Disability Survey in Sangameshwar Block of Ratnagiri District

A Report

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1

General Demographic Tables ...... 3

Table 1: Panchayat-wise Gender Distribution of Respondents ...... 3

Table2: Caste Category-wise Distribution of Households ...... 4

Table3: Availability of Ration Cards and Monthly Family Income ...... 5

Table4: Monthly Family Income of Households covered in BPL 2002-03 list ...... 6

Table5: Respondents’ Education and Age Group Distribution ...... 6

Table6: Education level-wise Occupation of Respondent’s ...... 8

Table7: Type of House and Family Size ...... 9

Table8: Excluded Group and Monthly Family Income ...... 10

Table9: SHG status ...... 11

Disability Tables ...... 12

Table10: Age Group-wise Gender Distribution of the PwDs ...... 12

Table11: Frequency count of families with PwDs ...... 13

Table12: Availability of Disability Certificate ...... 13

Table13: Government assistance received ...... 14

Table14: PwDs as SHG members ...... 15

Table15: Gender-wise categorized PwDs ...... 15

Table16: Age Group-wise categorized PwDs ...... 16

Table17: Category-wise Availability of Certificates ...... 17

Table18: Status of Government assistance to 38 PwDs ...... 18

Table19: Educational Facility to the PwDs in the age group 0 to 30 yrs ...... 19

Table 20: Monthly Income wise distribution of PwDs ...... 20

Introduction

A consorted effort is being made by Government of Maharashtra under National Rural Livelihoods Mission (NRLM) to promote livelihood options for PwD in their programme through decentralized planning by formulating inclusive livelihood plan for PwDs. Implementation of this inclusive strategy would not only enhance the livelihood options for PwDs but also form a role model for other districts. The Maharashtra State Rural Livelihoods Mission has been constituted under the aegis of the National Rural Livelihoods Mission in Maharashtra in July 2011 with the support of the Government of India, the World Bank and the Government of Maharashtra. The Mission aims at eradication of rural poverty by building sustainable institutions of poor and ultimately leading them to sustainable livelihoods. The major objective of MSRLM is; “To design and develop ‘Strategy for Social Inclusion by mapping exclusion’ in general and specifically roll-out ‘Disability and Livelihood Interventions’ in pilot districts with the support of MSRLM’s State, district and block teams”.

In this regard, a pilot study has been undertaken by MSRLM. For this pilot study of “Inclusion of PwDs in MSRLM program”, selected districts from the above mentioned focus districts of the state have been selected. They are – Jalna, Ratnagiri and Yavatmal. The rationale for the selection of Ratnagiri district is that it is a coastal district located in the Kokan region in the southwestern part of state on the Arabian Sea coast. It ranks moderate on HDI (22 out of 35). The major reason for selecting this district is to gain insights into the unique challenges of livelihood of PwDs in coastal area.

Sangameshwar and Ratnagiri block were chosen after a consultation with Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zillah Parishad. The first step towards the inclusion process was enumerating PwDs in the villages so as to increase their access to basic entitlements and further rolling of livelihood programmes. Instead of undertaking the survey in the entire district, it was decided that 10 Gram Panchayats (Ambedkhurd, Dhamni, Golvali, Karambale tarf Sangameshwar, Kondasurde, Lovale, Navdi, Rajwadi, Shivne and Terye Burambi) comprising of 13 villages (Ambedkhurd, Dhamni, Golvali, Jambhulwadi, Karambale tarf Sangameshwar, Kondasurde, Kondambed, Lovale, Navdi, Rajwadi, Rampeth, Shivne and Terye) to be selected for door to door survey on pilot basis. This decision was taken in order to complete the survey before the onset of monsoon.

Identification of surveyors and data entry operators was the next step. Anganwadi Workers, Asha workers and SHG members were chosen as surveyors. The major reason for their selection as surveyors was that they have developed a good rapport with the villagers and the villagers also feel comfort in communicating with them. While identifying the Data entry operators, the main prerequisite was that

1 he/she should be well versed with computer operations. In case of Sangameshwar, the Data Entry Operators chosen already had an experience of digitizing the survey data. 3 days training programme for the surveyors and data entry operators was organized and conducted. This included classroom training, field practical training and feedback session. Problems faced while enumerating PwDs and Interview techniques were the major topics covered in the training. The data entry operators received classroom training as well as hands on with the filled in questionnaires received from the field visit. Code sheet using MS Access was designed for data entry purpose. Out of the identified surveyors, 5 were selected as supervisors, who were specifically trained regarding the first level data editing before handing over the filled in questionnaires to the data entry operators.

