informal Opinion Male Leaders are Business-29% and Teaching-29%,followed by 15% are Imams, 13% service holders, 11% in Farming, 2% are laborers and 1% Journalist.Major occupations of the Informal Opinion Female Leaders are Services-50%, 35% are housewivesand 15% are in Teaching.

Awareness about availability of Safety net Allowances in the LocalityThe formal elected leaders are almost aware about the SSN programs as they are dealing with these.However, the table 6 below shows the level of awareness of the FGD participants' knowledge aboutvarious types of allowances disbursed in the locality by the Informal Opinion Leaders.

Table 5.4: Awareness about availability of SSN in order of frequencies of mention by the Informal OpinionLeaders

Types of Allowances %Old age allowances(OAA) 100%Allowances for the Widow, Deserted and Destitute women (AWDDW) 100%Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) 79%Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) 79%Allowances for Financially Insolvent Disabled (AFID) 71%Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother(MA) 50%Primary and Secondary School Education Programs (PESP) 36%Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP) 36%Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP) 29%

According to the estimates by the formal elected leaders and Informal Opinion leaders half of the ruralpopulation are poor. According to both the formal elected leaders and the informal opinion leaders, littleover a third of the village population (35%) are hardcore poor. The Formal Elected Leaders opined that16% of the village population are covered/served by the social safety net work programs, which impliesthat a half the hardcore poor are not covered by the program.

Table 5.5 : Selection of SSN beneficiaries specified by the FGD participants

Criteria Specified by the formal electedleaders

Criteria Specified by the informal opinion leaders

Survey conducted through Ward Sava withparticipation of the local elites, who assisted inprioritizing the list of eligible candidates

Selection of eligible candidates are initially made by themembers of the Ward Committee through scrutiny; thenthe list is submitted to the Union Committee or to thePourasava (Municipality)

Selection for various kinds of allowances aremade from among those who are severely poor

Selection of eligible candidates are initially made jointlyby the members of the Ward Committee and the localinfluential; then the list is submitted to the UnionCommittee

Selection of eligible candidates are initiallymade by the members of the Ward Committeethrough scrutiny; then the list is submitted to theUnion Committee, which in turn sends the listafter review to the Upazila.

Priorities for selection are given to those who can affordto pay bribes; besides nepotism and political influencesare also exerted in the selection of candidates

Steps for selection of eligible candidates varyby types of allowances, e.g., for: Old ageallowances: priority is given to those who arevery old and also poor; for VGD and VGFallowances, hardcore poor are given priority;and for allowances to the widows and the formaternity care, priority is again given to thosewho are hard core poor

Ninety percent of the Formal elected members opined that the selection criteria and the procedurespecified by them are appropriate and effective and they also believe that the committee members are

58

neutral and they are committed to select the eligible and deserving candidates. Ten percent of theFormal elected leaders think that the selection criteria and the procedure are not appropriate. To thecontrary, majority of the informal opinion leaders (64%) think that the selection criteria and theprocedure is neither appropriate nor effective. Eight percent of the informal leaders think that theselection criteria and the procedure is appropriate but the application is problematic. About a third of theinformal opinion leaders (28%), however, believe that the selection criteria and the procedure isappropriate. Eighty percent of the Formal elected leaders think that there is no irregularities in theapplication of the selection procedures, but interestingly, almost an equal proportion of the informalopinion leaders (79%) said that there is irregularities committed in the application of the selectionprocedures. The irregularities committed are: favoritism to the members belonging to same political orfactional groups; preferences to the relatives (nepotism), practices of giving bribes. Almost universallyboth the types of leaders said that there is no system (neither oral or in writing) of lodging formalcomplaints regarding the selection. However, some corrective actions are sometimes taken by the UPChairmen and the informal leaders think that complaints are not lodged due to fear of being victimized.

Table 5.6: Suggestions Given by the FGD Participants for Rectifications

Suggestions for rectifications for irregularselection Specified by the formal electedleaders

Suggestions for rectifications for irregularselection Specified by the informal opinionleaders

Spot and random checks of the selectedcandidates can be done by the Governmentofficials

Spot and random checks of the selectedcandidates can be done by the Governmentofficials

Reduce political/factional influences Selection committee may include local influentialSelection procedure may made transparent

Half of the FGD participants from among the Formal Elected Leaders and only 29% of the InformalOpinion Leaders mentioned that there is provisions (Forum) for lodging written complaints (to UPChairman) by those who are not selected for award of allowances. But the likelihood of rectification ismeager. However, the aforesaid matrix indicates that both type of respondents noted importance ofstrengthening Government’s monitoring mechanism and enhancing community participation in the SSNselection process at the same time.

Eighty percent of the Formal elected leaders said that Post monitoring of the beneficiaries are done,while 20% said that no such monitoring is done. Of the informal opinion leaders, 64% affirmed thatmonitoring is done to follow-up the beneficiaries. However, both the types of leaders mentioned that thethere is no monitoring guideline. Monitoring is done through home visits and sometimes the UPChairman and the UNO also perform monitoring functions. Sometimes monitoring is also done usingthe list of the beneficiaries.Table 5.7: Benefits Accrued From the Safety Net Allowances

Benefits Accrued Specified by the formalelected leaders

Benefits Accrued Specified by the informalopinion leaders

Meet the basic needs expenses for the family Meet the basic needs expenses for the familyMeet the expenses for medical treatment Meet the expenses for medical treatmentPersons with disability could obtain lifeinsurance for future

Families could meet children's education

Could avoid taking loansAdditional Benefits Desired by the formalelected leaders

Additional Benefits Desired by the informalopinion leaders

Allot House for the homeless Allot House for the homelessIncrease amount of allowances Increase amount of allowancesBuy Cows for the hard core poor Ensure employment for the UnemployedArrange free medical treatment for the poor Arrange free medical treatment for the poor

59

Table 5.8: Comparative Assessment of Effectiveness of the Social net Program Allowances byFGD Participants

SSNP Assessments by formal electedleaders (%)

Assessments by informal opinionleaders (%)

1. OAA 92% 78%2. AWDDW 81% 50%3. VGD 55% 31%4. AFID 51% 17%5. MA 49% 26%6. EGPP 32% 26%7. VGF 25% 28%

Ranking by the two groups of local leaders evidence that Old Age Allowances, Widow Allowances andVGD are the most preferred social safety net work allowances. Almost three fourths of the leaders (bothformal and informal) opined that the allowances disbursed through Social Safety Net Work willaccelerate local development and providing true respite to the distressed, disadvantaged and thehardcore poor.

60

Chapter VI: Summary of the Findings

Major Strength of the SSN Programs

Remove poverty and redistribute income: Estimated socio economic status assessed byobserving housing conditions and assets by the field investigators show that more than 90% of theselected candidates are poor with monthly average income around Tk. 4018 and the minimumincome being Tk. 300 - 500 implying that hardcore poor were also selected. Average total landholding both home stead and agricultural is below the 0.5 acre estimated for a poor family. Thedistribution of the sample by religion is as follows: Muslims (75%); Hindus (R: 10%); Buddhists (R:13%) and Christians (R: 2%), which ensures selection of the minorities.

Ensure household financial security: Thirty to fifty percent of the Recipients assured that theawards from the safety net programs helped them to meet essential expenses of the family andsafeguard family livelihood. Without the allowances they were either dependent on others or takingloans.

Reduce household risks and challenges

About 10 to 20% said that the allowances saved them from starving Majority of the Recipients said that they afforded medical treatment by using the allowances.

Strengthen government efforts on welfare and development

Five to six percent of the Recipients said that they afforded children education using theallowances.

