CHAPTER IV ASHRAYA HOUSING PROGRAMME A CASE STUDY OF MYSORE DISTRICT

Transcription

1 CHAPTER IV ASHRAYA HOUSING PROGRAMME A CASE STUDY OF MYSORE DISTRICT 230

2 CHAPTER IV ASHRAYA HOUSING PROGRAMME A CASE STUDY OF MYSORE DISTRICT Background The Government of Karnataka introduced the Ashraya Housing Programme for the poor in rural and urban areas who are below poverty line since This scheme has been implemented initially in all the districts of the state by the Housing Department till 2000 and later on by the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited from 2001 onwards. There has been a phenomenal expansion of number of houses constructed and house sites distributed over time under the programme. At present, there are about lakh houses constructed and 1.28 lakh house sites are distributed to the selected beneficiaries under all the housing programmes implemented in the state from to covering all the districts of Karnataka. The Mysore District is one of the districts in the state which has been benefited under the programme. The per centage of beneficiaries in rural and in urban areas works out to 4.85 per cent. This Chapter, the Ashraya programme has been chosen for the study in terms of its implementation. For this purpose Mysore District has been chosen to illustrate the results of the housing programme, based on a sample study of beneficiaries covered under the Ashraya programme. 231

3 This study intends to make a review/evaluation of the programme to examine the efficacy in terms of fulfilling the programme objectives. For this purpose Mysore Distirct has been chosen for an intensive study where the Ashraya housing programme has been implemented from the year both in rural and urban areas. A brief profile of the district is given in Table

4 Table 4.1: District Profile, Mysore District Sl. No. Particulars Year Unit Mysore District State 1 Administrative Unit 2008 (i) Blocks/Taluks Number (ii) Grama Panchayats Number 239 5,692 (iii) Villages Number ,481 (inhabited ) (iv) Towns Number Population Census Male Female Rural Urban SC ST (i) Density of 2001 Number Population 3 Literacy 2001 Total % Male % Female % Work Force % engaged in Agriculture 5 Per Capita Rs. 24,383 26,015 Income 6 Total Geographical Sq.km lakh ha. Area 7 Number of Sthree Shakthi Sangas (SHG) No Source: Karnataka Economic Survey, , Mysore District statistics at a glance, , Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Government of Karnataka. 233

5 Table 4.2: Rural Ashraya housing programme in Mysore District. Year Beneficiaries (No.) SC ST General Total No. of houses na Na na na na Total % to total

6 Table 4.3: Urban Ashraya housing programme in Mysore District. Year Beneficiaries (No.) SC ST General Total No. of houses * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Total % to total * Not available 235

7 Table 4.4: Number of beneficiaries and houses constructed under Ashraya Programme, Mysore District. (Numbers) Beneficiaries (Rural) Beneficiaries (Urban) Grand Total Year SC ST General Total SC ST General Total SC ST General Total Total % to total

8 Number of Beneficiaries ( to ) SC ST General Total % Rural: Urban: Total: % Ashraya Housing Programme: This programme was initiated by the state during 1993 and it consisted of : 1. Ashraya Sites programme [Distribution of house sites for site less persons] 2. Ashraya Housing programme [Construction assistance to Economically weaker section of society] Salient Features 1) Ashraya Sites Programme Under this Scheme, House sites are allotted to site less person whose annual income is below Rs 11,800/per annum. A site dimension of 30 x40 under Rural sites Scheme and a site dimension of 20 x30 under Urban sites Scheme is given to the beneficiary free of cost.

9 2) Construction assistance to economically weaker sections a) Construction assistance from to General category: Rs.18,000/(Rs.9,000/ as subsidy and Rs 9,000 as loan to be repaid in 180 installments of Rs.75/) b) From construction assistance was given as below: Beneficiary Unit cost Loan Subsidy Subsidy from Rs. Rs. Rs. S.W. Dept. Rs. RuralGeneral 20,000 10,000 10,000 RuralSC/ST 20,000 10,000 10,000 Urban 25,000 5,000* * Beneficiaries Revised from c) The government has revised the construction assistance from which is given below Beneficiary Unit cost Loan Subsidy Rs. Rs. Rs. RuralGeneral 30,000/ 15,000/ 15,000/ RuralSC/ST 30,000/ 30,000/ Urban 25,000/ 25,000/ The income limit for the selection of beneficiary remains same i.e., Rs.11,800/ per annum, since the scheme was introduced in 1992 to date. However, the unit cost of house construction is being subjected to change from year to year mainly due to the increasing cost of building materials. The subsidy amount also is subjected to 238