The survey began on 20th May 2013 and was completed on 30th May 2013. Each surveyor was given the list of households provided by the block office for conducting the survey. The data entry operators started digitizing the survey data simultaneously on daily submission of filled in questionnaires by the surveyors. Continuous handholding support was provided to the operators and their queries were resolved. Data entry was completed on 18th June 2013 following which analysis was started. The basic and factual analysis in a tabular format was submitted on 12th July 2013. It is remarkable to note that the errors occurred in digitized data were negligible.

The major task was of placing the enumerated PwDs in specific disability category. The method followed for categorization was that the respondents were asked various questions related to functional difficulties faced by them or their family members. These responses were noted and then labeled specific disability category (as these difficulties were the symptoms of that specific category) and then disability category-wise totals were computed. Categorization of PwDs was done based on the categories as per the Rights of PwDs bill 2012. Detailed Report with more in depth analysis with interpretation is being presented. Interpretation of each of the table is done in a systematic way consisting of 2 steps namely Findings and Inferences. This would give the detailed interpretation of the tables.

General Demographic Tables

Table 1: Panchayat-wise Gender Distribution of Respondents Gender Distribution of Respondents

20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Female Male

Sr. No. Panchayat Female Male Total 198 170 368 1. Ambedkhurd (53.80) (46.20) (10.30) 115 327 442 2. Dhamni (26.02) (73.98) (12.37) 187 239 426 3. Golvali (43.90) (56.10) (11.93) 139 102 241 4. Karambale tarf Sangameshwar (57.68) (42.32) (6.75) 141 107 248 5. Kondasurde (56.85) (43.15) (6.94) 208 176 384 6. Lovale (54.17) (45.863) (10.75) 197 362 559 7. Navadi (35.24) (64.76) (15.65) 112 62 174 8. Rajwadi (64.37) (35.63) (4.87) 78 176 254 9. Shivne (30.71) (69.29) (7.11) 188 288 476 10. Terye (Burambi) (39.50) (60.50) (13.33) 1563 2009 3572 Total (43.76) (56.24) (100) Findings Total households covered under survey are 3572 out of which 56.24% were Male interviewee and 43.76% were female. Female respondents were highest in Rajwadi whereas Male respondents in Dhamni.

Inferences Satisfactory proportion of gender distribution maintained while conducting the survey.

Table2: Caste Category-wise Distribution of Households Sr. 3.42 Caste Category-wise Household Caste Category Total % No. 2.11 Distribution 8.82 1. General (GEN) 951 26.62 GEN 2. Other Backward Classes (OBC) 2107 58.99 29.74 Not Available 3. Scheduled Caste (SC) 295 8.26 OBC 0.39 4. Scheduled Tribe (ST) 92 2.58 55.53 SC 5. Vimukt Jati-Nomadic Tribes (VJ/NT) 105 2.94 ST 6. 0.62 VJ/NT Not Available 22 Total 3572 100.00

Findings Majority (58.99%) of the households fall in the OBC category followed by general (26.62%) category.

Inferences 92 households (2.58%) belong to Scheduled tribe and 105 (2.94%) belong to Vimukt Jati - Nomadic Tribe. This reveals even though compare to general population and the scheduled caste, the tribal population is very small in the block, their existence in the block is noticed. As per Census 2011, Ratnagiri has 4.26% SC population and 1.4% as the ST population in the district (Ratnagiri has 0.77% share of SC population and 0.21% share of ST population of Maharashtra. It stands the third lowest among the other districts in the SC population). Compare to these, the block figures are almost double the district figures.

