RSPN

Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur District

Sindh Rural Support Organisation This document has been prepared with the financial support of the Department for International Development (DFID) of the Government of United Kingdom and in collaboration with the Sindh Rural Support Organization (SRSO).

Consultants:APEX Consulting Pakistan Client:Rural Support Programmes Network (RSPN) Project:Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Programme (UCBPRP) Assignment:Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Kashmore District Report:Final Baseline Report

Team Members: Syed Sardar Ali, Ahmed Afzal, Abdul Hameed, Yasir Majeed and Tahir Jelani

Art Directed & Designed by: Faisal Ali (Ali Graphics)

Copyrights(c) 2010 Rural Support Programmes Network Monitoring Evaluation and Research Section Rural Support Programmes Network (RSPN) House NO. 7, Street 49, F-6/4, Islamabad, Pakistan Tel: (92-51) 2822476, 2821 736

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of RSPN, SRSO or DFID. Acknowledgements

The consultants wish to express their gratitude to Ms. Shandana Khan, Chief Executive Officer RSPN, for providing opportunity to conduct this socio- economic baseline survey. We further thank Mr. Khaleel Ahmed Tetlay, Chief Operating Officer RSPN, for his guidance during assignment planning. A special thanks is due to Mr. Fazal Ali Saadi, MER Specialist RSPN, for cooperating and facilitating us throughout the assignment. We further thank Mr. Ghulam Rasool Samejo, Mr. Ali Bux and Mr. Abdul Sammad of SRSO for their technical and administrative cooperation in the successful completion of this assignment.

CONTENTS 1 1. Executive Summary 1-4

2 2. Introduction 5-7 2.1. Sindh Rural Support Organisation (SRSO) 5 1 2.2. Objective of Current Assignment 6 2.3. Survey Methodology 6 2.4. Sampling and Enumeration 6 3 3. Profile of Sample Villages 9-11 3.1. Community Organisations in the Sample Villages 9 3.2. Distance of Infrastructure/Services from Sample Villages 9 4 4. Profile of Sample Households Survey Results 13-29 4.1. Age, Education and Profession of Respondents 13 4.2. Demographic Structure of Households and Work Status of Household Members 14 4.3. Adult Literacy and Schooling of Children 16 4.4. State of Health and Physical Environment 17 4.5. Household Incomes, Inequality and Poverty 19 4.6. Household Expenditure and Consumption 22 4.7. Household Assets, Value and Distribution 23 4.8. Household Loans, Utilizations and Sources 25 4.9. Household Debt 27 4.10. Perception of Households about Housing Facilities 28 4.11. Perception and Problems of Household Level Decision-making 29

4.12. Households Benefited from UCBPRP Activities 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample Selection Criteria 7 Table 2: Profile of Sample Community Organisations in Shikarpur 9 Table 3: Village Infrastructure, June 2010 10 Table 4: Physical and Social Infrastructure and Services in Sample Villages 11 Table 5: Age of Respondents 13 Table 6: Literacy Level of Respondents (Percent) 13 Table 7: Profession of Respondent 14 Table 8: Demographic Composition of Households 14 Table 9: Work Status of Households 15 Table 10: Adult Literacy in Households 16 Table 11: Schooling of Children 17 Table 12: Health Status of Household Members 17 Table 13: Facilities for Household Members 18 Table 14: Household Income 2009-10 19 Table 15: Incidence, Depth and Severity of Poverty in Households 20 Table 16: Quintile Distribution of Income 21 Table 17: Household Expenditures 22 Table 18: Daily Consumption of Food in Household 23 Table 19: Assets of Households 24 Table 20: Distribution of Assets 25 Table 21: Land and Livestock Holding of Households 25 Table 22: Loan Taken by Households 26 Table 23: Use of Loans by Households 26 Table 24: Current Debt of All Households 27 Table 25: Distribution of Debt 27 Table 26: Perception of Households about Housing Facilities – All Households 28 Table 27: Perception of Women about Decision Making – All Households 29 Table 28: Household Benefited from UBPRP Activities 30

List of figure (s): Figure 3.2-1: Village Infrastructure, June 2010 10 Figure 4.5-1: Lorenz Curve 21 Figure 4.7-1: Constituents of Household Assets in Poor and non Poor Households 24 Figure4.8-1: Loan Utilization in Poor and non-poor Households 27

Annexes: Annex I: Determination of Poverty Line 33 Annex II: Village Questionnaire 35 Annex III: Household Questionnaire 41 Annex IV: List of Selected Villages 55

AcronymsAcronyms and Abbreviations and Abbreviations ACP APEX Consulting Pakistan CO Community Organisation GoS Government of Sindh RSPN Rural Support Programmes Network SRSO Sindh Rural Support Organisation ToR Terms of Reference UCBPRP Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Program

UC Union Council

VO Village Organization 1. Executive Summary children from non-poor households (56.34%). higher percentage of children from poor households (62.78%) do not attend schools as compared to compared as schools attend not do (62.78%) households poor from children of percentage higher case of females, as 65.5% do not attend school whereas in case of boys this proportion is 57%. Overall, a non-poor households. . 61% of the children do not attend school at all. The situation is even worse in the than ten years of education (16%). With respect to literacy levels there are differences between poor and (32.6%), followed by those who did not attend any formal school (18.7%) followed by those with more with those by followed (18.7%) school formal any attend not did who those by followed (32.6%), illiterate persons in non-poor households. Among the literate, most have only attended primary school attended primary households. have only in non-poor literate, most illiterate persons Among the 91% women). The proportion of illiterate persons in poor households is higher than the proportion of proportion the than higher is households poor in persons illiterate of proportion The women). 91% Adult literacy and Schooling of Children: Overall 74% of the population is illiterate (58.5% men and Over 31% of the population over 10 is involved in household work. running a business and less than 3% of the working population work as employees in the services sector. 28% of the working population working as casual laborers. Less than 1% of the working population is population working the of 1% than Less laborers. casual as working population working the of 28% Work Status of Households: 55% of the over working population work on their own farms followed by percentage of adult population is 42.32% while that of children (less than 18 years) is 57.68%. hand, the much higher male to female ratio may be a sign of the “missing women” phenomenon. The women” “missing the of sign a be may ratio female to male higher much the hand, households (110:100). This difference, on the basis of the Chi-square test, is insignificant. On the other sample is 112:100. This is much higher in the non-poor households (117:100) as compared to the poor inversely proportional relationship between family size and per capita income. Male 8.62 persons in poor and an average of 6.24 persons in non-poor households. Survey results indicate an Demographic Composition: Demographic respondents are involved in farming followed by 28% of the respondents involved in casual labor. 1% hv ol gt rmr euain olwd y % ih otmti qaiiain. 6 o the of 56% qualifications. post-matric with 8% by followed education primary got only have (13%) 12.9 years. Most of the respondents (63%) are illiterate. The highest percentage of literate respondents Profile of Respondents: The average age of the respondents is 42 years, with a standard deviation of all villages while very few villages have piped water or drains. economic infrastructure/service. Metalled roads, electricity and primary education are available in almost the sole exception in this regard. On average the villagers have to travel 3 km to access any social or social any access to km 3 travel to have villagers the average On regard. this in exception sole the social and economic infrastructure and services, with the availability of mobile telephony service being Sample villages are poorly connected with connected poorly are villages Sample village: each from Infrastructure/Services of Distance should not have been part of the sample. However, this was not possible due to on the ground situation. that have benefited from UCBPRP and those that have not. Ideally, households that have benefited have that households Ideally, not. have that those and UCBPRP from benefited have that membership registerasthesamplinguniverse. The sampledhouseholdswereacombinationofthose council. In each village, 16 households were selected at random using the community organisation community the using random at selected were households 16 village, each In council. In total, 576 households were surveyed in 12 union councils by selecting 3 villages from each union each from villages 3 selecting by councils union 12 in surveyed were households 576 total, In assets, incidence, depth and severity of poverty in rural households district of Shikarpur; To provide representative socio-economic characteristics, including income, expenditure, modified as per the requirement of UCBPRP. The purpose of the survey was twofold: and methodology which has been developed using draft instruments provided by RSPN which were which RSPN by provided instruments draft using developed been has which methodology and any future SRSO programmes and interventions in the district. The survey is based on a questionnaire This baseline socioeconomic survey of Shikarpur district provides key data for assessing the impact of of participants in the programme (CO members), 4 to 5 years from now. To set a benchmark for assessing the impact of UCBPRP interventions on the standard of living The average household comprises of 7.76 persons, with an average of average an with persons, 7.76 of comprises household average The to female ratio in the