10 variation during different years. Accordingly the state government has revised the construction assistance to be distributed to the beneficiaries selected during different years as mentioned above in 2 a), b) and c). The state government has fixed a target of 3 lakh houses to be built for poor families for the year The construction assistance also has been revised from Rs 30,000/ to Rs 40,000/ for the beneficiaries selected under Ashraya housing programme. It is also proposed to establish Ashraya colonies in the villages, through purchase of 5 10 acres of land and developing housesites in the villages. Beneficiaries are required to construct their houses through self participation in both rural and urban areas. At the district level, the Deputy Commissioners are responsible for implementing the sites programme. Wherever Government lands are available, sites are formed and in places where land is not available, the Deputy Commissioners are empowered to purchase private lands. Earlier, a ceiling was fixed on purchase of private lands, however, now the Deputy Commissioners are permitted to purchase the lands as per the guidance value fixed by the Revenue Department and go 20% above the guidance value also. In rural areas, the concerned Zilla panchayats and in urban areas the concerned urban local bodies are responsible for formation /development of sites. An amount of Rs. 450/ per site can be spent on the development of the site. Selection of Beneficiaries: 239

11 An Ashraya Committee is formed separately for the rural and urban areas. This is headed by the MLA of the constituency as Chairman. There will be separate committee for rural and urban areas. The committee has also consists of nonofficial member nominated by the government. (of which one will be a women member) For the Rural Ashraya Committee Taluk Executive Officer will be the Convener, where as the urban committee the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or the Deputy Commissioner of the district will act as Convener. Exceptions to these are Uttara Kannada and Chickkamagalur districts, where committees are constituted talukwise. The norms applied for the allotment of houses are: Schedule caste.. 18% Schedule tribes.. 5% O.B.Cs... 30% General Category.. 42% Physically handicapped.. 5% The houseless and siteless persons are first identified by grama panchayat through conducting grama panchayat sabhas. The list prepared in the grama sabha is placed before the committees for the selection of beneficiaries. The following Section discusses the need and relevance of the study followed by the interpretation of the results. The success of the programme in delivering the need base loan in the form of construction assistance and subsidy to the rural poor is a significant 240

12 development of the 1990s and onwards. The subsidy and loan component of the programme introduced in the state, have the potential of surmounting difficulties of inadequate access to credit for the poor. It is necessary to evaluate the housing programme in the state meant for upgrading the lives of the targeted rural and urban people. This study helps in finding a frame work for improving the efficiency in the implementation of the programme. This appraisal study of the Ashraya Housing Programme is carried out entirely based on the information collected from several documents from Government departments, Economic Survey of Karnataka, State Five Year Plan documents etc. Besides, the information collected from the selected beneficiaries by using a pretested structured schedule is also used for analysis. The data collected through the field study has been analysed in terms of the socio economic profile of beneficiaries, their views on the programme. Information is also collected from officials who are responsible for implementing the programme at the grass root level. Sampling design The programme is being implemented in the rural areas at the village level, in semiurban and urban areas of the district. Mysore district consists of 7 taluks, 239 grama panchayats covering 1257 villages. It also consists of Mysore City Corporation having 65 wards which fall under four assembly segments (three full and one partial assembly segments). 241

13 From the list of grama panchayats (GPs) from each taluk a ten per cent of GPs is selected at the first stage of selection. From these selected grama panchayats, further, five beneficiaries are selected from the village/villages which are under the selected grama panchayats. Similarly, out of 10 towns/municipalities which consist of 65 wards a 10 per cent of wards are selected and from each selected wards five beneficiaries are selected. And beneficiaries are selected from 7 wards (10 per cent of 65 wards) of the Mysore City Corporation. The study intended to cover 242 beneficiaries from rural and urban areas. In addition to this, three officials of the assembly segment level and seven officials of the taluk level who are responsible for implementing the programme and 35 officials of the grama panchayat level are selected for eliciting their views in the implementation of the programme. The beneficiaries of the Ashraya Housing Programme selected from the selected villages of the seven taluks of the District represent the sample beneficiaries of the Rural areas. The total number of beneficiaries selected from rural areas is 175. Similarly, the beneficiaries from the six Town Municipalities (30) and Mysore City Corporation (37) represent the selected beneficiaries covered under the programme in the Urban areas (total of 67). 242

14 Rural Area Beneficiaries from the villages. : 175 Urban Area (a) From wards town municipalities/panchayats : 30 (b) Mysore City Municipality : 37 Total : 242 Coverage The analysis of the field data in this study has covered 101 beneficiaries from rural areas and 67 beneficiaries from semiurban/urban areas totaling to 168, (which accounts to 69 per cent) of 242. Besides, 45 officials are covered who are responsible for programme implementation at the grass root level. Formal and informal discussions to elicit their views on the programme, problems faced etc. formed the data base. In addition to this, information was also gathered on the quality of materials, quality of construction and other such related items during discussions. 243