Table3: Availability of Ration Cards and Monthly Family Income

Availability of Ration Cards Vs Monthly Family Income 100 90 80 70 No Card 60 50 Red 40 White 30 20 Yellow 10 Not Available 0 <2000 2000-5000 5000-10000 >=10000 Not Available

Ration Card Monthly Family Income (in `) Type <2000 2000-5000 5000-10000 >=10000 Not Available Total 47 No Card 19 20 0 5 3 (1.32) 650 962 6 111 83 1812 Red (35.87) (53.09) (0.33) (6.13) (4.58) (50.73) 313 White 5 28 0 268 12 (8.76) 1314 Yellow 833 443 0 9 29 (36.79) 86 Not Available 24 25 0 10 27 (2.41) 1531 1478 6 403 Total 154 (4.31) 3572 (42.86) (41.38) (0.17) (11.28) Findings Only 47 families do not posses Ration Card and out of these, 19 belong to the category of monthly family income below ` 2000/-. 1812 households i.e. 50.73% have red card with almost 89% of the total families having monthly income less than ` 5000/-. 1314 families (36.79%) have Yellow card. It’s surprising to note that there are 5 families with income less than ` 2000/- having white ration card and 117 families (6%) in spite of income being more than ` 5000/- posses Red ration card. It is found that 3009 families (84.24%) have monthly income below ` 5000/- and out of these, 1531 families (42.86%) have income below ` 2000/-. Inferences It is observed that around 85% of the families have monthly income upto ` 5000/- with 31% of the families having 5 or more than 5 members each. For these families to meet their monthly financial requirements is a challenge.

Table4: Monthly Family Income of Households covered in BPL 2002-03 list Household in BPL 2002-03 list Monthly Family Not Availability of Ration Cards Vs Monthly Family Income (in `) No Yes Available Total Income 710 820 1 1531 60 <2000 50 (19.88) (22.96) (0.03) (42.86) 40 1022 453 3 1478 2000-5000 30 (28.61) (12.68) (0.08) (41.38) 20 5 1 0 6 10 5000-10000 0 (0.14) (0.03) (0.00) (0.17) 393 10 0 403 >=10000 (11.00) (0.28) (0.00) (11.28) 118 31 5 154 Not Available Yes Not Available (3.30) (0.87) (0.14) (4.31) 2248 1315 9 3572

Total (62.93) (36.81) (0.25) (100.00)

Findings There are 710 households with family income below ` 2000/- and still not enlisted in the BPL 2002-03 list whereas 464 households having income more ` 2000 are covered in the list. It’s equally surprising that 10 families whose monthly income is more than `10000 have also found place in the list.

Inferences Based on the findings the list prepared by District Authorities seem to be flawed.

Table5: Respondents’ Education and Age Group Distribution

Age Group-wise Education Education levels and Age Groups 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 Illiterate <10th 10-12 Std Under Graduate Post Not Available Post Graduate & Above Std. Graduate Graduate Graduate Under Graduate & Above 10-12 Std <10th Std. Illiterate 81-90 71-80 61-70 51-60 41-50 31-40 21-30 11-20

Education Level Age Group <10th 10-12 Under Post Graduate Not (in yrs) Illiterate Std. Std Graduate Graduate & Above Available Total 11-20 2 30 26 6 4 0 0 68 21-30 23 123 71 4 16 4 1 242 31-40 116 426 154 4 24 8 4 736 41-50 242 415 152 3 18 12 3 845 51-60 288 287 97 2 13 9 4 700 61-70 268 204 47 1 6 2 2 530 71-80 133 86 25 0 0 1 0 245 81-90 28 18 7 0 0 0 0 53 Not Available 51 52 27 0 7 6 10 153 1151 1641 606 20 88 42 24 Total (32.22) (45.94) (16.97) (0.56) (2.46) (1.18) (0.67) 3572 671 1266 606 19 75 33 12 2573 16-60 (58.30) (77.15) (82.01) (95.00) (85.23) (78.57) (50.00) (72.03) Findings 1151 (32.22%) respondents are found to be illiterate and among the literates 1641 (45.84%) had education below 10th standard. Only 21.16 respondents (756) possess educational qualification above 10th standard. Working age group (16-60 years) comprises 72.03% of the total respondents which includes 95% (19) of the total under graduates and 85.23% (75) of the graduates. 58.30% (671) of the total illiterates are from the working age group. Also 77.15% (1266) of the total respondents who studied below 10th standard fall in the working age group.

