P.nagarjuna .dissertation

THE MID-DAY MEALS PROGRAMME IN PRIMARY AND
HIGH SCHOOLS
A STUDY ON
RAGHUNADHAPALEM MANDAL OF KHAMMAM DISTRICT
DISSERTATION Submitted to Kakatiya University in Partial
fulfillment of the Requirement for the Award of the Degree of
“MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK (M.S.W)”
BY
K. RAGHAVENDRA
M.S.W – (2014-2016)
Hall Ticket No: 15027A0527
Under the supervision of
M.VEERANJANEYULU
Department of Social Work
University P.G College, KHAMMAM
Kakatiya University, WARANGAL – 506 001
2014 - 2016

DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this dissertation entitled “THE MID-DAY MEALS
PROGRAMME IN PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS A study on
Raghunadhapalem Mandal of Khammam District” is my original work and have
not been submitted elsewhere for any other degree.
This dissertation to be submitted to KAKATIYA UNIVERSITY in partial
fulfillment of the requirement for the MASTER DEGREE IN SOCIAL WORK.
Date: (K. RAGHAVENDRA)
Place: KHAMMAM Hall Ticket No: 15027A0527

C E R T I F I C A T E
This is to certify that THE MID-DAY MEALS PROGRAMME IN
PRIMARY AND HIGH SCHOOLS A study on Raghunadha palem
Mandal of Khammam District”is the bonafide work done by
K. RAGHAVENDRA a student of master of Social Work, UPGC,KU,
KAHMMAM (2014-2016)under my supervision.
Date: SUPERVISOR
Place: KHAMMAM M.VEERANJANEYULU

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
• I wish to express my deep gratitude to, Professor T.SRINIVAS Head of the
Department Social work Kakatiya University, Hanamkonda, Warangal, for
giving me an opportunity to conduct this research study.
• I owe my sincere thanks to Dr.M.Pushpalatha, Principal, UPGC. KU,
KHAMMAM, for her kind cooperation & encouragement
• I take this opportunity to express my grateful thanks to Mr.
M.VEERANJANEYULU, faculty Supervisor, who has been constantly evincing
keen interest in the present study, and also for lending his encouragement and
valuable guidance.
• I also thank to our beloved faculty member SK.NASEEMA for her support and
guidance, to fulfill this dissertation
• It won’t be fair on my part if I won’t thank to my parents, JAYARAJU,
BHADRAMMA for their life time love and affection on me to shape me
strong and complete this dissertation
• Last but not least, I would like to thank equally to my M.S.W friends as well as
my Parents who extensively rendered their support in successful completion of
my dissertation.
K. RAGHAVENDRA

CONTENTS
Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………………01
List of tables ………………………………………………………………………01
CHAPTER – I
Introduction ……………………………………………………..01
Definitions……………….. ……………………………………..01
Objectives of the study ………………………………………...01
Statement of problem ……………………………………….....01
CHAPTER – II Review of the literature…….…………………………………..01
CHAPTER – III Methods of Research……………...…………………………….01
(a). Tools of data collection
(b).objectives
(c). type of sampling
(d). hypothesis
CHAPTER – IV Data Analysis and interpretation ……………………………....01
CHAPTER– V Major Findings, conclusions & suggestions…………………….01
Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………01
Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………………01