15 Statement: Study area covered and number of beneficiaries Taluks 1. H.D. Kote Savve mala (5), N.Bellthur (1), Karapura (4), Mullur (5), G.B.Saragur (5). 2. Hunsur Kallahalli (5), Chilukunda (5), Yashodharapura (5). 3. Periyapatna Hunasavadi (5), Bylakuppe (5). 4. Krishnarajanagar Hampapura (10), Ambedkar colony, Bherya (16). 5. Mysore Gujjegowdanapura (5), Varuna (5), Sindhuvalli (5), Gungralu chathra (5). Area/Location (No. of sample Beneficiaries) Rural Urban Drivers Colony (5), H.D.Kote Town. Nil Medar block (5) Periyapatna town. Ambedkar NagarWard 12, K.R.Nagar town (10). Hebbal (4), Bhogadi (6), Hanchya (3), Koppalur (5), Kurimandi (6), Goruru (7), Sathagalli (6) MCC area. 6. T. Narasipura Vathalu (5). Vinayaka colony (5) T.Narasipura town. 7. Nanjangud Sindhuvalli (5). Ashokapuram (3), Chamalapura (2) Nanjangud town. Taluks No. of Beneficiaries Rural Urban 1. H.D. Kote Hunsur Periyapatna Krishnarajanagar Mysore (MCC) 6. T. Narasipura Nanjangud Total Prior to preparation of the field schedule a pilot survey was conducted in K.R.Nagar and T.Narsipur taluks to acquaint with the 244

16 records maintained for the scheme. Sample field visits were also undertaken to observe the status of house construction/house sites granted to the beneficiaries and held discussions with few beneficiaries on various aspects of the scheme during the field visits. The draft field schedule prepared to collect information from beneficiaries was pretested with a few beneficiaries. On the basis of a feed back obtained from the pretesting was finalised and the same has been used for collecting the information from the beneficiaries. The data collected from the beneficiaries and the officials are analysed and the findings are presented and discussed for rural and urban areas separately. Rural areas Selection of Beneficiaries: All the beneficiaries reported that they have been selected for the Ashraya housing programme by the Ashraya Committee. In order to become a beneficiary, these beneficiaries reported that they have declared their income (at the time of application) is less than Rs 11,800 per annum. After satisfying this minimum criterion the names of these beneficiaries were included in the list. The list was approved during the deliberations of the Ashraya Committee held at several times. As regards the construction assistance received by the beneficiaries, there were 33 beneficiaries received within one year, 56 received between 1 & 2 years, and as many as 12 received after 2 years of distribution of site. All sites were allotted by grama panchayat. Of the total 101 sample beneficiaries as many as 42 (41.6%) were covered during , 28 (27.7%) between and 245

17 31(30.7%) beneficiaries were covered during under the Ashraya housing programme. Between (41.6%) (27.7%) (30.7%) Total: 101 (100.00%) A brief socio economic profile of the selected beneficiaries is presented from Table 4.1 to 4.6. Caste: Of the total 101 beneficiaries 30 belonged to SC., 12 belonged to ST and 53 belong to other backward classes (OBC) category. And there were 6 beneficiaries belong to Muslim community. Table 4.1: Distribution of selected beneficiaries by caste group. Caste Group No. % to total SC ST OBC Muslims Total OBC include Hindu caste households like Vokkaliga (16), Kuruba (12), Lingayat (05), Banajiga Shetty (7), Vishwakarma (6), Madivala (3), Nayanakshtriya (2) and two households belong to Brahmin. Size of household: The total number of persons of sample households is 461, of which males accounted for 52.7 per cent the remaining per cent are female (47.3 per cent). Children (below

18 years) accounted to 24 per cent of the total. The number of persons per family for all the categories of beneficiaries together is Average size of the family (No.) SC 6.0 ST 5.8 OBC 5.6 All 5.26 Age of Beneficiaries: Among the 101 beneficiaries, 37 (36.6 per cent) are woman beneficiaries and the rest 64 (63.4 per cent) are men. In terms of age, beneficiaries belonging to 60 years and above accounted for 14.8 per cent, 26 per cent and 59.5 per cent belong to 30 to 40 years and 40 to 60 years age group respectively. Table 4.2: Beneficiaries by age and Sex. Age Group (Years) Men Women Total % to total < < < Total 64 (63.4) 37 (36.6) 101 (100.0) Type of family: Of the total 101 selected beneficiaries, as many as 49 belonged to joint families (48.5%), where as families belonging 247

19 to nuclear category accounted for 52 numbers (52 %). There are 29 families who reported who are having ancestral house and all of them belong to joint family. Land holding: Of the 101 beneficiaries as many as 86 (85 per cent) reported as land less, whereas other 15 reported to have land. Among the land holding beneficiaries, 7 belonged to SC, ST2 and 6 are other caste group. These 15 also reported that agriculture is not their main occupation and not a major source of income. These lands holding class accounted to hectares of land and the average of size of holding works out to 1.97 acres (less than 2 acres). Table 4.3: No. of beneficiaries by size class of land holding. Caste / Religion 0 Acres Landless < 1.00 Acres 1.00<2.50 Acres Acres Total % S.C S.T Others Muslims Total Per cent Educational level: The education level of the head of the selected household is presented in Table 4.3. The education level of head of the house hold in terms of education level. viz., Primary, Higher Primary, High School, P.U.C. and above is presented. The persons who can read and write but do not have any formal schooling or who have not completed elementary school are shown as literates in the