EGPP facilitated construction and repair of roads, mosques, Temples, schools and madrashas. Union Parshad has demonstrated effectiveness and strengths in implementing the safety net

program: an evidence of growth and participation of local government institution in the localwelfare and development programs.

Major Weaknesses of the Safety net Programs Irregularities/ Problems on selection of beneficiaries for safety net allowances /

Programs Indulgence in Favoritism/Nepotism: Distribute cards only to those, who had cast votes for the

selectors; UP Chairmen & UP member give priority to their own candidates for selection. Selections of incumbents are done by taking bribes/speed money. Beneficiary selection was not done openly/publicly as per guideline. Administrative interference is not enough to prevent corrupt practices. Government officials are

not involved in the selection process. Selected persons who are not eligible consequently eligible candidates are left out Selected person through political interference. Eligible poor candidates are deprived from being selected.

Irregularities/corruptions/ malpractices/ problems on disbursement of allowance While distributing allocated amount of VGD rice/wheat instead of distributing 30 KGs, they

distribute 20-25 KG; Disbursement of cash and/conditional cash transfer is not done on time; In some areas bank deducts Tk. 10.during distribution/disbursement of cash and/conditional

cash transfer; Political opponents are harassed while selecting/receiving allowances. Mostly those people cast

vote for the elected representatives, entitled for receiving SSN services; Delays are made in disbursing the cash and/conditional cash transfer programs. Selection biases due to nepotism and Favoritism.

61

EGPP program faces most disbursement irregularities/corruption; Absence of monitoring and supervision and periodic check by third party encouraged taking

bribes as much as Tk 2500 maximum from a person and on average Tk. 200 to 300. Banks in some cases deducted money from the Recipients. Complaints of taking bribes by UP Chairmen and member both in selecting candidates and

disbursing finds have been mentioned. People are rarely aware of any Committee involved in the Selection of candidates. Findings of FGD suggest that on the issues of appropriateness (efficiencies) of selection and

disbursements of funds, the Elected formal leaders of UP and the local influential (opinionleaders) disagree, in some cases very extremely, the local leaders hold negative opinionsparticularly on the genuineness of the selection of eligible candidates, while the UP Chairmenand members over all expressed very positive opinions in this regard.

The findings also suggest predominant roles played by the Male Members of the UP comparedto the female members.

Although, evidence of participation in the program has been observed by the UNOs, but it is notclear how extensive and intensive the roles are, particularly on supervision and monitoring bythe alliance of the developmental ministries.

Analyses of findings of selected variables: Bribes paid, Level of Satisfaction,Grievances/Complaints lodgedBribes Paid: Of the 10 Safety Net Programs, on average 5% of the beneficiary recipients of 8programs (OAA, AWDDW, AFID, PESP, MA, VGD, EGPP and VGF) claimed that they paid bribes toUP Chairmen and Members at the rate of Tk.334 on average. The highest amount of the averageamount paid is Tk.1352 and the lowest is Tk.100. The two programs such as SSSNP and TR are bribefree program.Grievances by recipients on selection process: On an average 9% of the beneficiary recipients hadgrievances on selection process and the majority of them said that their grievance were resolved afterthey had placed verbal complaints to the respective UP representatives. On an average 4% of thebeneficiary recipients faced problems with the disbursement process. The TR and VGF programsgenerally face high political interference during the selection and distribution process. That’s why,citizens are also reluctant to know as well as complaints about these SSN program. According to thenon recipients on average 64% of them actually applied for any Safety Net Program. And out of them,only 15% complained against their status of not being selected. Hence it may be concluded that amaximum of 15% of the population eligible for Safety Net allowances have been excluded from theprogram.Table 6.1: Types of Safety Net Programs by Recipients and Non Recipients of SSN Allowances

Types of Safety NetPrograms

Recipients of Safety Net Programsallowances

Non recipients (NR)

% paidbribes

Averageamountpaid asbribes

% problems ofdisbursement

Estimated numberof eligible

persons notselected

% NRapplying

%NR lodgingcomplaints

Old age allowance (OAA):n=359

8% Tk.1136 6% 3 69% 13%

Allowances for widow,deserted, and destitute(AWDDW): n=354

4% Tk.1352 6% 2 81% 15%

Allowances for disabled(AFID): n=199

5% Tk.1550 9% 2 60% 23%

Stipend for PE (PESP):n=340

1% Tk.100 2% 6 55% 18%

Stipend for SSE (SSSNP):n=321

None NA 0% 2 55% 11%

Maternal allowance forpoor (MA): n=183

10% Tk.336 4% 2 65% 22%

VGD: n=331 11% Tk.848 4% 2 70% 15%EGPP: n=254 8% Tk.171 63% 3 45% 11%VGF: n=279 1% Tk.350 3% 8 62% 19%TR: n= 84 None NA 0% 1 70% 15%Average: n=288 5% Tk.334 4% 2 64% 15%

62

Figure 23: At a glance Governance challenge of the targeted SSN program

Figure 24: Non recipients’ complaints status

Non recipients (NR): Types of Safety Net Programs

69

81

6055 55

6570

45

6270

64

13 1523

1811

2215 11

19 15 15

0102030405060708090

100

OAA

AWDDWAFID

PESP

SSSAP MAVGD

EGEPVGF TR

Average

% NR applied % NR complained

63

Chapter VII: Recommendations

In accordance with the opinion- ‘government allocation for social safety-net programs (SSNP) islimited compare to its need’ which is expressed by most of the service providers; the studyrecommends taking long term policy and strategy to increase allocation for SSNP to cover allthe deserving poor and the vulnerable people.

The present guidelines for selection of SSNP beneficiaries under different programmessubstantially vary in content and criteria that cause targeting errors in many cases. Forexample, the income and landholding criteria for beneficiary selection widely vary fromprogramme to programme. Few programme guidelines entail beneficiaries’ different level ofmonthly and/annual income as threshold of the eligibility criteria i.e. OAA (monthly < Tk 10,000),AWDDW (monthly ≤ Tk 12,000), AFID (annual < Tk 36,000), EGPP (monthly < Tk 4,000) and onthe other side MA income threshold determined based on household’s monthly income which is< Tk 1,500. Thus it is recommended to have a few essential criteria that should be common forall social safety-net programs. The cut off line of the annual area and ownership land and othereconomic resources should be revised based on adequate survey.

As all Ups mandatorily maintains an updated household list of the union for basically twopurposes (birth and death registration and tax collection), a comprehensive socio-economicdatabase of all households with special emphasis on poverty could be created by providingsimple technical assistance to Ups that may help to reduce targeting errors as well as framing along term development vision of the respective Union Parishads. A basic data base on allhouseholds of a union with simple poverty data can be created which will help to draw thebeneficiaries for respective SSNP from the data base of UPs.

Duplication, inclusion and exclusion errors also occur due to institutional capacity gap, politicalinterference and absence of good governance in the whole institutional process. Thus, there is aneed for enhancing practices of good governance in general and increasing capacity of the localgovernment officials on SSN management specially in areas of monitoring and grievanceredressal mechanism.

A robust information campaign on policy, selection criteria, role and responsibility of all thestakeholders need to be launched nationwide in the beginning of the year and each and everyunion should conduct such campaign with the involvement of CSOs. This will help to createmass awareness regarding each of the SSNP programme. Citizens’ voice and representation isvery poor to claim their rights and entitlements. Therefore, massive social mobilization andawareness program may help them to raise voices against deprivations and irregularities

The study findings recommended to revisit the EGPP programme guideline for reducingtargeting and disbursement errors. This programme faces most selection and disbursementirregularities at grassroots level. Due to political interference, there are scopes for ghostbeneficiaries and also there are misappropriations of wages by fake laborers. Propergovernment monitoring mechanism need to be developed for reducing these types ofirregularities.