Inferences There seem to be a very high level of illiteracy including below 10th Std (75.28%) in the working age group. This reduces their chances of getting employed both in government and private sector. Table above depicts that only 130 respondents (3.64%) are Graduate and Post Graduate which means that hardly 3.64% are eligible for government employment with higher salary packages that support to improve their standard of living. Out of these 130 respondents, 108 belong to the working age-group i.e. 3.02% of the total 3572 respondents posses higher educational qualification (Graduate and Post Graduate). Hence if this % would have been high, then the number of individuals employed in government sector or self employed would have increased.

Table6: Education level-wise Occupation of Respondent’s

Age Group-wise Occupation

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Agriculture Farming & Other Pvt. Self Gov. House Work Unemployed labour Agriculture Contract Employee Employee Employee Labour

PostGraduate&Above Undergraduate 10-12 Std <10th Std. Illiterate

Education Levels Occupation <10th 10-12 Under Post Graduate Not Category Illiterate Graduate Total Std. Std Graduate & Above Available Agriculture 202 248 46 0 1 1 0 498 labour (40.56) (49.80) (9.24) (0.00) (0.20) (0.20) (0.00) (13.94) Farming & 399 612 78 6 7 0 5 1107 Agriculture (36.04) (55.28) (7.05) (0.54) (0.63) (0.00) (0.45) (30.99) Other Contract 18 80 51 1 16 5 0 171 Labour (10.53) (46.78) (29.82) (0.58) (9.36) (2.92) (0.00) (4.79) 19 50 38 4 9 7 0 127 Pvt. Employee (14.96) (39.37) (29.92) (3.15) (7.09) (5.51) (0.00) (3.56) 110 270 162 4 19 5 2 572 Self Employee (19.23) (47.20) (28.32) (0.70) (3.32) (0.87) (0.35) (16.01) 4 19 78 2 21 7 1 132 Gov. Employee (3.03) (14.39) (59.09) (1.52) (15.91) (5.30) (0.76) (3.70) 190 197 81 2 10 4 1 485 House Work (39.18) (40.62) (16.70) (0.41) (2.06) (0.82) (0.21) (13.58) 203 150 57 1 5 3 1 420 Unemployed (48.33) (35.71) (13.57) (0.24) (1.19) (0.71) (0.24) (11.76) 6 15 15 0 0 10 14 60 Not Available (10.00) (25.00) (25.00) (0.00) (0.00) (16.67) (23.33) (1.68) 1151 1641 606 20 88 42 24 Grand Total 3572 (32.22) (45.94) (16.97) (0.56) (2.46) (1.18) (0.67) Findings The above table reveals Farming & Agriculture is the major occupation (30.99%) of the respondents followed by Self Employment (16.01%) and Agriculture Labour (13.94%) being the 3rd highest. 485 respondents (13.58%) are engaged in house-work and 420 (11.76%) are unemployed. On an average education level of 98.99% of the respondents engaged in Farming are either studied upto 12th standard or below (inclusive of illiterates). Similar proportion is seen in the case of Other Contract Labour category with 149 respondents (87.14%) out of 171 having education upto 12th Standard or below. Total Unemployed are 420 (11.76%) of the total 3572 respondents.

Inferences It is inferred that out of the total 88 Graduates 40 of them are either self employed or in government job. There is a great degree of inclination towards urban job, which may be due to media hype

Table7: Type of House and Family Size No. of Type of House family Semi Not House Type and Family Size Kaccha Pakka Total members Pakka Available 100% 700 634 812 58 2204 90% <5 80% (31.76) (28.77) (36.84) (2.63) (61.70) 70% 5 18 27 3 53 >10 60% (9.43) (33.96) (50.94) (5.66) (1.48) 50% 0 1 0 0 1 40% 10 30% (0.00) (100.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.03) 20% 1 1 0 0 2 10% 5 0% (50.00) (50.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.06) 369 363 492 22 1246 5-10 (29.61) (29.13) (39.49) (1.77) (34.88) Not 2 2 10 52 66 Kaccha Not Available Pakka SemiPakka Available (3.03) (3.03) (15.15) (78.79) (1.85) 1077 1019 1341 135 3572 Total (30.15) (28.53) (37.54) (3.78) (100.00)

Findings While it’s noteworthy that 61.70% of the households have family size less than 5 members, there are 1246 (34.88%) families with 5 to 10 members. Out of these 1246 families, only 492 families (39.49%) live in Pakka house whereas 732 families (58.75%) have house type either kaccha or semi pakka. It is pleasing to note that 45 families (84.90%) with members more than 10 live in Semi Pakka or Pakka house. Out of the total 3572 households, 2096 (58.68%) families live in either kaccha or semi pakka house. Only 1341 (37.54%) families have Pakka house.