20 table. The table shows that as many as 61 per cent of head of the beneficiary households are illiterates and about 30 per cent had education up to primary school (Table 4.4). Table 4.4: Educational level of the selected beneficiary. Education level Numbers % to total Illiterate Primary Higher Primary High School PUC & Above Total Sources of income: The socio economic status can be gauged by one s primary source of income. The distribution of beneficiaries according to primary source of income is presented in Table 4.5. Table 4.5: Distribution of beneficiaries by occupation. Occupation No. % to total Labour and Cultivation Labour Total Out of 101 beneficiaries, 85 per cent reported that their source of earning is working as labourers on daily wages and 15 per cent reported their source of income being wage earnings and from agriculture. It should be mentioned here that only 15 (15%) reported that they own land and take only one crop during the year. Thus the 249

21 beneficiaries selected under the programme are all landless poor families mainly working as labourers. Household income: Of the 461 total persons 110 are children below 15 years, and 60 persons are above 60 years of age. Leaving this two age groups and the number of persons, the remaining 291 belong to working group. The beneficiaries reported that they are not getting employment throughout the year. Only a total of 170 persons reported that they are employed as labourers for about 160 to 180 days in a year. Based on this, the present annual household income of the beneficiaries works out to Rs 14,764/ per household. The distribution of 101 households in terms of annual income is presented in Table 4.6. From the table it can be seen that as many as 59 household or 58 per cent reported that their annual household income ranging from Rs 12,000 to 15,000, 30 per cent between Rs 8,000 to 12,000 and about 14 per cent of household income was less than Rs 8,000 per annum. There are 8 households (8%) who reported that their annual income is Rs 15,000 to Rs 16,000 per annum. 250

22 Table 4.6: Distribution of Households by annual income Income Range No. of Per cent Rs Households Total Less than 8, ,000 to 12, ,000 to 15, ,000 & above Total Views of the beneficiaries: The views of the selected beneficiaries regarding the physical aspects of the houses constructed (such as materials used), time taken for completion of house construction, delivery of houses and problems faced during the construction phase are elicited from the beneficiaries which are tabulated below (Table 4.7 and 4.8). 251

23 Table 4.7: Physical aspects of the house n=101 Sl. Particulars Options / Response No. Description (No. s) 1 a) Materials for foundation Stones/Bricks Any other 101 b) Materials used for wall Bricks Others 101 c) Materials used for roofing RCC Tiles Tiles +AC Sheets Windows are of Jungle wood Precast RCC Doors are of Jungle wood Design and planning is done by 5 Is the subsidy amount sufficient to complete the house Self Help of technical person No 6 Flooring is of Mud CM 7 Construction Self With the help of local masons and labour 8 Could you complete the construction in time? No

24 Table 4.8: Problems encountered Sl. No. Particulars 1 Did you face difficulties in construction of your house 2 Is the installment system releasing money to the beneficiaries alright 3 Are you able to obtain /purchase building materials at cheaper rates 4 Your involvement in the construction 5 If a contractor is appointed to build your house, will you accept? 6 What sort of constructions skills do you have 7 Fully subsidised scheme is good. 8 If a small amount of subsidy is kept as security of loan component, will you agree? 9 Have you taken loan from money lender for the construction purpose Options / Description No No No Labour contribution Cash `` Building materials All No Coolie Masons Petty contractor Mazdoor No skills No No No n=101 Response (No. s)

25 Views of Officials are tabulated and presented in Table 4.9 Table 4.9: Views of officials n=30 Sl. No. Particulars Options / Description Response 1 Programme successfully implemented so far Partially Fully 30 2 Is the annual target reached regularly? 3 Recovery of loan component from beneficiaries 4 Is the delivery of housing appropriate 5 Are the schemes reaching the real target? 6 Is the supply of housing sufficient? No Fully effective Not effective 30 No 30 No 30 No Beneficiary identification * BPL shelter less families based on socioeconomic survey and having own or no sites and the housing committee identifies ** Any other method. 8 Delivery of housing * Owner built **Contractor built

26 9 Should the construction be left to the beneficiary No Are the beneficiaries ready to take loan in addition to subsidies 11 The condition of houses a) Owner built b) Contractor built 12 Has the living condition of the beneficiary improved after the housing construction 13 Meeting the additional cost No Satisfactory Not satisfactory Satisfactory Not satisfactory Very high High No improvement Grants Loans Own sources All three Level of satisfaction: The information gathered through the discussion held with the selected beneficiaries regarding the level of satisfaction of the programme is tabulated in terms of percentage. The number of beneficiaries is grouped under the following scores: Not satisfied = 0, Some what satisfied = 0.25, Average satisfaction = 0.50, Above average =0.75 and Highly satisfied = The over all satisfactory level is obtained from these scores and tabulated below in Table 4.10 for Rural areas and in Table 4.10a for Urban areas. 255