INTRODUCTION
The National Employment Guarantee scheme (MNREGS) was implemented in 200 India and
over one year since it began in another 130 districts. Further, it has been more than three years since
the National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP), the pilot scheme launched by the government as
a precursor to the NREGA, was implemented in 200 districts. The debate began then and continues
till date about the feasibility and utility of the MNREGS. The topic spurs an interest in everybody
from all walks of life largely because of the enormity of scale. The scheme is the largest of its kind
anywhere in the world and thus involves a proportionate amount of resources. However, what is truly
large about the scheme that more or less dwarfs the quantum of resources being put into the scheme
is the number of lives that it intends to touch and the way in which it intends to touch them.
The MNREGS’ coverage has been expanded from 330 districts to all 604 districts of India
beginning April, 2008. As the scheme is implemented throughout the country and as works begin
everywhere, the magnitude of lives that will be touched by it will inevitably be massive. However,
what is uncertain is the actual impact of the Act on the lives and livelihoods of people. Whether the
Act actually makes a lasting impact on these millions of people it proposes to touch will depend on
the extent to which the nation is able to extract the developmental potential of the Act. In this regard,
as we move on the path towards nationwide implementation of NREGA it becomes imperative that
we take stock of the experience so far in order to learn from the successes as well as failures.
This paper attempts to do just that. There have been a number of studies that look at the
implementation of the act in terms of employment created as well as issues of wages, processes of
implementation, feedback mechanisms, etc. However, with itineration in the villages. This paper tries
to bridge this lacuna by attempting to study the effectiveness of the assets created under the act.
At a time when the world is facing one of the worst food crises ever witnessed, it becomes
extremely pertinent to look at the effectiveness of the MNREGS in providing both short and long
term food security through work on improvement of agriculture and provision of water. Even the
origins of the MNREGS lie in the drought relief programmes of the 19th
century which helped
provide purchasing power to agricultural workers in drought stricken areas. Such a scheme would
help curb starvation and hunger since the problem was localized and a shortage in a drought stricken
area simply needed to be met by surpluses from elsewhere. A Food-for-Work scheme would then

solve both problems of selection and transfer of purchasing power to the needy. The problem today is
much different. The shortage is no longer localized and therefore a mere transfer of purchasing
power would not lead to a solution. Moreover, with an ever increasing strain on our meager
resources, we need to take measures that will empower people to take care of their own needs rather
than depend on external agencies. MNREGS has the potential to do just that by providing people
what they most need/desire at the village level. In such a situation, it becomes extremely crucial to
assess the impact of the MNREGS, both in providing short and long term relief.
There have been numerous success stories of economic and environmental regeneration
where year-round productive employment has been generated as a result of community or NGO
efforts. Such success has not been found in the government employment guarantee schemes of the
past. Yet, the potential of MNREGS in reaching the rural poor is unsurpassed as it is now being
implemented in all the districts of India. There is thus an urgent need to study how such success
stories can be made part of the employment guarantee schemes, what are the lacunae and drawbacks
and how they can be addressed.
Using primary data collected from one Mandal Kalluru in khammam District in
Telangana, we shall assess the potential of them NREGS in providing food and livelihood security.
Over one year since it began in another 130 districts. Further, it has been more than three years since
the National Food for Work Programme (NFFWP), the pilot scheme launched by the government as
a precursor to the NREGA, was implemented in 200 districts. The debate began then and continues
till date about the feasibility and utility of the MNREGs. The topic spurs an interest in everybody
from all walks of life largely because of the enormity of scale. The scheme is the largest of its kind
anywhere in the world and thus involves a proportionate amount of resources. However, what is truly
large about the scheme that more or less dwarfs the quantum of resources being put into the scheme
is the number of lives that it intends to touch and the way in which it intends to touch them. .
The MNREGS’s coverage has been expanded from 330 districts to all 604 districts of India
beginning April, 2008. As the scheme is implemented throughout the country and as works begin
everywhere, the magnitude of lives that will be touched by it will inevitably be massive. However,
what is uncertain is the actual impact of the Act on the lives and livelihoods of people. Whether the
Act actually makes a lasting impact on these millions of people it proposes to touch will depend on
the extent to which the nation is able to extract the developmental potential of the Act. In this regard,