Civic engagement in the selection and distribution process is essential to increase theeffectiveness of the SSN program implementation. A combined platform comprising demandand supply side actors should be established to watch, monitor and resolve the selection anddistribution related irregularities.

GoB official should conduct periodic (routine) monitoring through random selection, check theappropriateness and comprehensiveness of selected candidates strictly by criteria/eligibility.

64

Periodic performance assessment should be conducted for social safety-net programs; theassessment should include beneficiaries’ views. Third party monitoring (TPM) system may alsobe practiced in selective way for neutral judgment.

A people friendly grievance lodging and redressing mechanism is needed to incorporate with thesocial protection programs. It should be started at community level and be linked to theimplementing and monitoring institutions.

There should be one committee for grievance receiving and redressal at every union. Thecommittee should be comprised of a few respected persons and local representatives. Thecommittee will receive and review complains from the beneficiaries & general citizens as welland recommend for necessary action for redressing the grievances.

Training of beneficiaries under the VGD is a grey area needs major review. The amountallocated per beneficiary against a certain number of training days are grossly insufficient. Thereasons for low coverage of training are found as follows: (1) No proper need assessment, (2)lack of appropriate and skilled trainer,(3) lack of adequate resources for training, (4) corruptionin selection of support service providing NGOs and (5) Lack of accountability and adequateoverseeing at local level .Without adequate training IGA and skill development of beneficiariessuffer and remains unfulfilled. Training issue need special attention in future. It has also beenreported that the appointment of NGOs for development support service are not done under afair process.

Findings of the survey as well as other studies on issue suggest that Ward Shavas are held notheld properly and also regularly. Participation of the people in the ward shavas, is also very low.In accordance with Local government (UP) act 2009, all of the safety-net beneficiaries aresupposed to be discussed in the ward shava (WS) and WS can also prepare a priority list of thebeneficiaries. As the WS are not held properly, the beneficiary list could not be scrutinized at thecommunity levels. An alternative to the community scrutiny needs to be found.

Conclusion

Findings suggest that due to shortage of funds, at least one third of the eligible rural poor are still leftout from the benefits of the program. The need is to consider increased allocation of funds so that morerural poor is covered by the network of safety net support. Findings also suggest that large proportionsof the rural poor would have experienced starvation and they would have been deprived of the muchneeded medical treatment, which could have contributed to serious morbidity (if not mortality) andmalnutrition. There is no doubt that the Safety net programs are beneficial for the individuals and alsofor the rural community as a whole, and this should be certainly sustained in larger scale with majorchanges for achieving greater degrees of quality and efficiencies of the programs.

Some weaknesses of the program, such as relatively less participation by the local leaders and also bythe officials of the development departments are obvious. Their increased participation (in supervisionand monitoring) would ensure greater degrees of transparency and accountability acceleratingimprovement of quality of implementation. Moreover, current levels of comparatively lower levels ofparticipation by women leaders, particularly by the female ward members may be reviewed and stepsmay be taken to enhance their participation in the management of the program and this is more justifiedbecause quite a few of the programs are exclusively for women. Moreover, every UP has a functioningcomputer, which can be used to build a database of the program to facilitate monitoring andsupervision. Increased coordination between UP, Upazila, and the citizen forums may also reducemany of the malpractices related to selection and distribution of the social safety-net programs.

65

References

1. Bangladesh National Social Protection Strategy, General Economics Division, PlanningCommission, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, First Draft, November 15, 2013.

2. M.A.H. Pradhan, S. Mohd, J. Sulaiman, Social Safety Nets Programs in Bangladesh: Preparing forAdaption to Demographic Change, Disaster, and Poverty Reduction, Research on Humanities andSocial Sciences, ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online), Vol 2, No.10, 2012

3. Social Safety Nets and Productive Outcomes: Evidence and Implications for Bangladesh, USAID,2014.

4. H. Z. Rhaman, D. Hulme, National Social Protection Strategy A Political Economy Assessment ,Power and Participation Research Centre (PPRC), Dhaka, Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI),University of Manchester, UK, August, 2014

5. Prothom Alo, The daily Newspaper, dated 9 July 2014, Wednesday.6. Pradhan M.A.H., Mohd S., and Sulaiman J., Social Safety Nets Programs in Bangladesh: Preparing

for Adaption to Demographic Change, Disaster, and Poverty Reduction, Research on Humanitiesand Social Sciences, ISSN 2222-1719 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2863 (Online), Vol 2, No.10, 2012.

7. Cook T.D., Campbell D.T. Quasi-Experimentation Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings,Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. Dallas. Geneva, III. Hopewell, N.J. Palo Alto. London.

8. G. Margaret, N D Carlo, T Emil, O Azedin, For Protection & Promotion, The design andImplementation of Effective Safety Nets, The World Bank, 2008.

9. BBS, Statistical Pocket Book of Bangladesh, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka, 1996.

66

Appendix I: Detailed Tables of Survey Findings

Table 1: Data Collection Completion Table by Male, Female & Safety net Program

Safetynetprogram

Recipient Non-recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female TotalT C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C T C

AWDDW 235 231 235 231 118 123 118 123 353 354 353 354OAA 118 119 118 119 236 238 59 63 59 58 118 121 177 182 177 177 354 359VGD 235 217 235 217 117 114 117 114 352 331 352 331PESP 79 80 156 151 235 231 38 43 80 66 118 109 117 123 236 217 353 340SSSP 79 65 157 155 236 220 39 36 79 65 118 101 118 101 236 220 354 321EGPP 86 82 86 86 172 168 43 39 43 47 86 86 129 121 129 133 258 254VGF 86 89 86 99 172 188 43 40 43 51 86 91 129 129 129 150 258 279MA 136 114 136 114 68 69 68 69 204 183 204 183AFID 66 72 66 54 132 126 33 31 33 42 66 73 99 103 99 96 198 199TR 66 31 65 17 131 48 32 19 33 17 65 36 98 50 98 34 196 84Total 580 538 1340 1243 1920 1781 287 271 673 652 960 923 867 627 2013 1895 2880 2704

Section 1: Old age allowances: Household Survey

1.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Old Age Allowances

Samples:

Table 2: Distribution of old age allowance respondents Sample: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient

Male Female Total Male Female Totaln % n % n % n % n % n %

OAA 119 50 119 50 238 100 63 52 58 48 121 100

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 3: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in % OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Housewife 38 38 38Unemployed 37 32 35Farmer 13 12 13Day-laborer 9 14 11Beggar 2 3 2Business 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 4: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by number of family member: in %

Number of family member: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 8 8 8

Table 5: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by types of family: in %

Types of family: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Single family 73 79 75Join family 27 21 25Total 100 100 100

67

Table 6: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of the family: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Offspring (Children) 47 48 47Myself 46 40 44Husband 6 11 8Wife 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Muslim 75 75 75Buddhist 13 12 13Hindu 10 12 11Christian 2 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by the social condition on support for livelihood:in %

Social Conditions: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Children provide livelihood support 44 43 44No livelihood support 32 33 32Children do not provide livelihood 20 18 20Child less 2 3 2Separated from family 2 3 2Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by permanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 10: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by the monthly family income: in %

Monthly familyincome: in mean

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Mean 4018 3596 3876Minimum 300 500 300Maximum 10000 10000 10000%> 10000 0% n=0 0% n=0 0% n=0%< 10000 98% n=233 98% n=118 98% n=351%= 10000 2% n=5 2% n=3 2% n=8

Table 11: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by the monthly family expenditure: in %Monthly familyexpenditure: in%