Inferences Majority of the families (58.69%) families reside in Kaccha or Semi-Pakka house.

Table8: Excluded Group and Monthly Family Income

Excluded Group members and Family Income

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Deserted Divorcee Separated Widow Not Applicable Women

<2000 2000-5000 5000-10000 Not Available

Monthly Family Income (in `) Excluded Group Not <2000 2000-5000 5000-10000 >=10000 Total Available 7 5 0 1 2 15 Deserted Women (46.67) (33.33) (0.00) (6.67) () (0.42) 5 1 0 1 0 7 Divorcee (71.43) (14.29) (0.00) (14.29) (0.00) (0.20) 3 2 0 0 0 5 Separated (60.00) (40.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) (0.14) 369 238 1 45 22 675 Widow (54.67) (35.26) (0.15) (6.67) () (18.90) 1147 1232 5 356 130 2870 Not Applicable (39.97) (42.93) (0.17) (12.40) () (80.35) 1531 1478 6 403 154 3572 Total (42.86) (11.28) (0.17) (11.28) (4.31) (100.00) Findings There are 675 (18.90%) widows in the 3572 families surveyed. Though the percentage of deserted women, divorcee and separated women found is small, their presence has been figure out through the survey. Also it is noted that majority of the widows (89.93%) belong to the families with monthly income upto ` 5000/-.

Inferences While 47 families (6.70%) consisting of a member from excluded group belong to the income category more than ` 10000/-, there 630 families (89.74%) with excluded group member whose monthly family income is upto ` 5000/-.

Table9: SHG status Active SHGs and Members Present 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

% SHG member No. of active SHGs

No. of Minimum No. of SHG Non SHG Not % SHG Sr. Panchayat active member per Panchayat member Available member No. SHGs F M T 1. Ambedkhurd 2 8 4 12 356 0 3.26 2. Dhamni 14 13 71 84 358 0 19.01 3. Golvali 14 32 47 79 347 0 18.55 Karambale tarf 55 22.82 4. 8 Sangameshwar 33 22 186 0 5. Kondasurde 6 32 27 59 189 0 23.79 6. Lovale 6 27 34 61 323 0 15.89 7. Navadi 0 1 1 2 556 1 0.36 8. Rajwadi 10 53 21 74 100 42.53 9. Shivne 13 46 85 131 123 51.58 10. Terye (Burambi) 13 68 75 143 336 30.04 313 387 700 2871 1 Total (44.71) (55.29) (19.60) (80.40) (0.03) Findings There are 67 SHGs active and distributed over 10 Gram Panchayat. Compared to the total families surveyed Panchayat-wise, Shivne Panchayat has the highest number of SHG members followed by Rajwadi and Terye (Burambi). Navdi and Ambedkhurd Panchayats have very negligible SHG members.

Inferences There are only 2 families from Navdi have SHG members (SHG name is not mentioned). Only 19.60% (700) of the families have joined some or the other SHG which means 2871 families i.e. 80.38% are not a member of any SHG.

Disability Tables

Table10: Age Group-wise Gender Distribution of the PwDs Sr. Gender Age Group No. F M Not Available Total 11 Age Group-wise PwDs 1. 0 to 6 6 5 0 (1.45) 46 2. 7 to 14 16 30 0 70 (6.05) 29 60 3. 15 to 20 13 16 0 (3.82) 50 60 4. 21 to 30 25 35 0 40 (7.89) 66 5. 31 to 40 32 34 0 30 (8.68) 239 20 6. 41 to 60 128 111 0 (31.45) 10 172 7. 61 to 70 90 82 0 0 (22.63) 124 0 to 6 7 to 14 15 to 21 to 31 to 41 to 61 to 71 & 8. 71 & above 59 65 0 (16.32) 20 30 40 60 70 above 13 9. Not Available 4 5 4 (1.71) 392 Female Male 10. 16 to 60 197 195 0 (51.58) Total (excluding 373 383 4 760 Sr. No. 10) (49.08) (50.39) (0.53) (100.00)