1 Executive Summary Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 2 Executive Summary Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts eaiey qa dsrbto, t s n h odr f .0 o .5 Gn cefcet a b epesd in expressed be can coefficient Gini 0.35. to 0.20 of order the in is it distribution, equal relatively countries with highly unequal distribution typically lies between 0.5 and 0.7, while for countries with countries for while 0.7, and 0.5 between lies typically distribution unequal highly with countries Gini coefficient vary anywhere from 0 (perfect equality) to 1 (perfect inequality). Gini coefficient for coefficient Gini inequality). (perfect 1 to equality) (perfect 0 from anywhere vary coefficient Gini percent poor vs. 36.2% non-poor). The average number of livestock per household is 2.13. However, there is a difference in percentage between poor and non-poor households in this case (43.8 variation between poor and non-poor households. Over 40% of the households do not own any livestock. ownership is in the 2-5 acres category with the average size of landholding being 2.5 acres with little with acres 2.5 being landholding of size average the with category acres 2-5 the in is ownership ifrne n ecnae s elgbe cos or n nnpo hueod. h mjrt o land of majority The households. non-poor and poor across negligible is percentage in difference Almost 80% of the total households do not own any land and the and land any own not do households total the of 80% Almost Holding: Livestock and Land machinery etc, account for 39.14% of assets. contributor to the total asset value (54%) while productive assets, comprising of land, trees, livestock, trees, land, of comprising assets, productive while (54%) value asset total the to contributor households is Rs. 350,705. Consumer durables, comprising of houses and transport, are the largest the are transport, and houses of comprising durables, Consumer 350,705. Rs. is households 274,049. The average value for poor households is Rs. 231,164 and the average value for non-poor for value average the and 231,164 Rs. is households poor for value average The 274,049. Household Assets, Value and Distribution: Valueand Assets, Household (2,756.5) and more in the case of non-participating households (3,656). 3,018 calories for the overall sample. The calorie intake per day is less in the case of poor households of poor the case less in day is intake per overall sample.Thecalorie for the 3,018 calories followed by clothing (4.96%) and social functions (4.7%). The total per capita calorie intake per day is day per intake calorie capita per total The (4.7%). functions social and (4.96%) clothing by followed This behavior is seen across all the sub samples. The next biggest expenditure in on healthcare (7.14%) expenditure is higher than the poor households. Most of the expenditure (77%) in on purchasing food. purchasing on in (77%) expenditure the of Most households. poor the than higher is expenditure 1,522, which is higher than the average per capita income. In non-poor households, the per capita per the households, non-poor In income. capita per average the than higher is which 1,522, Household Expenditure and Consumption: and Expenditure Household incomes among households. The concentration ratio identified with Gini Coefficient is 0.23 which shows a less unequal distribution of remittances. Major contributors to off-farm income are business activities (2.25%) and cash/gifts (1.06%). overall, with the rest being shared amongst various sources such as services, business, pension, rent and poor and non-poor households. These two have a combined share of more than two-thirds (79.5%) two-thirds than more of share combined a have two These households. non-poor and poor Rs. 3,500 income bracket. Crop cultivation is the single largest source of income followed by labor for both income bracket. Similarly, the highest concentration of non-poor households (95%) is in the Rs. 1,501 to poverty. The largest concentration of poor households (52%) is in the Rs 901 to Rs. 1,300 per month per 1,300 Rs. to 901 Rs the in is (52%) households poor of concentration largest poverty.The shows that more than half of the sample households (64%) and 71% of the total sample population lives in (Rs. 2,239) is more than double the monthly per capita income of poor households (Rs. 1,044). The data lower than the national poverty line of Rs. 1,504. The monthly per capita income of non-poor households Household Incomes, Inequality and Poverty: without exception. (92.18%) depend on hand pumps. The same pattern is observed in poor and non-poor households non-poor and poor in observed is pattern same The pumps. hand on depend (92.18%) .5 o te oshls ae ces o ie wtr n ams al f h rmiig households remaining the of all almost and water piped to access have households the of 2.45% do not have drainage facility (74%). Electricity is available in almost all the households (94.6%). Only (94.6%). households the all almost in available is Electricity (74%). facility drainage have not do household is 2. Half of the households (51%) do not have indoor latrines and the majority of households Pucca structureascomparedtothenon-participatinggroup(7.3%). The averagenumberofroomsper and Pucca (8%) structures. A higher proportion of the households in the non-poor group (9.2%) have (9.2%) group non-poor the in households the of proportion structures. Ahigher (8%) Pucca and be in good health. A majority of the households have a Katcha structure (74%) followed by Mixed (18%) negligible difference between the percentage of poor and non-poor people who consider themselves to healthy state while a small proportion (0.5%) reports experiencing chronic or acute illness. There is There illness. acute or chronic experiencing reports (0.5%) proportion small a while state healthy Health Status and Physical Environments: Almost all of the population (99.5%) considers itself in a 1 The average monthly per capita expenditure is Rs. is expenditure capita per monthly average The The average value of assets per household is Rs. is household per assets of value average The The average per capita income of Rs. 1,473/month is 1 taking and working outside the home. while men seem to be the dominating decision makers in instances of asset's sale and purchase, loan purchase, and sale asset's of instances in makers decision dominating the be to seem men while dominating decision makers in case of decisions involving children's marriage, education and upbringing epne) s hog cness wt mn n wmn qal ivle. oe se t b the be to seem Women involved. equally women and men with consensus, through is responses) electricity as the next least important issue. A high proportion of everyday decision making (43% of total water supply, social cohesion and organisation. Both men and women considered non-availability of non-availability considered women and men Both organisation. and cohesion social supply, water serious issues. On the other hand both men and women did not think that there were poverty asthetwomostseriousissueswhilewomenratedandhealthcare any issues related to Perceptions on Problems and Household Level Decision Making: stands at Rs. 19,955. healthcare expenses. 63% of the households are in debt and the total outstanding debt per household per debt outstanding total the and debt in are households the of 63% expenses. healthcare are used for consumption smoothening while a relatively large percentage (9.5%) of the loans is spent on Overall, community organisations provided most of the loans (37.24%). More than half of the loans taken percentage of poor and non-poor households which had taken loans (75% poor vs. 47% non-poor). 47% vs. poor (75% loans taken had which households non-poor and poor of percentage more than 65% had taken out a loan during the last 12 months. There was a large difference in the in difference large a was There months. 12 last the during loan a out taken had 65% than more average loan amount per non-poor household (Rs. 3,833 vs. Rs. 1330). Out of a total of 576 households, stands at Rs. 3,148 per household. The average loan amount per poor household is almost 3 times the Household Loans, Utilization and Sources: and Utilization Loans, Household The average loan taken during the last 12 months 12 last the during taken loan average The Men rated employment and

3 Executive Summary Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

Naushero Feroz, Kashmore-Kandhkot, Qambar-Shadadkot and Larkana. Shikarpur and Jacobabad. Its outreach has now extended to include four additional districts, namely districts, additional four include to extended now has outreach Its Jacobabad. and Shikarpur At the time of its establishment, SRSO was present in 5 district of Upper Sindh Sukkur, Gothki, Khairpur, hurdles they face in their day-to-day lives. SRSO strives to help the voices of the poorest to be heard through interventions aimed at removing the people to redress their powerlessness themselves. Using a rural participatory development approach, development participatory rural a Using themselves. powerlessness their redress to people process of development, SRSO has placed great importance on “organisations of the poor” to empower activities inSindh.Tofrom themainstream are notexcluded abjectpoverty people livingin ensurethat SRSO's mandate is to alleviate poverty by harnessing people's potential and to undertake development Ordinance 1984. development activities. It is a not-for-profit organisation registered under Section 42 of the Companies the of 42 Section under registered organisation not-for-profit a is It activities. development SRSO, established in 2003, is the major Rural Support Program in Sindh in terms of outreach and outreach of terms in Sindh in Program Support Rural major the is 2003, in established SRSO, living in the program. will set a benchmark for assessing the impact of UCBPRP interventions on the participant's standard of assets, incidence, depth and severity of poverty of rural households in the 2 UCBPRP districts. Second, it first it would provide representative socio-economic characteristics, including the income, expenditure, income, the including characteristics, socio-economic representative provide would it first UCBPRP was being implemented. The main objective of conducting this baseline survey was off twofold: odc scoeooi bsln sre i Dsrc Ksmr ad hkru wee h porm of program the where Shikarpur and Kashmore District in survey baseline socio-economic conduct On the demand of SRSO, RSPN thought its Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit (MER) planned to geographical area and includes activities targeted to specific bands of the poorest, the poor and non-poor. seeks to have high and verifiable impact on poverty through a focused program that is for a specific a for is that program focused a through poverty on impact verifiable and high have to seeks Council Based Poverty Reduction Program (UCBPRP) in district Kashmore and Shikarpur. UCBPRP Shikarpur.and Kashmore district in (UCBPRP) Program Reduction Poverty Based Council Sindh. In Sindh. 2009 SRSO, in partnership with the Government of Sindh (GoS) it initiated an intensive Union The Sindh Rural Support Organisation (SRSO) was established in 2003 with coverage in 9 districts of districts 9 in coverage with 2003 in established was (SRSO) Organisation Support Rural Sindh The a network of ten RSP working with rural households in 105 districts. mobilization and effective advocacy within the government. Rural Sport Programmes Network (RSPN) is with technical and professional support in thematic areas of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), social (M&E), evaluation and monitoring of areas thematic in support professional and technical with their work with rural households across Pakistan. RSPN's key roles include providing its partner RSPs its partner providing include roles key RSPN's Pakistan. across households rural with work their building the capacity of Rural Support Programmes (RSPs) and for bringing programmatic innovations in ..Sindh Rural Support Organisation (SRSO) 2.1. of objective prime the with 2001 in established was (RSPN) Network Programmes Support Rural The Introduction 1.