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Mean 3810 3493 3703Minimum 300 500 300Maximum 10000 10000 10000

68

Table 12: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by social condition: in %

Social condition: in% OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Poor 95 97 95Middle class 5 3 5Total 100 100 100

Table 13: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by immoveable asset (Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Mean 6 4 50Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 60 14 60

Table 14: Distribution of old age allowance respondents by immoveable asset (Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land:in Decimal

OAARecipient (n=238) Non-Recipient (n=121) Total (n=359)

Mean 5 4 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 178 99 178

1.2 Tables of Household Findings on Old Age AllowancesA. Recipients Sample

Selection process:Table 15: Distribution of respondents for old age allowance by their opinion on selection procedure: in %

Responses %Publicity done: in %Yes 14No 86Total 100Selection process in open field: in %Yes 7No 93Total 100Committee exists for selection the candidate: in %Yes 8No 1Don’t know 91Total 100

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances:Table 16: Distribution of respondents for old age allowance by their opinion on disbursement process:in %

Response: %Place for collect the money: in%Bank 100

Problem faced to collect money from bank: in %Yes 6No 94Total 100Type of problem: in %Some times to stand in a long line 62Transportation problem 54Bank deduct Tk. 10.00 8

69

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for old age allowance by their opinion on extra payments for gettingallowance: in %

Response %Status of making extra payment: in %Yes 8No 92Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 1136Minimum 200Maximum 2500To whom paid: in % n=18Male UP member/ ward member 78Female UP member 22

Mode of Use of allowance:Table 18: Distribution of respondents for old age allowance by their opinion on the mode of use of theallowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the AllowanceSpend money for treatment 70To meet cost for family expenses: essential daily items like food andclothes

37

Now don’t need to borrow money 7To meet cost for betel-leaf-nut/can smoke/can take tea 3Problems faced in absence of the old age allowanceCould not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 57I had to starve 27Depended on other's support 11Could not spend money for children education 7Could not buy daily necessary things/food/clothes 6Could not buy betel-leaf-nut and take tea 3

Level of satisfaction:

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for the old age allowance by status of any grievance about thesystem of the Old Age Allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 10No 90Total 100Outcome of Complaint %Grievances solved 67Grievances not solved 33Total 100

Estimates of additional eligible persons for allowances:

Table 20: Distribution of respondents for the old age allowance by their estimates on the number ofpersons eligible but not received allowances

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 3Minimum 1Maximum 12

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Old age allowances

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for old age allowance by their knowledge safety Netprogram: in %

Response %Yes 98No 2Total 100

70

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for old age allowance by status of applying for and orfor receiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 69No 31Status of receiving allowances %Yes 0No 100

Table 23: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for old age allowance by their grievances about thesystem of Old age allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 13No 87Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 69Female Member 19Political leader 6UNO 6Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 13Not solved 87Total 100

Table 24: Distribution of non Recipient respondents for old age allowance respondents by their opinionon reasons for not selection: in %

Responses %Allocation of cards was limited 48Cards are given to them only, who can offer money 19Nepotism/ political influences 19They just put me off from day to day but do not deliver the cards 15

Section 2: Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women (AWDDW): Household Survey

2.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Allowance for Widow, Deserted andDestitute Women

Samples:

Table 1: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women Sample: in %

Type ofAllowance

Recipient Non-Recipient TotalFemale Female Total

N % n % N %AWDDW 231 65 123 35 354 100

Socio Demographic and Economic StatusTable 2: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by occupation:in %

Occupations: in% AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Housewife 62 65 63Day-laborer 20 21 20Unemployed 15 11 14Beggar 1 2 1House maid 2 0 1Business 0 1 1Total 100 100 100

71

Table 3: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by numberfamily member: in mean

Number of familymember: in mean

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 10 14 8

Table 4: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by types offamily: in %

Types family : in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Single family 87 88 87Join family 13 12 13Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by the Head ofthe family: in %

Head of the family: in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Myself 54 59 56Offspring (Children) 46 39 42Brother 0 2 2Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by the religion:in %

Religion: in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Muslim 70 73 71Hindu 16 11 15Buddhist 12 15 13Christian 2 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by the socialcondition on support for livelihood: in %

Social Condition: in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

No livelihood support 47 45 47Children provide livelihoodsupport

37 41 38

Children do not providelivelihood support

13 11 12

Child less 2 2 2Separate from family 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by thepermanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by the monthlyfamily income: in mean

Monthly familyincome: in mean

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Mean 3156 3304 3207Minimum 300 200 200Maximum 9000 9000 9000

72

Table 10: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by themonthly family expenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Mean 3028 3162 3074Minimum 300 200 200Maximum 9000 8000 9000

Table 11: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women by social condition: in %

Social condition: in % AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Poor 98 98 98Middle class 2 2 2Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by theimmoveable asset (Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 18 17 18

Table 13: Distribution of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women respondents by theimmoveable asset (Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

AWDDWRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=123) Total (n=354)

Mean 3 2 3Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 120 62 120

2.2 Tables of Household Findings on Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women Allowances

A. Recipients SampleSelection process:

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women by theiropinion on selection procedure: in %

Responses %Publicity doneYes 18No 82Total 100Selection process in open fieldYes 7No 93Total 100Committee exists for selection the candidateYes 10No 0Don’t know 90Total 100

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances:

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women by theiropinion on disbursement process: in %

Response: %Place for collect the moneyBank 100Problem faced to collect money from bank

73

Yes 6No 94Total 100Type of problemSome times to stand in a long line 85Transportation problem 15

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women by theiropinion on extra payments for getting allowance: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 4No 96Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 1352Minimum 200Maximum 3000To whom paidUP member/ ward member 75Female UP member 12Chairmen 13

Mode of Use of allowance:

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women by theiropinion on the mode of use of the allowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the AllowanceTo meet cost for family expenses: essential daily items like food andclothes

70

Spend money for treatment 61To meet cost for children education 5To meet cost for betel-leaf-nut/can take tea 1Problems faced in absence of the Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute WomenCould not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 48I had to starve 40Could not buy daily necessary things/food/clothes 24Depended on other's support 4Could not spend money for children education 4

Level of satisfaction:

Table 18: Distribution of respondents for the Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women bystatus of any grievance about the system of the Allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 9No 91Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

Estimates of additional eligible persons for allowances:Table 19: Distribution of respondents for the Allowance for Widow, Deserted and Destitute Women bytheir estimates on the number of persons eligible but not received allowances

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 2Minimum 0Maximum 5

74

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Allowance for Widow, Deserted and DestituteWomenTable 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and DestituteWomen by their knowledge safety Net Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 100No 0Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and DestituteWomen by status of receiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 81No 19Status of receiving allowancesYes 0No 100

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Allowance for Widow, Deserted and DestituteWomen by their grievances about the system of allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 15No 85Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 50Female Member 33Political leader 6UNO 6Night guard 5Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 3: Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program: Household Survey

3.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Allowance for Financially InsolventDisabled ProgramSamples:Table 1: Distribution of Allowance for Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program recipients bygender: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-Recipient Totaln % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % N %

AFID 72 57 54 43 126 100 31 43 42 57 73 100 126 63 73 37 199 100

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by occupation: in%

Occupations:in%

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Unemployed 67 63 65Day-laborer 13 11 12Housewife 9 12 10Student 4 8 6

75

Business 4 1 3Farmer 3 4 3Beggar 0 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by number family member: inmean

Number of familymember: in mean

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 13 10 13

Table 4: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by types offamily: in %

Types family : in % AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Single family 75 79 76Join family 25 21 24Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by the Head of thefamily: in %Head of thefamily: in %