27 Table 4.10: Level of satisfaction with respect to quality of construction. Rural area: n=101 Name of Work 0 Not satisfied Percentage Level of satisfactionquality of construction Some Average Above Highly Weighted what average Score Overall satisfaction % Wall Roof Flooring Plastering Doors and Window Unit cost: The beneficiaries have expressed that the construction assistance given by the government is not enough to construct a house as per the guidelines. They report that the material and labour cost are increasing over the years. In their opinion the unit cost of house construction varies from Rs 32,000 to 37,000. As many as 76 per cent of beneficiaries have estimated the construction cost. The beneficiaries have been grouped as A and B and the estimated cost as reported is as given below: 256

28 257 (In Rs) A Group B Group Water supply, pipe line connection 2,000 2,500 Construction of toilet 1,000 1,200 Electricity connection 800 1,000 Construction (Labour+Materials) 28,000 32,500 Repayment of loan Total 31,800 37,200 Of the 101 beneficiaries covered in this study, 42 belonged to SC and ST categories, where as others 59 were other caste beneficiaries. As per the entitlement under the Ashraya programme all SC and ST categories will get free house site as well as a non refundable of house construction assistance. The other 59 beneficiaries have availed loan of Rs 20,000/ which has to be repaid in installments. Of the total beneficiaries who have availed loan, 22 beneficiaries have partially repaid towards the loan. A recovery of Rs 1,64,000/ has been accounted by these beneficiaries as against total of Rs.11,80,000/. This accounts to a meagre 37 per cent of beneficiaries who have repaid some part of the loan which is again only 13.9 per cent of the total demand. The arrangement of recovery of loan through Pigmy agents of the local bodies like GP and ULB has not been put into practice. It is felt the need for linking up institution at the village level as well as at the taluk level who have contact with financial institution like banks, cooperative societies etc. During the filed visit, enquiries with the beneficiaries both men and women revealed that there are

29 number of selfhelp groups (SHGs) of women which have been established over the years with considerable number of members. These SHGs are linked with financial institutions and the members have availed credit and are persuing some income generating activities. The members of these SHGs also claim that they have repaid the loan amount. It is felt that there is necessity to link up the village based SHGs to participate in the housing programme and for the loan recovery. Urban areas The socioeconomic profile of the sample beneficiaries and their views on the programme is presented below. The details with respect to town municipalities/town panchayat (TMC/TP) and the Mysore City Corporation (MCC) are presented separately in Tables 4.1a to 4.6a. Caste group: The composition of sample beneficiaries of TMCs and MCCs in terms of their social category is presented in Table 4.1a. Of the total beneficiaries, 19, 04 and 37 households belong to SC, ST and other backward classes. This other category consists of Kurubas, Lingayat, Modaliyar, and other Hindu caste families. There are 06 Muslims and 01 is a Christian among the sample beneficiaries. In terms of percentage SC/ST accounted for 34.4 percent, OBC 55.2 percent and Muslims and Christians formed about 10 per cent. 258

30 Table 4.1a: Distribution of selected beneficiaries by caste group. TMC MCC Total Caste Group % to % to % to No. No. No. Total Total Total SC ST OBC Muslims Christians Total Size of household: The average size of household is 5.2 persons and 4.6 persons in the TMC and MCC area respectively (Table 4.2a). Table 4.2a: House hold size of selected beneficiaries Size of Household (No.) TMC MCC SC ST OBC Others All Age of beneficiaries: Women beneficiaries are 24 (36 per cent) and the remaining 43 (64 per cent) are men beneficiaries. The average 259

31 age of the beneficiaries is 46.2 years and 49.1 years in the TMC and MCC area respectively. Table 4.3.a: Beneficiaries by age group and Sex TMC MCC Total Age group % to % to % to (Years) No. No. No. Total Total Total < < < < Total Type of family: There are 24 joint type of families (TMC 19, MCC 05) and the rest 43 families nuclear type (TMC 11, MCC 32). The nuclear type of families is dominant in urban areas whether it is TMC or MCC, whereas in the rural areas households belonging to joint family type is high. Beneficiary household by type of family Joint Nuclear Total TMC (63.3) (36.7) (100.0) MCC (13.5) (86.5) (100.0) Total: (35.8) (64.2) (100.0) 260

32 Educational level: Among the sample beneficiaries, 8 (27 per cent) are illiterates 20 (66.6 per cent) had primary education and other 2 (6.7 per cent) had education up to high school level. Table 4.4a: Educational level of the selected beneficiaries. TMC: Education level Numbers % to total Illiterate Primary Higher Primary High School MCC: Total Education level Number % to total Illiterate Primary Higher Primary High School PUC & Above Total In case of beneficiaries from the MCC area, illiterates accounted to 11 per cent, where as others (70 per cent) had education up to primary stage, and other 19 per cent had education up to high school and above. 261

33 Occupation: In each selected beneficiary family at least there are three persons who are earners working on daily wages, running petty shop, vegetable/flower vendors etc. The distribution of households by occupation category is presented in Table 4.5a. Table 4.5a: Distribution of selected beneficiaries by occupation. TMC MCC Total Occupation % to % to % to No. No. No. Total Total Total Coolie Petty shop/small business Others Total Household Income: Out of 67 families those who depend mainly as daily wage earners accounts for 67.2 per cent. There are 9 families 262