5 Introduction Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 6 Introduction Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts (UCBPRP) of SRSO are given in Box-1. the poor and the non-poor. Various components of the Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Program geographical area (i.e. a Union Council) and includes activities targeted to specific bands of the poorest, seeks to have a high and verifiable impact on poverty through a focused program that is for a specific a for is that program focused a through poverty on impact verifiable and high a have to seeks in the districts of Kashmore-kandhkot and Shikarpur with a total budget of Rs. 3 billion. This program This billion. 3 Rs. of budget total a with Shikarpur and Kashmore-kandhkot of districts the in Government of Sindh, initiated an intensive Union Council Based poverty Reduction Program (UCBPRP) these COs into 3681 Village Organisations (VOs). In February 2009, SRSO in partnership with the with partnership in SRSO 2009, February In (VOs). Organisations Village 3681 into COs these (COs). The total savings of these COs amounts to over Rs. 50 Millions. SRSO has also federated most of RO a scesul ognzd 0,4 rrl oshls no 185 omnt Organisations Community 21,875 into households rural 406,447 organized successfully has SRSO deliverables. ok Fnly te oslat peae a aeie uvy eot n sbitd t ln wt other with along it submitted and report survey baseline a prepared consultants the Finally, work. ragmns ee ae y h fed aae aog ih h asgmn codntr Or data Our coordinator. assignment the manager developed with a data entry along program and manager data entry was field started simultaneously, the along with the by fied made were arrangements testing of the questionnaire, the field teams were mobilized for the field work. Travel and logistics and Travel work. field the for mobilized were teams field the questionnaire, the of testing After thepre- recruited thefieldenumeratorsandsupervisors, trained themonthequestionnaire. e ta mmes eie te uvy usinar pir o prvl Te uniaie researcher quantitative The approval. to prior questionnaire survey the refined members team key all the relevant documents. With the draft instruments provided by RSPN, our team leader along with their with the client to fully understand survey objectives, its use and its level of effort envisioned, and to secure Assignment structuring was the first step in our methodology during which our survey team leader worked · SRSO. The main objective of conducting this survey was of twofold: Consulting, on behalf of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Research Unit of RSPN and on demand from demand on and RSPN of Unit Research and Evaluation Monitoring, the of behalf on Consulting, hr te CPP s en ipeetd y RO Te uvy a big odce b Apex by conducted being was survey The SRSO. by implemented being is UCBPRP the where This socio-economic baseline survey was conducted in the districts of Kashmore-Kandkot and Shikarpur ..ObjectiveofCurrent Assignment 2.2.

11 Improving housing status Improving ofthe poorhouseholds. housing 11 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Components ofthe Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Program Box-1: · ..Survey Methodology 2.3.

riigo omnt evc rvdr narclue ietc,hat,ec Training ofcommunity providers service in agriculture, livestock, health, etc. ulcpiaeprnrhpfripoigpiayeuaini h no oni.Public-private partnership for improving education primary in the UnionCouncil. Provision ofhealth micro insurance to the poorest households. ste management. Project for improving village sanitation conditions including solid wa Short term jobcreation through construction ofcommunity physical infrastructure projects. Vocational skills trainings andscholarships for family members from the poorest households. Flexible loans for chronically poorhouseholds through VDOmanaged community investment funds. Asset creation grants for extremely poorhouseholds. Poverty Scorecard Census in the UnionCouncil to identify, validate andtarget UCBPRPactivities. council). coverage ofall households in aunion Social Mobilization by fostering COs andVDOs(100%coverage ofpoorhouseolds andoverall 70% of participants in the program (CO members), 4 to 5 years from now. To set a benchmark for assessing the impact of UCBPRP interventions on the standard of living of SRSO; and assets, incidence, depth and severity of poverty in rural households in the two UCBPRP districts o rvd rpeettv scoeooi caatrsis icuig noe epniue expenditure, income, including characteristics, socio-economic representative provide To specific indicators such as constraints to women development and household level decision making. the same households. The household questionnaire the included same a households. women questionnaire, which looked at two dealt with household level information. The household questionnaire was filled by a male member of deals with village level information which was filled by a group of well informed village persons while part were added as per the requirement of UCBPRP. The questionnaire was divided into two parts: part one The draft instruments were provided by RSPN and they were further refined and some new parameters Community Organisation (CO) beneficiary register was used as sampling universe. oshls rm ah ilg wr te slce uig ipe adm apig prah The approach. sampling random simple using selected then were village each from households ute 3 ilgs ee hn eetd rm ah no cucl sn rno nme tbe ad 16 and tables number random using council union each from selected then were villages 3 further UCBPRP interventions was developed and 12 union councils were selected randomly from this list. Athis from randomly selected were councils union 12 and developed was interventions UCBPRP h cnutns eetd 7 hueod fo dsrc Siapr h ls o al no cucl with councils union all of list The Shikarpur. district from households 576 selected consultants The (0.05)2*1.5= 576 assume ittobe50%(i.e.0.5).Otherparametersassumedareexplainedas: would bewithintwostandarderrorofprevalence(p).Sincewedonotknowprevalence,therefore, observations. Bycustom,onewants95%confidence(Z/2=1.96)thatthetruevalueforanindicator p isprevalencei.e.theprobabilityofindicatortobemeasured,and p)/(d)2 *designeffect. The basicapproachtoconsideringsamplesizerequirementsforapopulationis: SamplingandEnumeration 2.4. 2 decades of experience in conducting surveys and provided by the quantitative researcher, who has over reduce variation from the collected data. Training was ensure uniformity upon various technical terms and to atcpns ee rie o te ae oain to location same the on trained were participants the importance of data quality. customized training was arranged at Sukkur. All the All Sukkur. at arranged was training customized them about the project background and motivate them for honesty and hard work and make realize them supervisors. After the hiring of survey teams, four day obnto o ml ad eae eerhr and researchers female and male of combination survey teams. The senior management of SRSO also interacted with the training participants to brief to participants training the with interacted also SRSO of management senior The teams. survey enumerators were deployed in district Shikarpur,district in deployed with were enumerators quality assurance and data security. quality assuranceand data security.A secondand third trainingpractice session was arranged for the at Sukkur and two survey teams of six male and female quantitative researcher. The interviews were arranged knowledge on enumeration methods, understanding of questionnaires, field work management skills, management work field questionnaires, of understanding methods, enumeration on knowledge database and were further interviewed by the the by interviewed further were and database research studies across the He Pakistan. interacted with all the team members to check their skills and Field researchers were identified, using an in-house an using identified, were researchers Field al 1:SampleSelectionCriteria 1 Table Districts Name of Kashmore Where disthedifference between upperandlowerlimitofintervalestimate, District Total Clustersper 576/16=36 tp1Step2 Step 1 District 36 Clustersper

Sampling Using Random Field Teamsbeingbriefedaboutprojectbackgroundby District Total HHinterviewsper Mr. AbdulSammadDistrictOfficerSRSO Step 3 576 n isthenumberof n =(1.96)2(0.5)(1-0.5)/

n=(Z/2)2*(p)(1- Cluster/village 16 Respondentsper

Sampling Using Random Step 4

7 Introduction Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikapur Districts

3. Profile of SampleVillages

3.1. Community Organisations in the Sample Villages SRSO extended its programme to Shikarpur District in April 2009 and by the time of the survey in June- July 2010, had formed 70 COs with a total membership of 1,260. The average membership per CO (18) remained constant over this period. The savings of CO members, on the other hand, increased from an average of Rs. 51 per member to Rs. 208. Currently, the total savings with the COs are Rs. 233,811, with an average saving of Rs. 3.340 per CO. SRSO is also providing micro-loans to its members in this district. So far, total loans amounting to Rs. 2,666,160 have been extended and the average loan size is Rs. 1,755 per member. Table 2 : Profile of Sample Community Organisation in Shkarpur S. No Indicators Updated as on June 30, 2010 1 Number of Cos 70 2 Number of Members 1,260 at start 1,250 at present 1,260 3 Average Number of Members per CO (June 30,2010) 18 at start 18 at present 18 4 Total savings on June 30, 2010 233,811 5 Average CO saving 3,340 at the start (Rs.) 815 at the present (Rs.) 3,340 6 Average saving per CO member 208 at the start (Rs.) 51 at the present (Rs.) 208 Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Profile of Sample Villages Profile of Sample Villages 7 Total no of loans 291 9 8 Total amount of loan Disbursed (Rs.) 2,666,160 9 Total amount of loan Outstanding (Rs.) 2,210,268 10 Average loan per CO (Rs.) 31,575 11 Average loan per CO member (Rs.) 1,755

3.2. Distance of Infrastructure/Services from Sample Villages

This section of the report presents information about the access of the sampled villages to different social and economic infrastructure facilities. This is access recorded in terms of distance in kilometers. The overall results in Table-2 indicate that the villages covered in this survey do not have access to many physical, economic and social infrastructures and services close to them. On average, a villager has to travel 3.05 km to access any one of the services listed in Table-2. The villagers, typically, have to travel the farthest to visit the agriculture office, railway station or to seek education at the high school or college level. On the other extreme a few services like metalled roads and primary education are available right at the village level (on average, villagers have to travel a distance of 4 km to get to a private college and a distance of only 1 km to the nearest primary school). It is worth noting the one village in the sample has an internet café and another village has a government library. 10 Profile of Sample Villages Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts or shops and 40% of the villages (15) have a tube well. and only 10 out of 36 villages have paved paths. However, almost 35% of the villages (13) have a market (100% coverage). Similarly, few villages have paved paths or drains only 8 of the 36 villages have drains access to piped water. On the other extreme, the presence of mobile telephony services is ubiquitous is services telephony mobile of presence the extreme, other the water.On piped to access Similarly, haveaccesstotelephony orinternet. only2villageshave only1 electricity butalmostnone Out of the total of 36 villages surveyed,almost all- 35-have availability of basic amenities of life in the sampled villages. eae ntttos r smlrDt i Tbe3 hw the shows Table-3 in similar.Data are institutions female However, in case of high schools, the distances to male and average, have to travel more than boys to go to school. to go to boys than more travel to have average, 2.86km. In the case of basic education services, girls, on girls, services, education basic of case the In 2.86km. to various types of health facilities range from 2.25km to 2.25km from range facilities health of types various to relatively closer distances. For example, average distances nearest bank. Some basic social services are available at available are services social basic Some bank. nearest h naet ot fie n a aeae f .k t the to 3.3km of average an and office post nearest the Similarly, the villagers have to travel an average of 3km to 3km of average Similarly,an travel to have villagers the