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Father 55 42 50Respondent/Myself 24 26 25Mother 9 7 9Husband 6 15 9Wife 3 0 2Offspring 2 10 5Grandfather 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by the religion: in%Religion: in % AFID

Recipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)Muslim 84 82 83Hindu 16 18 17Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by status oflivelihood support/social condition: in %

Social Condition: in % AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

No livelihood Support 38 38 39Parents provide livelihood Support 29 26 28Children provide livelihood support 25 26 26Child less 6 4 5Children do not provide livelihoodsupport

1 6 2

Wife provide livelihood support 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by their status ofpermanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

76

Table 9: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by their monthlyfamily income: in mean Taka

Monthly familyincome: in mean

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Mean 3815 3299 3626Minimum 500 1000 500Maximum 10000 9000 10000Table 10: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by the monthlyfamily expenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Mean 3716 3288 3559Minimum 500 1000 500Maximum 10000 9000 10000

Table 11: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by socio economic status: in%

Social condition: in% AFIDRecipient (n=126) Recipient (n=126) Recipient (n=126)

Poor 94 97 95Middle class 6 3 5Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by theownership of immoveable asset (Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Mean 5 4 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 15 15 15

Table 13: Distribution of Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program respondents by theownership of immoveable asset (Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

AFIDRecipient (n=126) Non-Recipient (n=73) Total (n=199)

Mean 5 3 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 55 84 84

3.2 Tables of Household Findings on Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program

A. Recipients SampleSelection process:

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by their opinion onselection procedure: in %

Responses %Publicity doneYes 18No 82Total 100Selection process in open fieldYes 44No 56Total 100Committee exists for selection the candidateYes 33No 19Don’t know 48Total 100

77

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances:

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by their opinion ondisbursement process: in %

Response: %Place for collect the moneyBank 100Problem faced to collect money from bankYes 9No 91Total 100Type of problemSome times to stand in a long line 10Transportation problem 80Bank deduct 10TK 10

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by their opinion on extrapayments for getting allowance: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 5No 95Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 1550Minimum 300Maximum 3000To whom paidUP member/ ward member 67Female UP member 17Upazila Social Service office 17

Mode of Use of allowance:Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by their opinion on themode of use of the allowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the AllowanceSpend money for treatment 61To meet cost for family expenses: essential daily items like food and clothes 54Save money for future 2To meet cost for children education 2To meet cost for betel-leaf-nut/can take tea 2Do not Depended on other's support 2Problems faced in absence of the Allowance for Financially Insolvent Disabled ProgramCould not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 50I had to starve 24Could not buy daily necessary things/food/clothes 24Depended on other's support 12

Level of satisfactionTable 18: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by status of any grievanceabout the system of the Allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 8No 92Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

78

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by their estimates on thenumber of persons eligible but not received allowances

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 2Minimum 1Maximum 4

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Financially Insolvent Disabled allowances

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by theirknowledge safety Net Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 97No 3Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by status ofreceiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 60No 40Status of receiving allowancesYes 0No 100

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Financially Insolvent Disabled Program by theirgrievances about the system of allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 23No 77Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 53Female Member 29Political leader 12UNO 6Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 12Not solved 88Total 100

Section 4: Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP): Household Survey

4.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Primary Education Stipend Program(PESP)

Samples:

Table 1: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program Sample: in %

PESP

Recipient Non-Recipient TotalMale Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-

RecipientTotal

n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %80 35 151 65 231 100 43 39 66 61 109 100 231 68 109 32 340 100

79

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in% PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Students 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by number family member: inmean

Number of familymember: in mean

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 1 3 1Maximum 16 13 16

Table 4: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by types of family: in %

Types family : in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Single family 87 83 86Join family 13 17 14Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of the family: in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Father 97 98 97Mother 3 1 3Brother 0 1 0Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by religion: in %

Religion: in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Muslim 77 83 79Buddhist 13 11 12Hindu 10 6 9Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the social condition on supportfor livelihood: in %

Social Condition: in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Parents provide livelihood Support 96 98 97No livelihood support 4 2 3Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the permanent residence: in%

Permanentresidence: in %

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

80

Table 9: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the monthly family income: inmean

Monthly familyincome: in mean

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Mean 4090 4029 4070Minimum 120 300 120Maximum 10000 10000 10000%> 10000 0% n=0 0% n=0 0% n=0%< 10000 99% n=228 97% n=106 98% n=334%= 10000 1% n=3 3% n=3 2% n=6

Table 10: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Mean 3962 3859 3929Minimum 120 300 120Maximum 10000 10000 10000

Table 11: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by social condition: in %

Social condition: in % PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Poor 95 98 96Middle class 5 2 4Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the immoveable asset(Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 80 42 80

Table 13: Distribution of Primary Education Stipend Program respondents by the immoveable asset(Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

PESPRecipient (n=231) Non-Recipient (n=109) Total (n=340)

Mean 5 3 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 168 36 168

4.2 Tables of Household Findings on Primary Education Stipend Program (PESP)

A. Recipients Sample

Selection criteria:Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by their opinion on reasonsfor selection criteria: in %

Responses %Poor meritorious student 42Insolvent professional family 18Poor widow female headed household 14Landless/ Owner of maximum 0.50 area land 11Day labor family 11No earning member in the family 4

81

Processes of Disbursement of the Stipend

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by their opinion ondisbursement process: in %

Response: %Place for collect the moneySchool camp 94Union Parishad 4Bank 1Problem faced to collect moneyYes 2No 98Total 100Type of problemDeducted money for absent in the class 100

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by their opinion on extrapayments for getting stipend: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 1No 99Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 100Minimum 100Maximum 100To whom paidTeacher 100

Mode of Use of allowance:Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by their opinion on themode of use of the stipend: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the stipendContinue education 56To meet for educational expenses (khata, pencil, pen etc) 35Do not depended on parents support 13To meet cost of during school feeding (Tiffin) and dress 4Problems faced in absence of the Primary Education Stipend ProgramFace difficulty for continue study 59Could not meet buy expenses of education: khata, pencil, pen etc 33Stopped my education 12

Level of satisfactionTable 18: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by status of any grievanceabout the system of the stipend: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 3No 97Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by their estimates on thenumber of persons eligible but not received stipend

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 6Minimum 1Maximum 70

82

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Primary Education Stipend Program

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by theirknowledge safety Net program: in %

Response %Yes 95No 5Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by status ofreceiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 55No 45Status of receiving allowancesYes 0No 100

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Primary Education Stipend Program by theirgrievances about the system of stipend: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 18No 82Total 100To whom complainedSchool Teacher 100Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 20Not solved 80Total 100

Section 5: Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP): Household Survey

5.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP)

Samples:

Table 1: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program recipients by gender: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-Recipient Totaln % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

SSSP 65 29 155 71 220 100 36 36 65 64 101 100 220 69 101 31 321 100

Socio Demographic and Economic StatusTable 2: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations:in%

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Student 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by number family member: inmean

Number of family member:in mean

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 2 2 2Maximum 10 13 13

83

Table 4: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by types of family: in %

Types family : in % SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Single family 84 84 84Join family 16 16 16Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of thefamily: in %

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Father 93 92 93Mother 6 7 6Brother 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in % SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Muslim 79 76 78Buddhist 12 9 11Hindu 9 15 11Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the social condition on supportfor livelihood: in %

Social Condition: in % SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Parents provide livelihood support 88 91 89No livelihood Support 12 9 11Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the permanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the monthly family income: inmean

Monthly familyincome: in mean

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Mean 4097 4043 4080Minimum 1000 1000 1000Maximum 10000 10000 10000%> 10000 0% n=0 0% n=0 0% n=0%< 10000 97% n=214 99% n=100 98% n=314%= 10000 3% n=6 1% n=1 2% n=7