Findings Total 760 PwDs were enumerated in the survey conducted in 10 Gram Panchayats covering 3572 households. Although majority i.e. 70.65% of PwDs (537) belong to the age group 21 to 70 years, it is equally important to note that there are 11 PwDs (1.45%) in the 0 to 6 age group. Out of the total 760 PwDs, 392 (51.58%) fall in the working age group.

Inferences Table above reveals there are 135 PwDs (17.76%) are yearning for education facility and 392 PwDs (51.58%) in search of livelihood.

Table11: Frequency count of families with PwDs

% families with PwDs Sr. No. of PwDs No. of Percentage 0.25 1.85 0.03 16.71 No. in a family families 4 1. 4 1 0.03 3 2. 3 9 0.25 81.16 2 3. 2 66 1.85 1 4. 1 597 16.71 5. 0 2899 81.61

Total 3572 100.00

Findings From the data above it is alarming to note that as high as 18.84% (673) of households reported having disabled member in the family. Out of these 673, 597 families (16.71%) have reported having only one PwD whereas there are 66 families with 2 PwDs each and 9 families having 3 PwDs each.

Inferences It is observed that 2.13% of the families have more than 1 PwD. Even though this percent is less its existence itself, is of much importance.

Table12: Availability of Disability Certificate

Disability Not Female Male Total Availability of Disability Certificate Certificate Available 358 354 4 716 0.79 5 No (95.98) (92.43) (100.00) (94.21) No Not 5 1 0 6 Available (1.34) (0.26) (0.00) (0.79) 94.21 Not Available 10 28 0 38 Yes Yes (2.68) (7.31) (0.00) (5.00) Total 373 383 4 760

Findings Out of the total 760 PwDs, only 38 (5.00%) of them have the disability certificate. As compare to male PwDs with disability certificate, only 26.32% of WwDs have the disability certificate.

Inferences A very low percent (5%) of PwDs posses disability certificate which shows the gap between viz PwD and government services.

Table13: Government assistance received Government Assistance Received 3.5 3.16 3.0 2.5 1.45 2.0 1.18 1.5 0.92 0.79 0.26 1.0 0.13 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0

Sr. No. Assistance Type Female Male Total 16 31 47 1. Assistance Received (4.29) (8.09) (6.18) 2 0 2 2. MGNREGA (0.54) (0.00) (0.26) 9 15 24 3. IAY (2.41) (3.92) (3.16) 1 8 9 4. 3% Reservation (0.27) (2.09) (1.18) 1 10 11 5. Pension (0.27) (2.61) (1.45) 4 3 7 6. Scholarship (1.07) (0.78) (0.92) 0 0 0 7. Loan (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 1 1 8. Crutches (0.00) (0.26) (0.13) 2 4 6 9. Tri-cycle/ Wheelchair (0.54) (1.04) (0.79) 0 0 0 10. Artificial Limb (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) 0 0 0 11. Hearing Aid (0.00) (0.00) (0.00) Findings Only 47 PwDs (6.18%) mentioned that they had received the government assistance. 707 PwDs (93.03%) clearly mentioned that they had not received any assistance from the government and 6 PwDs remained silent.

Inferences It is inferred that not a single PwD is benefited by the loan scheme. Even though there are PwDs belonging to locomotor and hearing impaired categories, none of them have been provided with hearing aid or artificial limb.

Table14: PwDs as SHG members

Sex PwDs as SHG members SHG Not Total member Female Male Available 0.13 558 26.45 No 273 283 2 No (73.42) 73.42 Not 1 Not 0 1 0 Available (0.13) Available 201 Yes Yes 100 99 2 (26.45) Total 373 383 4 760

Findings The table above depicts that 201 PwDs (26.45%) are members of some or the other SHG with negligible difference in gender distribution.

Inferences It is remarkable to note that above 25% of the total PwDs enumerated are SHG members. Such SHGs are set examples of Inclusion of PwDs in not only microfinance but other social sector as well.