Table 3 Village Infrastructure,June2010 : adPm 3 1 36 36 23 1 13 36 35 Internet 25 Shops/Market 11 Hand Pump Mobile Cobbled Path Tube well Telephone Drains Piped Water Electricity Yes 6 36 0 36 36 20 16 36 9 27 3 36 36 0 36 36 34 36 32 2 32 4 4

No

Total

Figure 3.2-1:Village Infrastructure, Village InformationbeingcollectedfromKey June 2010

Informant Informant

Table 4: Physical andSocialInfrastructureServicesinSampleVillages InternetPrivate Library Private College Private HighSchool caf Private MiddleSchool Private PrimarySchool Govt Library (F) Govt College (M) Govt College Govt HighSchool(F) Govt HighSchool(M) Govt MiddleSchool(Mix) Govt MiddleSchool(F) Govt MiddleSchool(M) Govt PrimarySchool(Mix) Govt PrimarySchool(F) Govt PrimarySchool(M) Utility Store NGO/MFI Lady HealthWorker/Visitor Private Doctor'sClinic Medical Store BHU/RHC Dispensary Veterinary Office Agriculture Office Bank PCO Post Office Factory Mandi/Market Railway Station Bus/wagon Stop Metalled Road

Infrastructure services

e

up to1 mk mkm km km km

11 12 12 23 27 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 >1-3

10 10 11 11 17 12 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 0 0 0 6 8 8 8 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 2 2 5 5 5 3 3 >3 -5

10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 13 13 13

4 4 4 6 6 6 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 1 1 1 2 5 5 3 >5

14 30 30 16 16 18 28 28 26 19 29 29 11 21 21 17 22 12 12 32 22 35 23 13

4 4 0 0 8 7 9 9 9 3 Average Distance

(Km) 3.64 3.14 2.64 3.80 3.00 3.50 2.86 3.88 3.28 1.28 1.39 3.39 3.39 3.61 2.81 2.11 3.17 3.42 3.22 2.67 3.67 3.75 3.33 3.83 2.03 3.33 2.33 2.25 2.97 3.97 3.02 2.53 2.92 3.72

11 Profile of Sample Villages Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

3.8% of the poor group. the non-poor group, 11.5% of the respondents have more than ten years of education compared to only households (59%). Most of the literate people (12.8%) have only completed primary education. In case of lower, with a difference of 8 percentage points, for poor households (67%) as compared to non-poor to compared as (67%) households poor for points, percentage 8 of difference a with lower, having had any schooling while only 28.5% of the respondents are formally literate. The literacy level is (62.94%) are illiterate. There is a small percentage of respondents (8.5%) who claim to be literate without Table-6 shows the literacy level of the survey respondents in percentage terms. Most of the respondents that a higher percentage of poor respondents are in the age bracket of 26 to 55 years. than 55 years. A comparison between the age brackets between poor and non-poor households shows respondents (54.7%) are in the age bracket 26 to 45 years. Less than 15% of the respondents are older respondents in Shikarpur was 42.5 years. Data presented in Table 5 shows that a major portion of the of portion in Tablemajor presented a Data that years. shows 42.5 5 was Shikarpur in respondents livelihood through subsistence farming and/or by working as wage laborers. The average age of the of age average The laborers. wage as working by and/or farming subsistence through livelihood The difference between poor and non-poor illiterate respondents is 8%. Most of them (84%) earn their earn (84%) them of Most 8%. is respondents illiterate non-poor and poor differencebetween The age 42.5 years with a standard deviation of 12.9 years), a majority of whom are illiterate (more than 62%). The data presented in the tables below depicts a relatively middle aged group of respondents (average Results Profile ofSampleHouseholdsSurvey 4.

Table 6: (Percent)Literacy LevelofRespondents Table 5: ..Age, Education and Profession of Respondents 4.1. Total Post Matric Matric Middle Primary Literate butnoschooling Not Literate Respondents

Total >65 56-65 46-55 36-45 26-35 16-25 Respondents % Age Group Total No.ofRespondents Average Age

Age ofRespondents

66.94 12.57 Poor Poor 5.46 7.38 3.83 3.83 10.8 43.1 18.1 29.2 30.5 100 100 369 5.7 5.7

Non

Non Poor

13.04 58.94 11.59 41.54 Poor 2.90 3.86 9.66 20.8 23.7 12.1 26.1 100 100 207 2.4 15

All All

Households Households 62.94 12.81 42.54 19. 28.30 10.35 11.45 26.45 3.84 7.71 4.18 8.52 4.05 100 100 576 45

13 13 Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 14 Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts of poor respondents. , the percentage of non-poor respondents having their own business is 5 times more than the percentage compared to the poor respondents (only 1.65%). Similarly, much larger proportion of respondents (9.45%) have jobs as of earning their livelihood. In case of non-poor households, a almost 10% of the poor respondents do not have any means epnet hv ay aaid os t .5 ol, and only, 1.65% at jobs salaried any have respondents compared to in non-poor households (21.4%). Very few poor ecnae 3.6) s eedn o csa lbr as labor casual on dependent is (35.26%) percentage pn aul ao. n ae f or oshls a larger a households, poor of case In labor. casual upon (56%) while the second largest group (28.3%) is depends is (28.3%) group largest second the while (56%) rfsin. ot an hi lvlho truh farming through livelihood their earn Most professions. Table-7 provides information about the respondents' respondents' the about information provides Table-7 household size is 7.76, which is higher than that for rural Pakistan (6.72) as well as for rural Sindh (6.97) h pplto o te oa sml sz i 47, ih 35 ae ad 16 eae. h average The females. 2106 and males 2365 with 4471, is size sample total the of population The DemographicStructure ofHouseholdsand Work StatusofHouseholdMembers 4.2. Pakistan Household Income and Expenditure Survey (HIES 2007-08) 2

Table 7: ProfessionofRespondent Table 8 Total Not working Other work Business Service Labour Farming Respondents Male Adult/HH Adults (%) Adult (#) Female (%) Male (%) Male: Female Female Male Total Population ofhouseholds Number Sex and Age

:

ofHouseholds Composition Demographic

1270.00 100.00 110.11 Poor 51.24 Poor 35.26

52.40 1666 3179 1513 0.28 1.65 1.65 9.92 39.95 47.60 369 3.44 650 -

Non-Poor Non-Poor

CO DocumentsbeingReviewed byQuantitative 117.88 100.00 54.10 60.70 21.39 1292 1.49 1.49 9.45 5.47 699 593 207

622.00 48.14 45.90 3.00 334 Researcher All Households All

Households

112.30 42.32 100.00 1892 28.34 2106 55.96 4471 2365 3.28 47.1 52.9 0.89 7.69 5.55 1.57 984 576 2

between family size and per capita income. s oprd o n o-or oshls 62. hs niae a ivrey rprinl relationship proportional inversely an indicates This (6.2). households non-poor in to compared as households and 28.25% in non-poor households. The household size is higher (8.6) in poor households years age bracket in poor and non-poor households varies but to a smaller extent with, 32% in poor in 32% with, extent smaller a to but varies households non-poor and poor in bracket age years population is only 2.5% while in the poor households, the >55 population is 5.8%. The percentage of <10 bracket and 30.11% of the population in <10 years age bracket. In case of non-poor households the >55 The dependency ratio is 52% in the sample households with 4.14% of the population in the >55 years age those in the age groups of over 10 to 55 years. It is the ratio of the population in the age groups of up to 10 years plus over 55 years to the population of not work at all (20.6%). These proportions are nearly the same in poor as well as in non-poor households. works outside their homes. This is followed by those involved in household work (31%) and those who do age groups: 10 to 18 years, 18 to 55 years, and >55 years. Almost half (48%) of the sampled population household work, and working outside the house. Work status data has been further categorized into three members of working age (>10 years) have been further segregated into classes: not-working, engaged in The data in Table 9 shows the work status of the sample household members vis-a-vis age. Household

3 Table 9: Work StatusofHouseholds % MultipleWork Average SizeofHousehold Up to10 Years inPopulation(%) Female Male (%) Children Over 55yearsinPopulation(%) Female % Business % Service/Job % Off % FarmLabor % OwnFarm Working Household Work Not Working All over10years Sex

0-18 > 10 -55 > 18 >55 Years -18 > 10 -55 > 18 >55 Years -18 > 10 -55 > 18 >55 Years

and Age

- farmLabor

3

29.14 53.79

1978 0.64 9.71 Poor 1.49 5.23 404 254 429 181 612 102 709 937 173 55 73 27

31.96 60.05 1016 1909 Non-Poor 5.79 8.62 893 620

25.60 58.79 3.90 1.08 5.21 5.42 169 461 363 107 203 297 927 64 34 16 29 78 33

28.25 51.86 2.49 6.24 305 365 670 288 All

Households

55.44 27.97 1398 2905 1072 30.11 57.68 4.79 0.79 2.79 8.23 1198 1381 106 598 909 361 131 259 607 237 4.14 7.76 908 89 43