Table 10: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Mean 3965 3974 3967Minimum 1000 1000 1000Maximum 10000 10000 10000

84

Table 11: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by social condition: in %

Social condition: in % SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Poor 96 92 95Middle class 4 8 5Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the immoveable asset(Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 42 20 42

Table 13: Distribution of Secondary School Stipend Program respondents by the immoveable asset(Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

SSSPRecipient (n=220) Non-Recipient (n=101) Total (n=321)

Mean 6 7 7Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 120 99 120

5.2 Tables of Household Findings on Secondary School Stipend Program (SSSP)

A. Recipients Sample

Selection Criteria:

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by their opinion on reasonsfor selection criteria: in %

Responses %Owner of maximum 0.50 area land/ Day labor family 68Insolvent professional family (Yearly income under 30.000TK) 33Poor meritorious student 15Poor widow female headed household 8Families rendered poor due to River erosion 6Insolvent disabled family 2Insolvent freedom fighter family 1

Processes of Disbursement of the stipend:Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by their opinion ondisbursement process: in %

Response: %Place for collect the moneySchool camp 98Union Parishad 1Bank 1Problem faced to collect moneyYes 0No 100Total 100

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by their opinion on extrapayments for getting stipend: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 0No 100Total 100

85

Mode of Use of Stipend:Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by their opinion on the modeof use of the stipend: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the stipendContinue education 65To meet for educational expenses (khata, pencil, pen etc) 27Do not depended on parents support 5To meet cost for private tuitions 5To meet cost for school dress 1Problems faced in absence of the Primary Education Stipend ProgramFace difficulty for continue study 63Could not meet buy expenses of education: khata, pencil, pen etc 37Could not provide private tuitions fee 4Stopped my education 1

Level of satisfaction:Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by status of any grievanceabout the system of the stipend: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 5No 95Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

Estimates of additional eligible persons for allowances:

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by their estimates on thenumber of persons eligible but not received stipend

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 2Minimum 1Maximum 10

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Secondary School Stipend Program

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by theirknowledge safety Net Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 98No 2Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by status ofreceiving stipend: in %

Status of ever applied for any stipend %Yes 54No 46Status of receiving stipendYes 0No 100

86

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Secondary School Stipend Program by theirgrievances about the system of stipend: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 11No 89Total 100To whom complainedTeacher 100Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 6: Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother (MA): Household Survey

6.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother

Samples:Table 1: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother Sample: in %

Type ofAllowance

Recipient Non-Recipient TotalFemale Female Total

N % n % N %MA 114 62 69 38 183 100

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in% MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Housewife 94 97 95Day-laborer 3 2 2Garment worker 3 1 3Total 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by number familymember: in mean

Number of family member: inmean

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 2 2 2Maximum 12 7 12

Table 4: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by types of family: in%

Types family : in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Single family 84 83 84Join family 16 17 16Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the Head of thefamily: in %

Head of the family: in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Husband 93 96 94Myself 3 3 3Father 4 1 3Total 100 100 100

87

Table 6: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Muslim 89 83 86Hindu 10 14 12Christian 1 3 2Total 100 100 100Table 7: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the social conditionon support for livelihood: in %

Social Condition: in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Husband providelivelihood support

97 96 96

No livelihood support 3 3 3Separate from family 0 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the earning memberof the family: in %

Earning member of thefamily: in %

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Husband earning 97 94 96Myself (Respondent)earning

4 6 5

Father earning 2 1 2[Multiple Response]

Table 9: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the permanentresidence: in %

Permanent residence: in % MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Yes 99 100 100No 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 10: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the monthly familyincome: in mean

Monthly familyincome: in mean

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Mean 4329 4042 4221Minimum 1000 800 800Maximum 9000 10000 10000

Table 11: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Mean 4112 3916 4038Minimum 1000 800 800Maximum 9000 9000 9000

Table 12: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother by social condition: in %

Social condition: in% MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Poor 95 97 96Middle class 5 3 4Total 100 100 100

88

Table 13: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the immoveableasset (Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 25 20 25

Table 14: Distribution of Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother respondents by the immoveableasset (Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

MARecipient (n=114) Non-Recipient (n=69) Total (n=183)

Mean 4 3 3Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 100 20 100

6.2 Tables of Household Findings on Maternal Allowance for Poor Lactating Mother

A. Recipients Sample

Selection criteria:

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their opinion onreasons for selection: in %

Responses %First pregnancy 50Second pregnancy 25Monthly family income under Tk. 1500 23Minimum age 20 or above 17Least homestead and or no agricultural land 27Third pregnancy 10Poor Disable mother 1

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances:

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their opinion ondisbursement process: in %

Response: %Place for collect the moneyBank 60Upazila Parishad 37Union Parishad 4Problem faced to collect moneyYes 4No 96Total 100Type of problemTransportation problem 100

89

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their opinion onextra payments for getting allowance: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 10No 90Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 336Minimum 200Maximum 500To whom paidUP member/ ward member 85Union Parishad 15

Mode of Use of allowance:

Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their opinion onthe mode of use of the allowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the allowanceTo meet cost for children milk & food 53Spend money for treatment & medicine 43To meet cost for nutritious food for me 25To meet cost for family expenses 2Problems faced in absence of the Maternal AllowanceCould not buy milk & food for children 54Could not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 45Depended on other's support 13Could not buy daily necessary thing 1

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their opinion onsatisfaction regarding the selection process: in %

Status of satisfaction %Yes 95No 5Total 100

Level of satisfaction:

Table 20: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by status of anygrievance about the system of the allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 12No 88Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program by their estimateson the number of persons eligible but not received allowance

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 2Minimum 1Maximum 5

90

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program bytheir knowledge safety Net Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 100No 0Total 100

Table 23: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program bystatus of receiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 65No 35Status of receiving allowanceYes 0No 100

Table 24: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Maternal Allowance for Poor Mother Program bytheir grievances about the system of allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 22No 78Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 73UP Member 27Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 7: Vulnerable Group Development (VGD): Household Survey

7.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)

Samples:

Table 1: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) Sample: in %

Type ofAllowance

Recipients: Females Non-Recipient: Females Total: Females

VGD N % n % N %217 66 114 34 331 100

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in% VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Housewife 71 68 70Day-laborer 24 24 24Unemployed 4 6 5Business 1 1 1Farmer 0 1 0Total 100 100 100

91

Table 3: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by number family member: inmean

Number of familymember: in mean

VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Mean 5 4 4Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 15 9 15

Table 4: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by types of family: in %

Types family : in % VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Single family 84 86 85Join family 16 14 15Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of the family: in % VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Husband 80 75 78Myself (respondent) 16 20 18Offspring (Children) 3 5 4Father 1 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in % VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Muslim 73 73 73Buddhist 14 12 14Hindu 10 11 10Christian 3 4 3Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the social condition onsupport for livelihood: in %

Social Condition: in % VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Husband provide livelihood support 88 84 87No livelihood support 11 12 11Children do not provide livelihood 1 4 2Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the permanent residence: in%

Permanent residence: in % VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Yes 99 98 99No 1 2 1Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the monthly family income:in mean

Monthly familyincome: in mean

VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Mean 4074 3386 3837Minimum 1000 800 800Maximum 9000 7000 9000

92

Table 10: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

Monthly familyexpenditure: in mean

VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Mean 3926 3140 3656Minimum 1000 800 800Maximum 8000 6000 8000

Table 11: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by social condition: in %

social condition: in% VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Poor 99 100 99Middle class 1 0 1Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the immoveable asset(Homestead land): in DecimalHomestead land: inDecimal

VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 48 14 48

Table 13: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) respondents by the immoveable asset(Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land: inDecimal