as we move on the path towards nationwide implementation of NREGA it becomes imperative that
we take stock of the experience so far in order to learn from the successes as well as failures.
This paper attempts to do just that. There have been a number of studies that look at the
implementation of the act in terms of employment created as well as issues of wages, processes of
implementation, feedback mechanisms, etc. However, with itineration in the villages. This paper
tries to bridge this lacuna by attempting to study the effectiveness of the assets created under the act.
At a time when the world is facing one of the worst food crises ever witnessed, it becomes
extremely pertinent to look at the effectiveness of the MNREGS in providing both short and long
term food security through work on improvement of agriculture and provision of water. Even the
origins of the MNREGS lie in the drought relief programmes of the 19th century which helped
provide purchasing power to agricultural workers in drought stricken areas. Such a scheme would
help curb starvation and hunger since the problem was localized and a shortage in a drought stricken
area simply needed to be met by surpluses from elsewhere. A Food-for-Work scheme would then
solve both problems of selection and transfer of purchasing power to the needy. The problem today is
much different. The shortage is no longer localized and therefore a mere transfer of purchasing
power would not lead to a solution. Moreover, with an ever increasing strain on our meager
resources, we need to take measures that will empower people to take care of their own needs rather
than depend on external agencies. MNREGS has the potential to do just that by providing people
what they most need/desire at the village level. In such a situation, it becomes extremely crucial to
assess the impact of the MNREGS, both in providing short and long term relief.
There have been numerous success stories of economic and environmental regeneration
where year-round productive employment has been generated as a result of community or NGO
efforts. Such success has not been found in the government employment guarantee schemes of the
past. Yet, the potential of MNREGS in reaching the rural poor is unsurpassed as it is now being
implemented in all the districts of India. There is thus an urgent need to study how such success
stories can be made part of the employment guarantee schemes, what are the lacunae and drawbacks
and how they can be addressed.
Using primary data collected from one Mandal, Kalluru in Khammam District in Telangana
state , we shall assess the potential of them NREGs in providing food and
livelihood security.

Background
NREGA is going through a crucial phase. It is a bit early to quantify its impacts definitively
given that people are still grappling with implementation hitches. The institutional mechanisms
required for implementation of such a massive scheme have still not been completely set up. In order
to make sure the MNREGS does not become redundant at the hands of the existing structure, a new
design has been evolved which demands a shift of power and responsibility downwards to village
level institutions. Thus, new roles assigned to each instrument in this setup need to be clearly
understood and internalised by all. What is most difficult and which will take time, is, the delegation
of power by those higher up on the beaurocratic ladder.
This transition of power and the friction generated as a result thereof, have
generated incessant negative media coverage on the performance of the MNREGS. This had
triggered some uncertainty among the ranks of the government as well as those skeptical
about the programme regarding the implementation of the Act. From the current financial
year the Act covers the entire country, giving the guarantee of 100 days employment to
around 45 million rural households. As other public wage programmes like the SGRY has been
subsumed within MNREGS, this will be the only operational wage employment programme in the
country. Being focused on regeneration of village economy in the long term, the Act’s
success or failure potentially affects the entire rural development scenario in India.
From the advocates of the Act, the excessive focus on just employment creation has also
narrowed its larger objectives and potential. Without discounting the civil society’s
consistent monitoring of the implementation, programmes like MNREGS cannot be just
examined on the basis of its short-term benefits.
I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
In NREGS the researcher is often required to do research on a problem with which (s) he is
not very familiar. Community members may be much more familiar with it. But even they may
never have given critical attention to the various aspects of the problem. A systematic analysis of the
data collection, completed by the research, is a very crucial step in designing the research because it:
enables those concerned to pool their knowledge of the problem, clarifies the problem and the
possible factors that may be contributing to it, and facilitates decisions concerning the focus and
scope of the research. Note: In a workshop setting, it may be impossible to obtain input from all
concerned. The opinion of people who cannot be consulted (e.g. Local staff or community members)
should be solicited prior to and immediately after the workshop, before finalizing the research

proposal. Areas of concern within the programmme system are often expressed in problems terms by
house holds. During initial discussions the people involved in the problem area, clarify the issues by
listing all the problems in the area of concern, as they perceive them. I have then tried to identify the
core problem and quantify it. Looking at the example discussed in, you may decide that the core
problem is i should now attempt to describe more elaborately. The lot of the problem - who is
affected, when, and where and the size and intensity of the problem - is it widespread, how severe is
it, what are its consequences Identify factors that may have contributed to the problem. Clarify the
socioeconomic factors between the problem and contributing factors.