2579

15Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 16Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts female illiteracy (91%) is much higher than male illiteracy (58.5%). persons is higher amongst the poor population (75.8%) as compared to the non-poor (70.4%). Similarly, A majority of the adult population in the sample is illiterate (74%). As expected, the proportion of illiterate AdultLiteracyandSchoolingofChildren 4.3. public or private sectors while an even smaller percentage (0.64%) is involved in the business activities. vast majority (54%) of the working population is engaged in on-farm activity. Only 1.5% have jobs in the own-farm, farm labor, services/jobs, off-farm labor, business, and multiple work. Table 8 indicates that a The working population is further categorized into six on-farm and off-farm categories. These include These categories. off-farm and on-farm six into categorized further is population working The years age bracket (5%). the active age group (18 to 55 years). This is followed by the 10 to 18 years age group (28%) and the >55 The data in Table 8 further shows that two-thirds (67%) of the working age population (>10 years) falls in (56.34%). oshls 6.8) o o atn shos s oprd o hlrn rm o-or households non-poor from children to compared as schools attend not do (62.78%) households whereas inthecaseofboys,thisproportionis57%.Overall, ahigherpercentageofchildrenfrompoor all, which is quite alarming. The situation is even worse in case of females as 65.5% do not attend school The data regarding schooling of children is given in Table 11. 61% of the children do not attend school at literacy levels there are differences between poor and non-poor households. any formal school (18.7%) followed by those with more than ten years of education (16%). With respect to Among the literate, most have only attended primary school (32.6%), followed by those who did not attend Table 10 Percent ofLiterate lts % ofliterateFemale Adu % ofliterateMale Adults % ofadultpopulationliterate Literate Adults % ofnotliterateFemale Adults % ofnotliterateMale Adults % ofadultpopulationnotliterate Not Literate Adults (No) Literacy Level Primary School Literate Not InSchool Degree Intermediate Matric Middle School AdultLiteracyinHouseholds :

16.94 60.00 40.00 34.20 92.40 12.70 18.89 24.17 10.42 75.82

7.60 Poor 5.21 1.63 963 307

Non-Poor 44.30 12.50 12.50 18.48 29.58 29.89 87.50 55.70 15.22 70.41 9.24 9.24 5.43 184 438 All Households

12.22% 11.41% 32.59% 18.74% 15.27% 5.30% 4.48% 90.90 58.50 41.50 74.04 25.95 1401 9.10 491 only. No actual tests for measuring health of household members were carried out. statistics on household health were compiled on the basis of information provided by the respondents the by provided information of basis the on compiled were health household on statistics percentage of poor and non-poor people who consider themselves to be in good health. Note: The Note: health. good in be to themselves consider who people non-poor and poor of percentage proportion (0.5%) reports experiencing chronic or acute illness. There is negligible difference between the niae ta ams al f h pplto (95) osdr isl i a elh sae hl a small a while state healthy a in itself considers (99.5%) population the of all almost that indicates acuteorchronicillnessinthehousehold).Tablehousehold) andPoor(depictingthepresenceofan 12 he ctgre dpcig h hat sau o hueod a Go, ar bt dpcig healthy a depicting (both Fair Good, as households of status health the depicting categories three On the basis of information provided by the respondents, sample households have been divided into divided been have households sample respondents, the by provided information of basis the On StateofHealthandPhysicalEnvironment 4.4. Table 12: Health StatusofHouseholdMembers Table 11: SchoolingofChildren school % ofmalechildrennotin Male childrennotinschool % ofchildrennotinschool Children notinschool Children inSchool school % offemalechildrennotin Female childrennotinschool All Children(schoolage) Percent inpoorhealth Percent infairhealth ofHHMembers Health Status Percent ingoodhealth Children Adults Female Male Children Adults Female Male > 10 > 5 Up to5 Years > 10 > 5 Up to5 Years Female Male

- -

10 Years 10 Years - -

18 Years 18 Years

62 46.70 48.40 43.30 56.20 51.90 38.90 95.20 45.50 49.80 95.30 98 37.67 42.47 19.86 29.82 41.45 40.49 28.73 32.05 67.96 41.03 26.92 28.72 42.13 53.98 29.15 56.34 58.46 62.78 orNn-Poor Non Poor 45536 1475 orNon-Poor Poor .00.60 0.50 3.80 0.50 2.50 0.50 1.80 3.80 4.30 2.00 2.40 4.40 5 100 456 7 156 302 470 247 289 926 671 804

Households Households 53.45 41.65 44.86 50.41 95.27 33.75 41.96 24.30 65.58 30.39 41.58 28.04 57.27 61.06 1228 1093 2011 0.53 0.50 3.80 2.14 2.23 4.37 602 626 918 All All

17Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 18Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts structure as compared to the non-participating group (7.3%). Pucca (8%) structures. A higher proportion of the households in the non-poor group (9.2%) have Pucca the survey. A majority of the households have a Katcha structure (74%) followed by Mixed (18%) and (18%) Mixed by followed (74%) structure Katcha a have households survey.the the of Amajority adults (41.65%). Table 13 shows data on different amenities of life available to the households included in of good health while a higher percentage of children (53.45%) is considered to be healthy as compared to The data also shows that a higher proportion of males (50.41% vs. 44.86%) are considered to be in a state

Table 13: Health StatusofHouseholdMembers Fuel UsedFuel Used ElectricityElectricity Drainage: Latrine:Latrine: Water supply % Householdswith: ss Average numberofroom Percent died(2009) All Households(N) Housing Facilities Children Adults Female Male Children Adults Female Male

% Others%% Wood%% Gas% Others Wood Gas % No%% Yes No % No%% Yes % Yes% No Yes % Openfields % Outside%% Inside% Outside % Others% Inside % HandPump % Well% Others % Canal% Well % Piped% Canal 5 ormorerooms Piped 33--4 rooms4Up to2rooms rooms % KatchaStructure % PuccaStructure

91.80%91.80% 96.10%96.10% 369.00 .00 8%1.00%1.00%0.80%0.80% 2.90%2.90%7.40%7.40% 493 .032.9032.9034.9034.90 12.6012.6019.2019.20 54.6054.6045.9045.90 93.2093.2091.6091.60 76.20

Poor .00.20 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.30 51 5179.279.2 75.175.1 95.295.2 94.394.3 73.473.4 26.626.674.674.6 25.425.4 2.902.90 4.904.90 0.500.50 0.500.500.300.30 2.902.901.101.10 2.202.20 1.721.72 1.531.53 7.30 .4 94.34.3 4.84.84.94.9 5.75.7

0 016.416.4 2020 2 5 3 2 o Po AllHouseholds -Poor Non 207.00 70.00 9.20

0 6 2 2 93.30%93.30% 576.00 0.90%0.90%5.80%5.80% 34.1834.1816.8316.8349.0349.03 92.1892.18 18.7118.71 76.5776.57 994.624.62 74.1774.1725.8325.83 73.97 4.684.68 5.385.38 4.184.18 0.370.370.880.882.452.45 1.631.63 7.98 0.20 0.33 0.20 0.33

Profile of Sample Household 8 7 5 2 - Survey Results More than 93% of the households have up to 2 rooms, 5.8% have between 3 and 4 rooms and only 1% of the houses have 5 or more rooms. On average each household has 2 rooms. As far as the basic amenities of life are concerned, half of the households (51%) do not have indoor latrines and the majority of households do not have drainage facility (74%). Electricity is available to almost all the households (94.6%). Wood is mainly used as fuel, with 76.5% of the households using it as their only source of energy. Only 2.45% of the households have access to piped water and almost all of the remaining households Household Interview at Shikarpur (92.18%) depend upon hand pumps. This is similar to the rest of rural Kashmore, where only 5% the households have access to tap water and 91% of the households rely on hand pumps4 the same pattern is observed in poor and non-poor households without any exception. 4.5. Household Incomes, Inequality and Poverty

According to the survey data, the per capita income in Shikarpur is Rs. 1,473/month which is lower than the nationally defined per capita income of Rs. 1,504. The average monthly per capita income for rural 5 Sindh is Rs. 1,494. The per capita income is lower in the case of poor households (Rs. 1,044) as compared to in non-poor households (Rs. 2,239). 64% of the total households in the survey earned monthly per capita income of less than Rs. 1,500 per month. The largest concentration of poor households (52%) is in the Rs 901 to Rs. 1,300 per month income bracket. Similarly, the highest Baseline Survey Report concentration of non-poor households (95%) is in the Rs. 1501 to Rs. 3500 income bracket. Socio-economic Baseline Survey in Kashmore Districts

Table 14 : Household Income 2009-10 Household I ncome Poor Non -Poor All Households Average / (HHRs.) 105485.23 163770.25 126,532 Average / Capita (Rs.) 12631.76 26871.99 17,775 Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Profile of Sample Household Per Capita/month (Rs.) 1044.31 2239.33 1,473 - Survey Results 19 Percent household with per capita per month income of: Up to Rs. 700 10.50 6.8 Rs. 701 to 900 17.90 11.50 Rs. 901 to 1100 26.60 17.00 Rs. 1,101 to 1,300 25.50 16.30 Rs. 1,301 to 1,500 19.50 12.50 Rs. 1,501 to 2,000 57.50 2.70 Rs. 2,001 to 2,500 25.10 9.00 Rs. 2,501 or 3,000 6.30 2.30 Rs. 3,001 to 3,500 5.8 2.10 Rs. 3,501 to 4,500 1.4 0.50 Rs. 4,501 to 5,500 1 0.30 Rs. 5,501 or 6,500 1 0.30 Rs. 6,500 or over 1.9 0.70