34 Table 4.6a: Distribution of households by income. Income Range (Rs) Per annum No. TMC % to Total < 10, ,000 < 12, ,000 < 15, ,000 and above Total Income Range (Rs) Per annum No. MCC % to Total < 15, ,000 < 18, ,000 < 20, ,000 and above Total who depend engage in petty shop/business like Vegetable vendors, Saree business (Cloth), Agarbathies (Incense sticks), and Beedi rolling. There are families who are grouped under others engaged in Hair dressing, Domestic servants, Carpenters and Welding works. 263

35 Views of the beneficiaries Table 4.7a: Physical aspects of the house Sl. No. Particulars Options / Description (TMC: n=30, MCC: n=37) TMC Responses MCC 1 a) Materials for foundation Stones/Bricks Any other b) Materials used for wall Bricks others c) Materials used for roofing RCC Tiles Tiles +AC Sheets Windows are of Jungle wood Precast RCC Doors are of Jungle wood Design and planning is done by 5 Is the subsidy amount sufficient to complete the house Self Help of technical person No 6 Flooring is of Mud CM 7 Construction Self With the help of local masons and labour 8 Could you complete the construction in time. No

36 Table 4.8a: Problems faced Sl. No. Particulars 1 Did you face difficulties in construction of your house 2 Is the installment system releasing money to the beneficiaries alright 3 Are you able to obtain / purchase building materials at cheaper rates 4 Your involvement in the construction 5 If a contractor is appointed to build your house, will you accept? 6 What sort of constructions skills do you have? No No No (TMC: n=30, MCC: n=37) Options / Responses Description TMC MCC Labour contribution Cash `` Building materials All No Coolie Masons Petty contractor Mazdoor No skills Fully subsidised scheme is good No 8 If a small amount of subsidy is kept as No security of loan component, will you agree? 9 Have you taken loan

37 from money lender for the construction purpose 10 Materials for foundation No Stones / Bricks Any other Table 4.9a: Views of officials Sl. No. Particulars 1 Programme successfully implemented so far 2 Is the annual target reached regularly? 3 Recovery of loan component from beneficiaries 4 Is the delivery of housing appropriate 5 Are the schemes reaching the real target? 6 Is the supply of housing sufficient? 7 Beneficiary identification (TMC: n=30, MCC: n=37) Options / Responses Description TMC MCC Partially Fully No Fully effective Not effective No No No * BPL shelter less families based on socioeconomic survey and having own or no sites and the housing committee identifies ** Any other method

38 8 Delivery of housing * Owner built **Contractor built 9 Should the construction be left to the beneficiary No 10 Are the beneficiaries ready to take loan in addition to subsidies 11 The condition of owner built houses 12 The condition of contractor built houses 13 Has the living condition of the beneficiary improved after the housing construction 14 Meeting the additional cost No Satisfactory Bad Satisfactory Bad Very high High No improvement Grants Loans Own sources All three

39 Level of satisfaction Table 4.10a: Level of satisfaction with respect to quality of construction. TMC n=30 Name of Work 0 Not satisfied Percentage Level of satisfactionquality of construction Some Average Above Highly Weighted what average Score Overall Satisfaction % Wall Roof Flooring Plastering Doors and Window Electrical Water supply Drainage

40 Table 4.10a (contd.): Level of satisfaction with respect to quality of construction. MCC n=37 Name of Work 0 No satisfied Percentage Level of satisfactionquality of construction Some Average Above Highly Weighted what average Score Overall Satisfaction % Wall Roof Flooring Plastering Doors and Window Electrical Water supply Drainage Beneficiaries felt need : The beneficiaries basically demanded a permanent house providing safety, protection against rain, wind and sun with minimum facilities viz., drinking water, a separate bath room, latrine, kitchen and electricity to lead a healthier and safer life. As such, their felt need of a house covers the following: 269

41 1. Proper ventilation and light 2. Latrine outside the house in their back yard. 3. Separate kitchen 4. Separate bath room 5. Drainage facilities 6. Electricity connection to their houses and street lights. However, during the field visit and discussions with the beneficiaries revealed that the houses provided to them do not fulfill their needs. Some of the reasons given by the beneficiaries are explained in the following paragraphs. Nonparticipation of beneficiaries: The implementing officials did not ask the beneficiaries to participate in the planning and implementation of the project. The construction work was entrusted to contractors (on the basis of a tender system fixing at a cost of 5 per cent above the estimated construction cost). The planning and designing was done by the TMC and MCC and the same was handed over to the contractor for construction of the houses. As such, there was no participation of the beneficiary in the entire process of implementation of the scheme. The progress of the construction work was monitored by the TMCs and MCC. Infrastructure facilities: In the villages covered under the study (rural areas) all the Ashraya houses have been provided with basic facilities like drinking water, road formation, drainages and electricity connection to houses (some of the houses are not connected with electricity). In such cases the government 270