Objectives
• To study the socio economic conditions of the respondent
• To analyze the impact of mangers programme on migratation
• To devalue the economic aspects the respondent after introducing MNREGS
• To examine the impact MNREGS programmes on agriculture
Hypothesis:
• Effective the implementation of merges programme high the social change
• Migration decrease
• Through MNREGS increased labor shortage in agriculture labor are decrease

REVIEW OF LITERATURE:
To find out whether the NREGA Act (2005) can have an impact on rural, urban Migration, if
implemented as per the criteria mentioned above, and what the impact of the decrease in such
migration could be, by getting official out-migration data from a region where distress migration is
known to be rampant, and where the NREGA has been implemented well, and by conducting a
qualitative survey to see whether this data can be backed up. To find out whether the income pattern
of the people in the surveyed region has Changed after the NREGS and how so, if it has changed.
To examine the implications if migration could be reduced when the Act is implemented well
migration involves a great social cost as well as families get uprooted. Children get separated from
their parents and their education might suffer. Also to show that if the Villupuram model of
implementing the scheme is successful in providing enough incentive to curb distress migration and
create productive assets secondarily for the villages, it could be used as a model for regions like
Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput (KBK) in Orissa where people die of starvation till today and
alternative means of employment other than agriculture should be created. To study newly instated
anti-corruption and pro transparency steps taken by State Governments such as biometric cards and
rural ATMS.
Title: A study on socio economic impact of MGNREGS Villupuram, Tamilnadu
Author: Nao mi jocob
First published: 2010
Narrow down a place where NREGA is being implemented well where there is a history of
distress migration. The area should typically be industrially backward; agriculture will not be
productive-so looking at yields per hectare of the region before 2005 could help narrow down the
area. Gather data from the government about NREGA incomes, approximate migration data (it is an
approximation because migration is not really documented well in India, Get income data from
periods before the NREGA and after the NREGA, also things like total population, number of
households registered with the NREGA scheme, divided into APL and BPL categories, and male and
female categories. Conduct a survey of NREGA workers in the region at the active work sites. Use
the survey as a verification of the government date. The survey is mainly qualitative in nature-it has
been given in the Appendix of the paper.
Due to a paucity of accurate migration data a more quantitative analysis could not be carried
out and I did not have the resources to conduct a statistically impeccable quantitative survey.

Choosing the region to survey: The region had to be a district where the NREGA was being
implemented well. It had to be industrially backward and agriculturally dependent .but not
productive- and hence because of the lack of opportunities in the region it would have to have a
history of distress migration, mainly to urban areas as contract labor. Villupuram district seemed to
be a good choice of a district to study as it is one of the few regions about which the presses, people
conducting social audits and the citizens, have given positive reports with regard to implementation
of the Act. Villupuram is the largest district in Tamil Nadu (with 22 Blocks as compared to the
average of 13-14 blocks in the other districts), but it is one of the least industrialized areas of the
State. The majority of the population depends on agriculture. A social audit on the NREGA
conducted in Villupuram in200714 showed that there were some irregularities in the way the scheme
was being implemented. The system followed is one where work is rotated among the different
wards of a Panchayat, as the demand for work is much greater than the number of projects.
Applications for registering with the programme were being actively denied by the government-
which is not allowed under the act. The scheme is not demand driven at all in Villupuram, it is
supply driven. But despite these irregularities the people almost uniformly wanted more employment
under the NREGA and were very happy with the timely payment of wages, the stability the work
offered and with the work itself because it led to the development of their village.
There was no rampant corruption such as inflated muster rolls and people being denied their
wages, and contractors were completely removed from the picture. It met most of the criterion for a
district where the Act was being implemented smoothly and hence was an interesting area to study
the impact of the Act on rural-urban migration .About 350 people from agricultural unions,
unorganized workers unions, women's organizations, youth forums, social activists and students
participated in a social audit of Villupuram district in July 2007. The audit was done in 5 villages
each in the five blocks of Mailam, Vanur, Thirukoilur, Thiruvennainallur and Thirunavalur. After
consolidating all the documents (especially the Muster Rolls) and social audit training, 25 teams
went to 25 villages and did the audit. Experienced trainers from Andhra Pradesh and activists from
MKSS provided training to all the participants. The district collector Mr. Brajendra Navnit, DRDA
Project Officer Mr. Selvaraj and other Viluppuram district officials were very supportive of the
whole endeavor. 14 350 people from agricultural unions, unorganized workers unions, women’s
organizations, youth forums, social activists and students conducted the first mass social audit of the
NREGA in Villupuram from July 26, 2007 to August 5th, 2007. 5 villages each in the five blocks of
Milam, Vanur, Thirukoilur, Thiruvennainallur and Thirunavalur of Villupuram district were
surveyed.The main positive findings in brief were Employment has been generated on a massive
scale: The average job card holder in Villupuram has already been employed for nearly 25 days since
1 April 2007, compared with just about 2 days for the same period in 2006.
Minimum wages (Rs 80 per day) are being paid. Wages are paid within a week: This is
perhaps the greatest achievement of NREGA in Villupuram. Wages are paid with great regularity, on
a fixed day of each week. There were very few complaints of delays in wage payments. Contractors
and machines have largely disappeared. NREGA is a lifeline for the rural poor. Women (who
account for more than 80 per cent of all NREGA workers)are particularly appreciative of the
programme, and want it to continue. According to the audit the following were the areas of concern
􀂃 Poor awareness generation – workers know little about their entitlements.