4 Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey (PSLM) 2008-09 5 HIES 2007-08 20Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts monthly per capita income of poor households (Rs. 1,044). live in poverty. The monthly per capita income of non-poor households (Rs. 2,239) is more than double the given, in Table 15. More than half of the sample households (64%) and Dataregardingthe incidence ofpovertyand 71% income inequalityisalso case ofthe poor group(2.07%). of the total sample population contribution from business activities is also greater in the case of the non-poor group (2.57%) than in the noe s rae i te o-or ru (4) hn n h cs o po gop 5%. iial the Similarly (55%). group poor of case the in than (64%) group non-poor the in greater is income A comparison between poor and non-poor households indicates that the contribution of total on-farm total of contribution the that indicates households non-poor and poor between comparison A (2.25%) and cash/gifts (1.06%). business, pension, rent and remittances. Major contributors to off-farm income are business activities business are income off-farm to contributors Major remittances. and rent pension, business, share of more than two-thirds (79.5%), the rest being shared amongst various sources such as services, Crop cultivation is the single largest source of income followed by labor. These two have a combined a have two labor.These by followed income of source largest single the is cultivation Crop Table 14 also tabulates the various different on and off-farm sources that contribute to household income.

Percent shareinincome Table 15: Incidence,DepthandSeverityofPovertyinHouseholds 15: Table Per capita/monthIncome % ofPopulationinPoverty Severity ofPoverty Poverty GapRatio(%) % ofHouseholdsinPoverty Total Population Total NumberofHouseholds

Poor Households Poor Households All Households Population -Poor Non Poor Population Households -poor Non Non -poor Households -poor Non Labor Pension Service Livestock Fruits/Forest Crops Other Cash/Gifts Remittances Rental Income

77 21.34 37.75 02 10.63 53.29 10.20 44.50 .30.65 7.80 0.53 1.87 .30.75 0.23 0.16 0.73 0.00 1.53 0.25 0.11 .10.11 0.21 2,239 1,044 1,473 4470 0.13 1291 3179 71% 31% 64% 576 207 369

31.84 10.35 47.68 0.74 1.06 0.22 0.07 0.17 0.58 3.99 Rs. 1,044 while the average monthly income of the non-poor is Rs. 2,239. income of poor and non-poor is observed: the average monthly per capita income of poor households is households. Despite this less unequal distribution of income, a large difference between the average the between difference large a income, of distribution unequal less this Despite households. dniid ih ii ofiin i 02, hc sos ls ueul itiuin f noe among incomes of distribution unequal less a shows which 0.23, is Coefficient Gini with identified income is more than 3 times the share of the bottom 20% of the population. The concentration ratio concentration The population. the of 20% bottom the of share the times 3 than more is income 10% only has a 5% share in the total income. Similarly, the top 20% of the population's share in the total income inequality. The top 10% of the population has a share of 20% of the total income while the bottom There are several measures of inequality. In this case, we have used the Gini Coefficient as a measure of population of those in the age groups of over 10 to Itistheratioof populationintheagegroups of upto10yearsplusover 55 55 years tothe years. 6 a l 1:Qitl DistributionofIncome Quintile 16: Table Quintiles 10th 9th 8th 7th 6th 5th 4th 3rd 2nd 1st

Figure 4.5-1 : LorenzCurve Percentage of Gini Coefficient=0.23 Total Income Sample 20% 14% 12% 11%

9% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5%

Capita

Average Per Per Month 6 (PKR) 1,069 1,261 1,000 1,512 1,350 2,816 1,724

1,990 649 857

21Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey oof Shikarpur Districts 22Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

non-poor households. capita expenditure is greater than the monthly per capita income while, the reverse is true in the case of capita expenditure is higher than it is in poor households. In case of poor households, the monthly per monthly the households, poor of case In households. poor in is it than higher is expenditure capita average monthly per capita expenditure for rural Sindh is Rs. 1,374). In non-poor households, the per the households, non-poor In 1,374). Rs. is Sindh rural for expenditure capita per monthly average per capita expenditure is Rs. 1,522, which is higher than the average per capita income (the reported (the income capita per average the than higher is which 1,522, Rs. is expenditure capita per The average annual household expenditure is Rs. 126,744 as shown in Table 17. The average monthly HouseholdExpenditure andConsumption 4.6. Sindh is on food). (4.7%) (In contrast, according to HIES 200-08 approximately 53% of the household expenditures in rural The next biggest expenditure in on healthcare (7.14%), followed by clothing (4.96%) and social functions Most of the expenditure (77%) in on purchasing food. This behavior is seen across all the sub samples. shown in Table 18. rm hn 20) Etmts f al pr aia food capita per are food on daily expenditures and calories) (with of consumption Estimates (2004). Khan from nae a as be etmtd sn cneso factors conversion using estimated been also has intake aia xes bss Lsl, h diy e cpt calorie capita per daily the Lastly, basis. expense capita rcs hs loe u t cluae h aeae al per daily average the calculate to us allowed has prices, nomto, n ojnto wt te rviig oa food local prevailing the with conjunction in information, consumption of a number of food categories. This This categories. food of number a of consumption hs band a be ue t cluae h pr capita per the calculate to used been has obtained thus osmto i ec sml hueod Te information The household. sample each in consumption h sre isrmn as hd scin n food on section a had also instrument survey The Table 17: HouseholdExpenditures 17: Table 7 HIES 2007-08 kerosene) % shareofhouseholdexpenditure Per Capita/Month(Rs.) Average / Capita (Rs.) ge/ HH (Rs.) Avera Expenditures Fuel (wood,gas,electricityand Cash/Gifts Remittances Transport Social Functions Education lthCare Hea Housing Clothing Food Other Expense

HouseholdExpenditures

120,236

10,020 1,257 79.56 Poor 1.39 5.03 3.63 1.13 6.60 0.64 0.14 2.14 0.01 0.01 - Shikarpur

7 Village level informationisbeingcollectedfroma o Po All -Poor Non 3,7 126,787 138,378 group ofkeyinformantsatShikarpur

151 10,566 11,531 ,9 1,524 1,996 25 77.01 72.50 1.98 1.79 4.83 3.10 0.00 1.04 0.04 0.24 6.61 8.11

Households 2.49 4.96 1.10 4.70 7.14 1.54 1.12 0.02 0.01 .18 0

23 households. almost twice as many assets as the poor households and sell almost 4 times as many assets as poor as assets many as times 4 almost sell and households poor the as assets many as twice almost the form of savings, almost twice that of poor households. Similarly, non-poor households purchase households non-poor Similarly, households. poor of that twice almost savings, of form the larger portion of consumer durables. Non-poor households have a much higher percentage of assets in Non-poor households own a larger percentage of the productive assets while poor households own a own households poor while assets productive the of percentage larger a own households Non-poor jointly account for 91% of the total assets. households). Agriculture land, livestock and house structures are the three biggest asset sources and sources asset biggest three the are structures house and livestock land, households). Agriculture machinery, etc, account for 39.14% of the assets (this tendency is noted in poor as well as non-poor as well as poor in noted is tendency (this assets the of 39.14% for account machinery,etc, largest contributor to total asset value (54%) while productive assets, comprising of land, trees, livestock, for non-poor households is Rs. 350,705. Consumer durables, comprising of houses and transport, are the household is Rs. 274,049. The average value for poor households is Rs. 231,164 and the average value and sale/purchase details, are shown in Table 19. For the overall sample, the average value of assets per Assets of the sampled households with poor and non-poor bifurcation, along with constituents of assets Household Assets, Value andDistribution 4.7. while it is 36% in the case of the overall sample. grains followed by (8.9%) from oils. 31% of the daily per capita expenditure of poor households is on food non-participating households (3,656). Overall, the maximum proportion (52%) of daily calories come from sample. The calorie intake per day is less in the case of poor households (2,756.5) and more in the case of In the sampled households the total per capita calorie intake per day is 3,018 calories for the overall the for calories 3,018 is day per intake calorie capita per total the households sampled the In Table 18: DailyConsumptionofFood inHousehold 18: Table Grains (Grams) al oshl naeDaily householdintake al e aiafo xedtr R. 30.99 Daily percapitafoodexpenditure(Rs.) % fromgrains+oils % fromoils % fromgrains Total Cal./Household/Day Calories ) Sugar (Grams Calories Egg (Grams) Calories Milk (Grams) Calories Meat (Grams) Calories Fruits (Grams) Calories Vegetables (Grams) Calories Fat/oil (Grams) Calories Pulses (Grams) Calories

12572.79 23760.92 2061.59 1023.23 3676.14 141.85 472.29 669.57 405.16 968.00 259.94 966.71 235.71 61.59 56.98 50.96 41.14 82.62 52.91 70.81 or o -Poor Non Poor 8.68 5.40 22815.76 11524.53 3369.74 3565.50 3565.50 3369.74 1029.14 078 1024.89 1027.82 2178.46 2103.79 2103.79 2178.46 141.52 663.30 154.24 132.19 401.30 471.26 276.74 972.39 117.66 249.14 50.51 84.96 45.19 60.06 19.32 9.55 2.05 All Households 23419.61 12194.25 141.73 141.73 667.31 989.26 108.49 403.77 471.91 471.91 266.01 969.59 240.56 52.05 56.96 92.97 78.90 36.12 61.04 39.54 8.99 4.19