42 programme of providing electric connection through Bhagya Jyothi/Kutira Jyothi of the KPTCL may be integrated into the programme. Documentation of Two Case Studies Case Studies of Kudligi And Kurimandi Ashraya programme Dwelling units by itself would not be able to support human settlement and improve quality of life of the settlers without providing basic amenities like drinking water, electricity, road and drainages and also social infrastructure such as schools, health centers, places of worship etc. People s representatives are in a better position in integrating various components as it requires negotiation and organization at the local level with the providers. Among the people s representatives, local legislature is an ideal position to provide leadership on account of his association with institutions and networks both formal and informal that have a role in the housing sector. 1. Kudligi The case study of EWS housing in Rajiv Gandhi Nagar in Kudligi town of Bellary District illustrate the leadership role of a elected representative (then MLA of Kudlige constituency of Bellary District). It shows Best practices in successfully ensuring coordination of various programmes, schemes and plans of provider agencies to ensure habitable human settlements. The efforts included development of a Project Team which consisted of members of other representative institutions like the Town Panchayat, Zillah 271

43 Panchayat and also coopting the local officials of the housing components` service provider including funding. The efforts illustrate (a) the People`s representative s leadership role in organising and implementation of housing programmes, (b) Convergence of various government programmes in housing and (c) Concept Replicability. The selected representative in his capacity as the local Legislature and with his membership in the various representative institutions was able to procure different components of housing and other facilities to be integrated. Thus the efforts of the MLA resulted in providing (i) electricity supply and street lighting (with the 10 th State Finance Commission fund), (ii) KutirJyothi (providing electricity connection to individual households under Central Government scheme for rural electrification), (iii) The Town Panchyat, Kudlige provided drinking water through its mini water supply programme and provided necessary drainages, culverts, roads etc., and (iv) Road side plantations of `tall` seedlings were also planted in the settlement (by the Social Forestry Department under the Social Forestry Programme). Apart from the above programmes, a Health sub centre, construction of a temple, Samudhaya Bhavan, provision for construction of mosque, a Ranga Mandira, Vyayamashala, Dhobi Ghat and a community toilet for a women (under MPLAD funds) were also planned. The replicability of the concept of this integration of different programme of different departments/institutions enabled to implement as many as 13 housing settlements in Bellary District. 272

44 These new human settlements show explicitly visible changes in the quality of life of the settlers in a very short period. This motivated as many as the then 20 other elected representatives of different parts of the State to organize and integrate housing programme with services for providing better settlement. This has demonstrated interaction and cooperation between political functionaries and government officials at the implementation level with an agenda to cause the successful implementation of projects can yield positive results. It was also possible for the development administration to leverage the politicians support and network among the local populace and representative institution for project identification and implementation. Case study of Urban Ashraya Programme in Mysore City 2. Kurimandi Background: A survey was conducted in 1995 in the Mysore City Corporation (MCC) area to identify eligible beneficiaries for the housing project. Kurimandi area was covered under this survey. The Kurimandi is a well known place for sheep market in N.R. Mohalla of Mysore City. The beneficiaries of this area have good access to employment opportunities as the location is closer to the city. Most of the poor people living here are engaged as coolies, flower selling, vegetable vendors, maid servants, auto drivers and mazdoors. The residents had occupied illegally the vacant land surrounding the Kurimandi area about years ago by putting 273

45 temporary Jhopdis /sheds. This land belonged to Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The MCC purchased only a portion of the land from MUDA. It was then decided by the Housing Committee and MCC to build Ashraya houses for the identified beneficiaries on the purchased land by replacing their temporary sheds by permanent houses by providing 20x30 ft. site to each beneficiary. This layout is now called KesareCBlock of Narasimha Raja Mohalla in Mysore city which comes under the NR Mohalla constituency. The then MLA who represented this area happened to be the President of the Housing Committee. The number of eligible beneficiaries were more, but only 72 were included under the programme. The other beneficiaries could not be covered under the project due to nonavailability of legal land. Their need covered the following: (1) Proper ventilation and light, (2) A latrine outside the house in the back yard, (3) separate Kitchen, (4) separate bathroom, (5) drainage facility, and (6) Street lights and electricity connection. It was found that the houses provided to them did not match their needs. The corporation had given the construction of houses to a contractor (on the basis of a tender) who has executed the project as per the design. The beneficiaries were not asked to participate in the planning and implementation of the project. Once the construction was completed by the contractor, the some households people (non beneficiary) residing in sheds by the side of this project area 274