Table15: Gender-wise categorized PwDs Gender Sr. Disability Category Not No. F M Total Category-wise PwDs 27.76 Available 30 6 1. Autism 3 3 0 25 19.74 (0.79) 20 13.42 86 15 11.32 11.05 2. Hearing 50 35 1 7.24 (11.32) 10 3.55 2.50 2.63 0.79 27 5 3. Learning 6 21 0 0 (3.55) 84 4. Locomotor 39 45 0 (11.05) 19 5. Low Vision 11 8 0 (2.50) 55 6. Mental Illness 24 30 1 (7.24) 102 7. Mental Retardation 52 50 0 (13.42) 211 8. Multiple 101 109 1 (27.76) 20 9. Speech 5 15 0 (2.63) 150 10. Visual 82 67 1 (19.74)

Findings The population of multiple disability is highest (27.76%) followed by Visual with 19.74% and Mental Retardation with 13.42%. A point to be noted that together the figure of multiple disability and Visual constitutes almost 50% of the total disabled population. It is observed that 11.32% PwDs are hearing impaired and 84 PwDs (11.05%) have locomotor disability. 6 autistic people are found in the block. Also 55 PwDs (6.97%) with mental illness are observed.

Inferences The respondents were asked various questions related to functional difficulties faced by them or their family members. These responses were then labeled specific disability category (as these difficulties were the symptoms of that specific category) and then disability category-wise totals were computed. The functional assessment will further clarify the extent of difficulties and potential for residual use, factor most important for livelihoods planning.

Table16: Age Group-wise categorized PwDs Age group-wise Disability Categories 100% Visual Disability Speech Disability 80% Multiple Disability 60% Mental Retardation 40% Mental Illness Low Vision 20% Locomotor 0% Learning Disability Hearing Disability Autism

Age Groups (in yrs) Disability Category 71 & Not 16-60 Total 0-6 7-14 15-20 21-30 31-40 41-60 61-70 above Available Autism 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 Hearing Disability 0 2 0 8 7 32 19 17 1 47 86 Learning Disability 0 7 4 3 4 9 0 0 0 20 27 Locomotor 0 2 4 2 9 34 23 9 0 49 84 Low Vision 0 0 0 1 5 4 4 5 0 10 19 Mental Illness 1 7 3 16 6 12 4 5 1 37 55 Mental Retardation 3 6 3 19 18 21 16 16 0 60 102 Multiple Disability 5 6 4 6 5 59 65 54 7 74 211 Speech Disability 2 5 4 3 4 2 0 0 0 13 20 Visual Disability 0 6 6 2 8 66 41 18 3 81 150

Total 11 46 29 60 66 239 172 124 13 392 760

% out of total 760 1.45 6.05 3.82 7.89 8.68 31.45 22.63 16.32 1.71 51.58 PwDs Findings The age group 41 to 60 years have highest percentage (31.45%) of PwDs (239) followed by 172 PwDs in the age group 61 to 70 years. 11 PwDs fall in the age group 0 to 6 years and 46 in the age group 7 to 14 i.e. total 57 PwDs are of the school going age group. While observing category-wise maximum, out of the total 6 autistic children, 5 belong to the age group 7 to 14 years. Visual, hearing, locomotor and multiple disabilities is observed commonly in the PwDs above 40 years of age. Mental illness and mental retardation is cited maximum in the PwDs aged between 21 to 60 years of age.

Inferences While looking at the working age group, PwDs with Visual and Multiple disabilities are at the highest with 20.41% (80) followed by Mental retardation as the second highest with 15.31% (60) of the total PwDs. Locomotor and Hearing disability with 11.73% respectively stand as the third highest. With highest number of PwDs in the category of multiple disability, the livelihoods planning would pose a greater degree of challenge.