23 Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Profile24Profile of ofSample Sample Household Household - Survey- Survey Results Results BaselineBaseline Survey Survey Report Report Socio-economicSocio-economic Baseline Baseline Survey Survey in Kashmore of Shikarpur Districts Districts

Table 19: Assets ofHouseholds 19: Table Sold (Rs./HH) Purchased (Rs./HH) purchased/sold Value ofassets % ofHHssoldassets % ofHHspurchased Purchase/sale ofassets Others Jewelry Loans given Cash/account % Savings Others House andother % Consumerdurables Business Machinery Livestock Trees Land % Productive Constituents ofassets: Per Capita Per HH Assets Value ofassets(Rs.):

sesi oradnnPo oshlsAssets inPoorandnonHouseholds

Figure 4.7

1: Constituents of Household ConstituentsofHousehold 1: 3,6 350,705 231,164

729 54,449 27,279 18392,933 26,852 21,823 10,205 59 50.59 55.90 40.03 38.64 31 46.15 53.13 25.14 14.87 24.36 13.50 orNn-orAllHouseholds -Poor Non Poor .99.38 5.19 0.04 4.91 4.44 2.56 2.77 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.33 0.86 0.24 1124.6 21.1 . 4.47 2.6 4.6 0 - 1.4 274,049 37,027 27,712 16,665 53.99 39.14 22.53 24.64 13.99 0.02 3.41 1.88 0.00 0.83 0.27 3.28 3.47 52.2 6.7 3,833 vs. Rs. 1330). Household Loans, Utilizations and Sources 4.8. amount per poor household was almost 3 times the average loan amount per non-poor household (Rs. the average loan taken during the last 12 months stood at Rs. 3,148 per household. The average loan household. Theaverage per 3,148 Rs. at stood months 12 last the during taken loan average the In this section, the data on loans, their sources and their utilization is presented. At the time of the survey, number of livestock per household is 2.13. between poor and non-poor households in this case (43.8 percent poor vs. 36.2% non-poor). The average Over 40% of the households do not own any livestock. However, there is a difference in percentage in difference a is there However, livestock. any own not do households the of 40% Over landholding being 2.5 acres with little variation between poor and non-poor households. poor households. The majority of land ownership is in the 2 to 5 acres category, with the average size of total households do not own any land and the difference in percentage is negligible across poor and non- Table 21 shows the household status for the two important assets of land and livestock. Almost 80% of the owned by a household are valued at Rs. 8.8 million. the assets. Out of the 576 households sampled, three do not own any assets while the highest assets highest the while assets any own not do three sampled, households 576 the of Out assets. the lowest 10% of households own only 0.33% of the assets while the last 10% of the population own 55% of Table-20 above shows a highly skewed distribution of assets amongst the sampled households. The households. sampled the amongst assets of distribution skewed highly a shows Table-20above

Table 21: LandandLivestockHoldingofHouseholds 21: Table Table 20: Distributionof Assets 20: Table >12.5 to25acre >5 to12.5acre >2 to5acre >1 to2acre up to1acre Percent ofownerhouseholds land Percent ofhouseholdsnotowning Land andLivestockHoldings Average numberoflivestock/HH livestock ofhouseholdsnotowing Percent owner Average sizeofLandholdingper Quintiles 2nd 3rd 5th 4th 1st

of Assets Owned

Percentage 1.10% 0.33% 3.28% 2.45% 1.86%

03 83 7 78.30 80.30

Poor 0.30 2.20 6.50 5.90 4.90 Quintiles .32.32 36.2 2.03 2.74 43.8 2.34 10th

9th 8th 7th 6th

o -Poor Non

1.40 4.30 7.20 5.30 3.40 of Assets Owned Percentage All Households 54.96% 16.69% 9.43% 5.75% 4.15%

0.70 2.90 6.80 5.70 4.30 9.50 41.05 2.13 2.5

25Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 26Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

friends/relatives (16.38%). edn ws h cmuiy raiain (72% floe b sokees 1.3) and (16.43%) shopkeepers by followed (37.24%) organisations community the was lending organisations (32%) and shopkeepers (16.66%). In case of non-poor households, the biggest source of oshls fins n rltvs ee h bget ore f on (5) floe b community by followed (35%), loans of source biggest the were relatives and friends households, vrl, omnt ognstos rvdd ot f h las 3.4) Hwvr i cs o poor of case in However, (37.24%). loans the of most provided organisations community Overall, poor vs. 47% non-poor). was a large difference in the percentage of poor and non-poor households which had taken loans (75% Out of a total of 576 households, more than 65% had taken out a loan during the last 12 months. There the total loan amounts are spent on social functions like weddings. machinery and farm inputs (with zero expenses on land or in business activities) while more than 5% of poor households. Nearly 28% of the overall loans are spent in purchasing productive assets like livestock, (9.5%) of the loans is spent on healthcare expenses. This behavior is witnessed in both poor and non- poor and in both is witnessed expenses. This behavior on healthcare is spent the loans (9.5%) of than half of the loans taken are used for consumption smoothening, whilea relatively largepercentage land, machinery, livestock and farm inputs to housing, healthcare and social activities like weddings. More Table-23 shows the percentage utilization of loans in a number of activities ranging from purchases of purchases from ranging activities of number a in loans of Table-23utilization percentage the shows Table 23: UseofLoansbyHouseholds 23: Table Table Other purpose Repaying Loan Education Health Care Social Function Consumption Housing Productive purpose % ofloanamountused: Use ofLoans flasaon rom: % ofloansamountfr % HHtakenloans Loans Average loanperHH(Rs.) omnt raiain 21 51.65 32.12 Other sources Community Organizations NGOs Banks Shopkeepers Friends /Relatives 22 Business Farm Inputs Machinery Livestock Land La ae yHueod : Loan Taken byHouseholds

18.79 24.08 10.03 56.41 Poor 1.39 0.89 0.59 0.68 5.48 0.48 0.00 0.24 833 1330.36 3833.33 5.4 34 5.54 13.42 16.43 16.38 16.66 47.12 34.60 74.80 orNn-orAllHouseholds -Poor Non Poor

.25.94 1.00 3.32 0.99

o -Poor Non 42.96 38.91 32.74 5.51 1.29 1.08 0.16 1.10 7.98 4.02 0.00 0.01 2.15

All Households 3147.92 52.86 27.98 22.46 11.35 18.80 29.84 65.28 37.24 1.36 0.94 0.48 9.49 5.43 0.80 0.74 5.10 0.35 0.00 4.00 0.99

compared to non-poor households (45%). household stood at Rs. 19,955. The percentage of poor households in debt was much larger (73%) as much larger debt was households in of poor 19,955. The percentage at Rs. household stood the number of households in debt. At the time of the survey 63% of the households that were in debt per Table-24 shows the current status of household debt in terms of the HouseholdDebt total outstanding amounts as well as 4.9. non-poor households. the overall debt to income ratio is 16%, with a higher ratio of 20% in the poor households and 10% in the NGOs (18%). The average net worth (value of assets minus debt) is Rs. 254,094, which is high. Similarly, The highest percentage of debt was to community organisations (30%) followed by friends (24%) and (24%) friends by followed (30%) organisations community to was debt of percentage highest The a l 2: urn eto l oshls CurrentDebtof All Households 24: Table al 2: itiuino et Distribution ofDebt 25: Table % ofdebtto debt/HH (Rs.) Average amountofdebt/HH(Rs.) Debt Quintiles Others Community Organization NGO Banks Shopkeeper Friends 2nd 3rd 5th 4th 1st

iue481 onUiiaini oradnn-orHueod Households -poor LoanUtilizationinPoorandnon 4.8-1: Figure

Percentage of Debt 3.89% 0.38% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

16.67 28.57 14.29 4.76 28.57 7.14 73.24 21,321 Poor

Quintiles

10th 9th 8th 7th 6th

Poor Non 16,019 37.50 37.50 12.50 12.50 45.41 - 0.00 0.00 Percentage

Households All

of Debt 48.98% 19.31% 12.93%

8.25% 6.27% 19,955 30.00 18.00 63.26 14.00 24.00 6.00 8.00

27Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 28Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts .0 Perception of Households about Housing Facilities 4.10. owes almost 50% of the total debt. have any debt while the largest debt amount owed by a single household is Rs. 456,000. The 10th quintile Table 25 shows a highly skewed quintile distribution of debt. 212 households in the survey sample do not issues. Men rated employment and poverty as the men and women perceive the seriousness of different and “4” not sure. There are some differences in how in differences some are There sure. not “4” and serious problem, “3” indicating very serious problem serious very indicating “3” problem, serious rbe, 1 idctn sih polm “” indicating “2” problem, slight indicating “1” problem, problem was rated from 0 to 4, with “0” indicating no indicating “0” with 4, to 0 from rated was problem ecpin f motn hueod rbes Each problems. household important of perception asked of men and women separately to capture their capture to separately women and men of asked ih ead t hueod aiiis Qetos were Questions facilities. household to regards with al 2 peet mns n wmns perceptions women's and men's presents 26 Table with regards to everyday household facilities/issues. household everyday to regards with perceptions on the problems faced by men and women This section presents information about the the about information presents section This next least important issue. social cohesion and organisation. Both men and women considered non availability of electricity as the On the other hand both men and women did not think that there were any issues related to water supply, two most serious issues while the women rated poverty and healthcare as the two most serious issues.