VGDRecipient (n=217) Non-Recipient (n=114) Total (n=331)

Mean 4 1 3Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 160 33 160

7.2 Tables of the Household Survey on Vulnerable Group Development (VGD):

A. Recipients Sample

Selection process:

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by their opinion onselection process: in %

Responses %How to selectionThrough the UP member 63Through the Chairmen 36Through the UP Secretary 1Committee exists for selection the candidate at different levelDistrict CommitteeYes 13No 61Don’t know 26Total 100Upazila CommitteeYes 20No 56Don’t know 24Total 100Union CommitteeYes 48No 41Don’t know 11Total 100

93

Problem faced to selectionYes 6No 94Total 100How many cards do you & your family getOne card 99Two card 1Total 100Status of rice/wheat amountMean in Kg 28Minimum 20Maximum 30

Processes of Disbursement of the Allowances:

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by their opinion onallocation process: in %

Response: %Place for collect of the allocationUnion Parishad 100Problem faced to collect allocationYes 4No 96Total 100Type of problemProblem for proper distribution (less weight) 100

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by their opinion on extrapayments for getting allocation: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 11No 89Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 848Minimum 200Maximum 2500To whom paidUP member/ ward member 100

Mode of Use of allowance:Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by their opinion on themode of use of the allocation: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the allocationTo meet cost for livelihood and family expenses: essential dailyitems like food

100

Problems faced in absence of the Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)Sometimes could not arrange food for family 77I had to starve 13Could not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 8Depended on other's support 2

Level of satisfaction:Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by status of any grievanceabout the system of the allocation: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 0No 100Total 100

94

Estimates of additional eligible persons for allowances:

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by their estimates on thenumber of persons eligible but not received allocation

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 2Minimum 1Maximum 5

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by theirknowledge safety Net program: in %

Response %Yes 100No 0Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by status ofreceiving allocation: in %

Status of ever applied for any allocation %Yes 70No 30Status of receiving allocationsYes 0No 100

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Development (VGD) by theirgrievances about the system: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 15No 85Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 77UP Member 24Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 8: Employment Generation Program for the Poorest (EGPP): Household Survey

8.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Employment Generation Program forthe Poorest

Samples:Table 1: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents Sample: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-Recipient Totaln % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

EGPP 82 49 86 51 168 100 39 45 47 55 86 100 168 66 86 34 254 100

95

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in % EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Day-laborer 70 50 63Housewife 14 26 18Farmer 9 9 9Unemployed 6 14 9Business 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by number offamily member: in %

Number of familymember: in%

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Mean 5 5 5Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 11 12 12

Table 4: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by types of family:in %

Types of family: in% EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Single family 81 86 83Join family 19 14 17Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by the Head of thefamily: in %

Head of the family: in% EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Myself (respondent) 66 67 66Husband 26 26 26Offspring (Children) 7 7 7Father 1 0 1Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by the religion: in%

Religion: in% EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Muslim 91 84 88Hindu 9 14 11Christian 0 2 1Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by the socialcondition on support for livelihood: in %

Social Conditions: in% EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Husband provide livelihood 83 78 82No livelihood support 12 14 13Children do not providelivelihood

2 0 1

Child less 2 4 2Separated from family 1 4 2Total 100 100 100

96

Table 8: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by permanentresidence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by the monthlyfamily income: in %

Monthly familyincome: in mean

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Mean 3460 3316 3411Minimum 500 500 500Maximum 10000 10000 1000%> 10000 0% n=0 0% n=0 0% n=0%< 10000 99% n=167 99% n=85 99% n=252%= 10000 1% n=1 1% n=1 1% n=2

Table 10: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by the monthlyfamily expenditure: in %

Monthly familyexpenditure: in%

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Mean 3328 3209 3288Minimum 500 500 500Maximum 10000 10000 10000

Table 11: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by socialcondition: in %

Social condition: in% EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Poor 99 100 100Middle class 1 0 0Total 100 0 100

Table 12: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by immoveableasset (Homestead land): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 16 20 20

Table 13: Distribution of Employment Generation Program for the Poorest respondents by immoveableasset (Agriculture land): in Decimal

Agriculture land:in Decimal

EGPPRecipient (n=168) Non-Recipient (n=86) Total (n=254)

Mean 3 1 2Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 180 20 180

97

8.2 Tables of the Household Employment Generation Program for the Poorest

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on selection process: in %

Responses %Selection ProcessThrough the UP member 66Through the Chairmen 28Through the NGO worker 4Through the Political leader 1Through the Teacher 1Project Implementation Committee exists for selection the candidateYes 4No 1Don’t know 95Total 100Frequency of enlisting beneficiaries in your locality in a year by theGovt.Mean 2Minimum 1Maximum 2How many times you have been selectedMean 2Minimum 1Maximum 4Duration of time for enlisting (how many days)Mean in day 40Minimum 20Maximum 60Types of work you have been doneEarth work for the Road 91Road repair 4Tree plantation 2Earth work beside the bridge 1Earth work in the field mosque 1New road construction 1

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on disbursement process: in %

Response %Collect wages from BankBank 69UP member 17From UP 10Money delivered to incumbents' house 4Total 100Problem faced to collect money from bankYes 63No 37Total 100Type of problemTransportation problem 100

98

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on extra payments for getting work: in %

Response %Status of making extra payment for job cardYes 8No 92Total 100Status of making extra payment for getting workYes 4No 96Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean Taka 171Minimum Taka 100Maximum Taka 200To whom paidMiddle men 57UP member/ ward member 43Total 100

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on the mode of use of the allowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the allowanceSpend money to meet essential expenses for the family 99Spend money for treatment 1Problems faced in absence of the Employment Generation for Extreme Poor ProgramFace problem to maintain family 87Financial problem 8Borrow money for treatment purpose 3There were problem to find out work 1Face problem to bear the education expenses of the children 1

Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on satisfaction regarding the selection process: in %

Status of satisfaction %Yes 92No 8Total 100

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theiropinion on satisfaction about disbursement of the allowance: in %

Status of satisfaction %Yes 46No 54Total 100

Table 20: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by status ofany grievance about the system of the allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 20No 80Total 100Outcome of ComplaintGrievances solved 100Grievances not solved 0Total 100

99

Table 21: Distribution of respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorest by theirestimates on the number of persons eligible but not received allowance

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 3Minimum 1Maximum 7

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Employment Generation for Extreme Poor Program

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorestby their knowledge safety Net Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 96No 4Total 100

Table 23: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorestby status of receiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 45No 55Status of receiving allowanceYes 0No 100

Table 24: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Employment Generation Program for the Poorestby their grievances about the system of allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 11No 89Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 100Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 9: Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF): Household Survey

9.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Samples:

Table 1: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) Sample: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-Recipient Totaln % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

VGF 89 47 99 53 188 100 40 44 51 56 91 100 188 67 91 33 279 100

100

Socio Demographic and Economic Status

Table 2: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Day-laborer 39 35 38Housewife 34 40 35Farmer 11 13 12Unemployed 11 8 10Business 5 4 5Total 100 100 100

Table 3: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by number of family member: in %

Number of familymember: in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Mean 5 4 5Minimum 1 1 1Maximum 11 10 11

Table 4: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by types of family: in %

Types of family:in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Single family 85 94 88Join family 15 6 12Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of the family: in% VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Myself (Respondents) 55 55 55Husband 38 38 38Offspring (Children) 6 6 6Father 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in% VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Muslim 92 81 89Hindu 8 18 11Christian 0 1 0Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by the social condition on supportfor livelihood: in %