Table17: Category-wise Availability of Certificates

Category-wise PwDs with Disability Certificate Disability Certificate Disability Not Categories No Yes Total 45 Available 40 6 35 Autism 1 0 5 (13.16) 30 86 25 Hearing 84 0 2 (5.26) 20 27 15 Learning 27 0 0 (0.00) 10 84 5 Locomotor 67 1 16 (42.11) 0 19 Low Vision 19 0 0 (0.00) 55 Mental Illness 49 0 6 (15.79) 102 Mental Retardation 95 1 6 (15.79) 211 Multiple 208 3 0 (0.00) 20 Speech 19 0 1 (2.63) 150 Visual 147 1 2 (5.26)

Grand Total 716 6 38 760

Findings The table above describes that Out of the 38 PwDs who have the disability certificate, 16 of them (42.11%) have locomotor disability followed by 6 each from Mental illness and mental retardation category respectively. 5 are autistic and 2 each from hearing and visual impaired possess disability certificate.

Inferences Though it is observed that 6 autistic children have received disability certificate, in reality they may have been placed under the category “mental retardation” especially given the fact that diagnosing autism require greater degree of expertise which the district or block hospital seldom has such super- specializations .

Table18: Status of Government assistance to 38 PwDs

Govt. assistance received by 38 PwDs 30 21.05 18.42 20 15.79 15.79 13.16

10 2.63 2.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0

Government Assistance / Schemes No. of PwDs % Govt. assistance 15 60.53 MGNREGA 1 2.63 IAY 6 15.79 3% Job Reservation 8 21.05 Pension 6 15.79 Scholarship 7 18.42 Loan 0 0.00 Crutches 1 2.63 Tricycle / Wheelchair 5 13.16 Artificial Limb 0 0.00 Hearing Aid 0 0.00

Findings Table reveals that out of the 38 PwDs who have the disability certificate, 23 of them (60.53%) have received government assistance rest i.e. 15 PwDs have not received any type of government assistance even though they posses disability certificate. Kind of assistance received by these 23 PwDs include majorly Job Reservation (8 PwDs), Scholarship (7 PwDs), Pension (6 PwDs), Crutches & Tricycle/ Wheelchair (6 PwDs) and house under IAY (6 PwDs). Only 1 PwD is benefitted by the MGNREGA. None of the PwD has been taken loan. Further from the table, it is observed that there are 86 PwDs (11.32%) with hearing disability and 84 PwDs (11.05%) with locomotor disability. Even though large number of PwDs with these disabilities is enumerated none of them have received hearing aid or any other personal assistive device. Inferences It is seen that amongst the 23 PwDs who have benefitted from the Govt. schemes, there are at least 10 PwDs have taken multiple benefits in accordance with their entitlements.

Table19: Educational Facility to the PwDs in the age group 0 to 30 yrs No Not Disability Categories facility Applicable Total Autism 5 1 6 Hearing 10 0 10 Learning 14 0 14 Locomotor 8 0 8 Low Vision 1 0 1 Mental Illness 27 0 27 Mental Retardation 27 4 31 Multiple 20 1 21 Speech 14 0 14 Visual 14 0 14 140 6 146 Findings None of the PwD has received any type of educational facility either in the inclusive school or special school.

Inferences CWSN completely deprived of their right to education. One of the reasons could be their lack of awareness in addition to the unavailability of facilities. However a point to be noted that under the RTE all children are to be enrolled and educated as a matter of right and the ZP to ensure that this happens. Needless to say that the authority has explanations’ to give regarding this prevailing conditions.

Table 20: Monthly Income wise distribution of PwDs Monthly Family Income Disability Categories <2000 2000-5000 5000-10000 >=10000 Not Available Total Autism 1 5 6

Hearing 45 34 5 2 86

Learning 9 13 1 3 1 27 Locomotor 39 27 11 7 84

Low Vision 6 11 2 19

Mental Illness 23 23 6 3 55

Mental Retardation 46 44 10 2 102

Multiple 112 82 11 6 211

Speech 13 4 2 1 20

Visual 76 60 5 9 150 370 303 1 55 31 Total (48.68) (39.87) (0.13) (7.24) (4.08) 760 Findings 48.68% of the household with PwD have the monthly income less than `2000/- and 39.87% of the households belong to the category of monthly income between `2000/- to `5000/-. This means that 88.55% of the households with PwD as family member posses monthly income less than `5000/-.

Inferences Above table reveals the relationship between PwDs and poverty. Being deprived of government services and their rights, PwDs hardly have any other options left with them. The family continues to reel under deprivation due to duel disadvantage.