T able 26: PerceptionofHouseholdsaboutHousingFacilities 26: Table Organization Social Cohesion Access toCredit Savings Jobs/Employment Income (Poverty) Electricity Fuel Supply Transport Street Pavement Drainage Water Supply Care Health Education

2 91 422 85 402 148 23 113 73 181 163 256 148 190 93 103 82 399 215211513 185 211 2 105 244 91 62 189 44 117 24 2 116 273 91 123 2 62 197 248 101 92 28 90 0

144 134 1

Men's Perceptions 8 88 187 0 2 9 229 203 2 160 218 3 141 250 4 0 3 101 247 523 22 35 63 24 69 3 2 All Households

5 4 9 3 2 2 4 Responses

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 .010 2 1.00 0.00 396 376 160 262 145 385 69 47 33 56 64 97 12 70

Women PerceptionInterview atShikarpur

4 154 147 191 101 177 100 182 109 120 166 164 172 249 136 259 126 201 113 98 95 95 88 98 Women's Perceptions

All Households 245 237 38 69 71

194 225 249 129 124 161 235 155

28 23 96 25 92 24 3

6576 576 576 16 576 11 576 19 21 27 3 3 3 6 3 4 3 4 8 Responses 4

576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576 576

asset's sale and purchase, loan taking and working outside the home. marriage, education and upbringing while men seem to be the dominating decision makers in instances of women only. Women seem to be the dominating decision makers in case of decisions involving children's making isbymenonly. Ontheother hand, 6%oftheresponses indicate thatthedecisionmaking is by consensus with men and women equally involved. 27% of the total responses indicate that decision that indicate responses total the of 27% involved. equally women and men with consensus Table-27 indicates that a high proportion of everyday decision making (43% of total responses) is through The perception of women about decision making at the household level is presented in Table-25. Data in .1 Perception andProblems ofHouseholdLevelDecision-making 4.11. observed across both poor and non-poor households. other cases the percentage of beneficiaries is very low and ranges from 2.6% to 24% only. This pattern is The largest proportion of beneficiaries (35%) benefited from the Community Investment Fund (CIF). In all activities. An overwhelming proportion of households has not benefited from any of the UBPRP activities. The survey also collected data about the number of households that have benefited from various UBPRP HouseholdsBenefitedfrom UCBPRP Activities 4.12. al 2: ecpino oe bu eiinMkn Al Households PerceptionofWomenAll aboutDecisionMaking 27: Table Total % Total CO membership Access toHealth Child Rearing Working OutsideHousehold Family Planning Utilize Loan Loan Taking Assets Sale Assets Purchase Children's Marriages Children's Education Household Expenditures

8917 9 3 936913 2953 330 391 1370 1869 7 0 %5 3 100% 43% 5% 6% 20% 27% only Men 195 229 193 147 233 7 045 80 176 244 102 1 322 83 112 71861 54 118 42 87 57 41843 118 94

All Households Men Mainly 117 150 108 142 135 176 101

only Women 35 15 19 30 24 22 21

Women Mainly 827576 257 18 725577 275 47 034576 304 40 225576 235 42 138576 318 41 132576 332 91 117576 177 11 124576 254 11 6 576 169 8 0 576 301 9 7 576 174 6 5 576 157 6 Equally Both Response

29 Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 30 Profile of Sample Household - Survey Results Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Table 28: HouseholdBenefitedfromUBPRP Activities 28: Table (TBA) Traditional Birth Attendant Training Productivity Enhancement Micro HealthInsurance Training rganization Community O (LCHS) Low CostHousingScheme Village ModelSchool Infrastructure (CPI) Community Physical Scholarship Vocational Training (CIF) Community InvestmentFunds -cash) (in kind/Non (IGG) Income GenerationGrants

Yes 21.6 23.2 40.0 .09.03958 42 0 .49.6576 576 94.26 5.74 99.13 576 0.87 207 93.94 207 576 94.20 6.06 5.80 99.00 93.22 207 1.00 369 6.78 94.20 369 207 94.30 5.80 5.70 576 99.20 91.30 369 0.80 8.70 96.16 93.80 3.84 369 6.20 207 94.30 5.70 96.10 3.90 369 96.20 3.80 . 5939439. 0 .79.3576 95.83 4.17 207 95.7 4.3 369 95.9 4.1

97 3 0 0 0 No 84 6 64 34 0 97 02 576 80.20 576 19.73 207 75.94 24.06 83.40 207 16.40 369 74.40 25.60 78.40 369 76.80 576 64.49 35.51 207 72.50 27.50 369 60.00 Poor

oa Yes Total 369

. 812726 97.40 2.60 207 98.1 1.9

Non- No poor

Total

Ye s All Households

No

Total 576

ANNEXES

1 1 Annex I:

2 Determination of Poverty Line 2 Annex II: Village Questionnaire 3 Annex III: 3 Household Questionnaire 4 Annex IV: List of Selected Villages 4

Annex I: Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex I Determination of Poverty Line 33 34 Annex I Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 2. Annual Inflation Rates: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2009 -10, table9.2, -10, page-131. 2. AnnualInflationRates: Economic SurveyofPakistan2009 -9, -10, chapter page 127 EconomicSurveyofPakistan2009 PovertyLine:1. 2005-06 References:

Determina (Projected) 10 - 2009 09 - 2008 08 - 2007 07 - 2006 06 - 2005 FY

tion ofPovertyLine

Annual Rate Inflation

20.8 (%) 7.7 12 9 - Poverty Line

(PKR) 1,504 1,380 1,143 1,020 948 Annex II: Village Questionnaire Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex II Determination of Poverty Line 35 36 Annex II Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

37 Annex II Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 38 Annex II Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

39 Annex II Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

Annex III: Household Questionnaire Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex III Determination of Poverty Line 41 42 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

43 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 44 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

45 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 46 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

47 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 48 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

49 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 50 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

51 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts 52 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts RSPN RSPN

53 Annex III Determination of Poverty Line Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

Annex IV: List of Selected Village Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex IV Determination of Poverty Line 55 SRS APE Union Villag Villages Name Visit Fiel Team O X Councils e Date d SNO SNO SNO Day 2 21 Dari 1 channa muhallah 30- 1 Team Jun A 21 Dari 2 naseerani 30- 1 Team mohallah Jun B 21 Dari 3 basar khan ughai 1- Jul 2 Team A 4 22 Ghouspur 4 ghulam qadir 1- Jul 2 Team shah B 17 15 Gullanpur 5 allah dito solangi 2- Jul 3 Team A 15 Gullanpur 6 mando malik 2-Jul 3 Team B 15 Gullanpur 7 saleem jan khoso 3- Jul 4 Team A 25 17 Sodhi 8 sawan malik 3- Jul 4 Team B 17 Sodhi 9 dikhano dushti 4- Jul 5 Team A 17 Sodhi 10 dakhan school 4-Jul 5 Team B 24 16 Rasool Bux 11 ghulam haider 5-Jul 6 Team chachar khoso C 16 Rasoo l Bux 12 leno ghutalo 5-Jul 6 Team chachar D 14 14 Geehalpur 13 abdul rasool 6-Jul 7 Team jakrani C 16 Rasool Bux 14 jan mehon 6-Jul 7 Team chachar chachar D 14 Geehalpur 15 dili jan jakrani 7-Jul 8 Team Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex IV Determination of Poverty Line C

56 14 Geehalpur 16 saeed ali jakrani 7-Jul 8 Team D 12 13 Badani 17 kutub udin bhutto 8-Jul 9 Team C 13 Badani 18 saiyan dino 8-Jul 9 Team shajan D 13 Badani 19 misri samejo 9-Jul 10 Team C 34 19 Rassaldar 20 suleman ghutalo 9-Jul 10 Team D 19 Rassaldar 21 adab hussain 10- 11 Team bhotalo Jul A 19 Rassaldar 22 riyasat hussain 10- 11 Team Jul B 37 24 Tangwani - 23 jahn muhammad 11 - 12 Team mari Jul A 24 Tangwani - 24 malhar bathain 11 - 12 Team Jul B 31 18 Karampur 25 mehran khan 12- 13 Team digarani Jul A 24 Tangwani - 26 bhuttto malik 12- 13 Team Jul B 18 Karampur 27 bhagar khan 13- 14 Team degarani Jul A 18 Karampur 28 misri lashari 13- 14 Team Jul B 1 20 Akhero 29 abdul karim 14- 15 Team sohrani Jul C 20 Akhero 30 mughal khan 14- 15 Team golo Jul D 20 Akhero 31 soobho Vijh an 15- 16 Team Jul C 5 23 Haibat 32 Perano chachar 15- 16 Team Jul D 23 Haibat 33 sheral abad 16- 17 Team Jul C 23 Haibat 34 jan sunharow 16- 17 Team Jul D 22 Ghouspur 35 sodo chana 17- 18 Team Jul C 22 Ghouspur 36 miani kaiser 17- 18 Team Jul D Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts Annex IV Determination of Poverty Line 57

Baseline Survey Report Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Shikarpur Districts

RSPN

Sindh Rural Support Organisation Rural Support Programmes The PSPs’ aim is to reduce poverty and improve the quality of life of the rural poor by harnessing the potential of pepole to manage their own development, though their own institutions. Survey of Shikarpur District Socio-economic Baseline