46 occupied the houses without the notice of the implementing authority (MCC). However, they claim themselves to be the real beneficiaries. This resulted in as many as 23 identified real beneficiaries suffered and denied from their bonafide right of the benefit. This works out to 32 per cent of the original identified beneficiaries. And this is a quite significant number, which has to be viewed seriously by the implementing authorities. However, at the time of the field visits, it was observed that the layout is having drainage facilities, electric connection and drinking water facilities. On enquiry, it was revealed that the MCC has provided these services after a time gap of eight years. That means, the beneficiaries have lived in the layout in the absence of this basic infrastructure, in an unhealthy environment. The MCC and the Hosing committee are trying to get back houses from the present occupants and redistribute to the real beneficiaries. In order to find out the validity of the case study of the district made and findings arrived by it other two different case studies have been documented and compared with this study. The reason for documenting these two case studies are (1) To drawn lessons from the findings, (2) Factors facilitated for the success of the programme and (3) for resulting poor programme. So chosen case studies related to this problem are, First Kudligi Semi urban in Bellary District. Second Kurimandi Urban in Mysore city. After having been studied these two case studies on Ashraya Scheme it is very clear that the Kudligi scheme has fully successful 275

47 whereas Kurimandi Ashraya Scheme is just opposite. The reasons are many, however the significant factor for the success of Kudligi Ashraya Scheme is mainly due to integrated approach by involving beneficiaries in the programme and constant supervision by the concerned authorities in achieving the success (or goal). On the other hand in Kurimandi Ashraya Scheme implementation there is total negligence of beneficiaries in the process of the Ashraya Scheme programme and further even on the part of implementing authorities negligence is found on a large scale as such it has not become successful one. So this comparative analysis reveals that the success of any programme depends largely on the total involvement of beneficiaries and integrated approach. Further, it is common factor in all cases that the Ashraya Housing programme, though concentrated more in rural areas, is successful in rural areas rather than in urban areas. This factor also clearly identified in the above case studies. Some of the recommendations are 1. The selection of beneficiaries has to be done carefully prior to the construction of house as otherwise; the delivery of housing becomes improper, 2. The beneficiaries are to be involved in the planning and implementation of the project from beginning to the end so that they mobilize and put their own sources and contributions also in satisfying their needs, 3. The contractor built houses has to be reviewed in the light of poor quality, 4. The Basic services such as water, drainage, electricity, primary health center, park and play ground etc need to be planned and provided along 276

48 with the house and 5. An effective delivery system of the scheme is required at the ULB level so that the scheme is implemented as per the guidelines. Infrastructure facilities in Ashraya Layouts: Non occupancy/delayed occupancy of large number of houses in Ashraya in urban layouts was a concern which required immediate attention. Under the present guide lines the infrastructure facilities have to be provided by the Local Bodies. However, on account of fund constrains the Local Bodies are not providing the same or do so with a time lag. The basic infrastructure facilities required in the urban areas are drinking water supply, electricity, sanitation facilities road formations and side drains. Of the `functionally` it has been observed that initial occupancy required the provision of at least drinking water facility and electricity supply. In urban houses invariably sanitation facility are provided as a part of the dwelling unit an important requirement for ensuring occupancy. Roads and side drains can be provided even subsequent to occupancy and is not a basic requirement to ensure occupancy. Exception to this is the urban area having block cotton soil. There is an urgent need to provide fund for basic minimum infrastructure to facilitate occupancy. The government has not been able to provide funds for providing infrastructure facilities because of financial constraints, though the demand is pending with the government for the last six years. House holds benefited by other government programmes: There are multiple government programmes that are being implemented to 277

49 benefit the rural poor house holds. Naturally, the beneficiaries of the housing programme also might have benefited by these programme. The programme that is considered here is the issue of food grains and other items to green card holders at subsidized prices. Among the 101 sample beneficiaries studied under the housing programme, 92 beneficiaries (92%) are also the green card holders. Selection of beneficiaries: It is reported that all the beneficiaries selected under these housing programmes is through grama sabha. Though grama sabha appears to have some influence in identification of BPL house holds, it is not completely eliminating the non BPL house holds in the identification process. It should be noted that as many as 42% of beneficiaries were selected before 1996 where as the beneficiaries selected after 1996 accounted to 58 per cent. This high percentage of BPL house holds in the latter periods could be attributed to the identification process adopted by the grama sabhas mainly the income criteria of following the limit of Rs.11,800/ per house hold per annum. All the housing schemes are reviewed from time to time and brought to light various problems. Similarly, the Ashraya Housing Programme (Rural and Urban are also subjected to review periodically). Some of the problems encountered at the local level are: a. Non involvement of the beneficiaries/community in the construction of houses, b. Wrong selection of beneficiaries, 278

50 c. Construction of houses by contractors rather than by the beneficiaries, d. Slow pace of construction, e. Lack of adequate man power and also to assist the beneficiary in technical details and f. Non integration of the infrastructure facilities with housing units. In order to overcome the above problem, the government from time to time has brought suitable modifications into the guide lines for implementing the scheme. Ashraya housing programme has two components: 1) Site distribution to the site less and houseless poor 2) House construction assistance In urban areas, the site measuring 20x30 ft. are given at 50% of the site cost. Loan component Rs.19, Beneficiary contribution Rs. 5, Total Rs.24, The schedule caste and schedule tribes beneficiaries under this programme get the entire house free of cost. Findings 1. The delivery system needs to be reviewed, 2. The project was not at all conceived on the concept of Selfhelp and beneficiary participation, as a result the houses built by the contractor were not 279