Social Conditions: in% VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Children provide livelihood support 83 81 82No livelihood support 10 17 12Children do not provide livelihood 5 1 4Child less 1 0 1Separated from family 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by permanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Yes 99 100 99No 1 1 1Total 100 100 100

101

Table 9: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by the monthly family income: in %

Monthly familyincome: in mean

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Mean 3785 3745 3772Minimum 500 400 400Maximum 10000 10000 10000%> 10000 0% n=0 0% n=0 0% n=0%< 10000 99% n=187 99% n=90 99% n=277%= 10000 1% n=1 1% n=1 1% n=2

Table 10: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by the monthly family expenditure:in %

Monthly familyexpenditure: in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Mean 3552 3637 3579Minimum 500 400 400Maximum 10000 10000 1000

Table 11: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by social condition: in %

Social condition:in%

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Poor 100 98 99Middle class 0 2 1Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by immoveable asset (Homesteadland): in Decimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Mean 4 4 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 15 21 25

Table 13: Distribution of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) respondents by immoveable asset (Agricultureland): in Decimal

Agriculture land:in Decimal

VGFRecipient (n=188) Non-Recipient (n=91) Total (n=279)

Mean 3 2 3Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 100 25 100

9.2 Tables of the Household Survey on Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

A. Recipients Sample

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their opinion on selectionprocedure: in %

Responses %Selection ProcessThrough the UP member 65Through the Chairmen 33Through the UP secretary 2Committee exists for selection the candidate at different levelDistrict CommitteeYes 3No 2Don’t know 95Total 100

102

Upazila CommitteeYes 3No 2Don’t know 95Total 100Union CommitteeYes 14No 1Don’t know 85Total 100How many cards do you & your family getOne card 93Two card 7Total 100

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their opinion on allocationprocess: in %

Response: %Place for collect of the allocationUnion Parishad 100Problem faced to collect allocationYes 3No 97Total 100Type of problemProblem for proper distribution (less weight) 100

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their opinion on extrapayments for getting allocation: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 1No 99Total 100Amount of money paid (mean: in TK)Mean 350Minimum 200Maximum 500To whom paidUP member/ ward member 100

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their opinion on the mode ofuse of the allowance: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the allowanceTo meet cost for livelihood and family expenses: essential dailyitems like food

100

Problems faced in absence of the Vulnerable Group Feeding(VGF)Sometimes could not arrange food for family 61I had to starve 24Depended on other's support 14Could not buy medicine/ could not do any treatment 1

Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by status of any grievance aboutthe system of the allowance: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 0No 100Total 100

103

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their estimates on the numberof persons eligible but not received allowance

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 8Minimum 1Maximum 30

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by theirknowledge safety Net program: in %

Response %Yes 100No 0Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by status ofreceiving allowance: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 62No 38Status of receiving allowanceYes 0No 100

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by theirgrievances about the system of allowance: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 19No 81Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 76UP Member 24Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100

Section 10: Test Relief (TR) Program: Household Survey

10.1 Tables of Socio Demographic and Economic Status of Test Relief (TR) ProgramSamples:Table 1: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents Sample: in %

Allowance SexRecipient Non-Recipient Total

Male Female Total Male Female Total Recipient Non-Recipient Totaln % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %

TR 31 65 17 35 48 100 19 53 17 47 36 100 48 57 36 43 84 100

Socio Demographic and Economic StatusTable 2: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by occupation: in %

Occupations: in % TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Day-laborer 52 39 39Housewife 21 28 28Farmer 13 19 19Unemployed 10 11 11Business 4 3 3Total 100 100 100

104

Table 3: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by number of family member: in %

Number of familymember: in%

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Mean 5 6 5Minimum 2 2 2Maximum 8 9 9

Table 4: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by types of family: in %

Types of family:in%

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Single family 96 72 86Join family 4 28 14Total 100 100 100

Table 5: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by the Head of the family: in %

Head of the family:in%

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Myself (respondent) 77 53 67Husband 21 36 27Offspring (Children) 0 6 2Father 2 5 4Total 100 100 100

Table 6: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by the religion: in %

Religion: in% TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Muslim 71 67 69Hindu 29 33 31Total 100 100 100

Table 7: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by the social condition on support forlivelihood: in %

Social Conditions: in% TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Husband provide livelihoodsupport

83 69 77

No livelihood support 17 17 17Children do not provide livelihood 0 11 5Child less 0 3 1Total 100 100 100

Table 8: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by permanent residence: in %

Permanentresidence: in %

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Yes 100 100 100No 0 0 0Total 100 100 100

Table 9: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by the monthly family income: in %

Monthly familyincome: in mean

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Mean 3560 3094 3361Minimum 1000 500 500Maximum 7000 9000 9000

Table 10: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by the monthly family expenditure: in %Monthly familyexpenditure: in%

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Mean 3500 3003 3287Minimum 1000 500 500Maximum 7000 6000 7000

105

Table 11: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by social condition: in %

Social condition:in%

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Poor 98 100 99Middle class 2 0 1Total 100 100 100

Table 12: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by immoveable asset (Homestead land): inDecimal

Homestead land: inDecimal

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Mean 4 3 4Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 25 21 25

Table 13: Distribution of Test Relief (TR) Program respondents by immoveable asset (Agriculture land): inDecimal

Agriculture land:in Decimal

TRRecipient (n=48) Non-Recipient (n=36) Total (n=84)

Mean 1 1 1Minimum 0 0 0Maximum 20 10 180

10.2 Tables of the Household Survey on Test Relief (TR):

A. Recipients Sample

Table 14: Distribution of respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their opinion on selection process: in%

Responses %Selection ProcessThrough the UP member 75Through the Chairmen 23Through the Political leader 2Committee exists for selection the candidate at different levelDistrict CommitteeYes 2No 0Don’t know 98Total 100Upazila CommitteeYes 8No 0Don’t know 92Total 100Union CommitteeYes 27No 4Don’t know 69Total 100Frequency of enlisting beneficiaries in your locality in a year by theGovt.Mean 1Minimum 1Maximum 2How many times you have been selectedMean 1Minimum 1Maximum 3Types of work you have been doneEarth work for the Road including repair 93Earth work for mosque, madrasa and school 29

106

Table 15: Distribution of respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their opinion on allocation process:in %

Response %Types of support you getGet Money 88Get rice 12

Table 16: Distribution of respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their opinion on extra payments forgetting allocation: in %

Response %Status of making extra paymentYes 0No 100Total 100

Table 17: Distribution of respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their opinion on the mode of use ofthe allocation: in %

Response: %Mode of Use of the allocationTo meet cost for livelihood and family expenses: essential daily items likefood

100

To meet cost for treatment 2Problems faced in absence of the Test Relief (TR) ProgramI had to starve 46Sometimes could not arrange food for family 33Depended on other's support 23

Table 18: Distribution of respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by status of any grievance about thesystem of the allocation: in %

Status of lodging complaints %Yes 0No 100Total 100

Table 19: Distribution of respondents for Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) by their estimates on the numberof persons eligible but not received allocation

Mean number of persons eligible but did not receive the allowances 1Minimum 0Maximum 6

B. Respondents: Eligible Non Recipients of Test Relief (TR) Program

Table 20: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their knowledge safetyNet Allowance: in %

Response %Yes 97No 3Total 100

Table 21: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by status of receivingallocation: in %

Status of ever applied for any allowance %Yes 22No 78Status of receiving allowanceYes 0No 100

107

Table 22: Distribution of Non Recipient respondents for Test Relief (TR) Program by their grievances aboutthe system of allocation: in %

Response: %Status of complaining for not being selectedYes 8No 92Total 100To whom complainedChairmen 100Status of ComplaintYes solved for future enlistment 0Not solved 100Total 100