􀂃 Faulty design, distribution and maintenance of job cards.
􀂃 The work application process is not in place – employment is provided top-down.
􀂃 Employment is “rationed”, by rotation between different wards as well as
By restricting work to one member per household.
􀂃 The rotation system has led to “caste segregation” of work.
􀂃 Disabled persons and old people are excluded.
􀂃 Basic worksite facilities such as first-aid are lacking in most cases.
􀂃 Absence of child care arrangements at the worksites
􀂃 There is a shortage of staff at all levels.
􀂃 Inadequate training (if any) of NREGA staff especially at Gram Panchayat
level.
􀂃 Poor worksite management (supervision, measurement, etc)
􀂃 Low work productivity at many worksites.
􀂃 Widespread flaws in the record-keeping system.
􀂃 Poor implementation of transparency safeguards.
However, upon surveying Kalrayan Hills and Neelamangalam, I found that almost all the
areas of concern had been addressed. The next section is about the findings on the survey. The
Kalrayan Hills Story According to the Government The methodology used for this paper is using
official data, gathered from the Block Offices and the Municipality in Villupuram District to
primarily find out whether there is any backing for the hypothesis, and then to supplement this

official data with the facts found out from surveying a sample of NREGA workers in the region
under study. Originally the idea was to get out-migration rates from the district for periods before
and after the implementation of the Act, to see whether there was any lowering of the rates in the
regions where NREGA was a lifeline for a population that was known to have to migrate in the past
for economic reasons. As census data, which itself does no investigate migration thoroughly, was
only available up till 2001, and as the Act was put in place only in 2005, the only other option was
getting approximate migration figures from the administrators of the regions under survey.
The figures given by the governments regarding migration were all approximations. Hence it
was essential to conduct a field survey to see what the situation was in reality. Time and resource
constraints had to be considered as well in choosing the regions to be surveyed, which is why the
paper is focusing on a narrow region within Villupuram district itself. The population in this block
consists mostly of Scheduled Tribes, and it is a hilly region where cultivation is not possible because
water doesn’t stay and where the ground is rocky. The villagers can only grow tapioca and they sell
forest produce mainly to earn a living. Though the region is only about 45 minutes away from
Kallakurichi, before the NREGA works, a lot of the villages and hamlets were inaccessible by road.
The people had to migrate for at least 6 months of the year( from young girls aged 14 to elderly men
and women in their sixties. )The saving grace was that there were a number of residential schools and
missionary schools where the children could be left while the parents migrated, but the costs of
migration were enormous. The block consists of 15 panchayats. The survey was undertaken in two
Panchayats – Thoradipattu, with a population of 3988 persons and Vellimalai with a population of
5673 persons-where active works were in progress. 59% of the population in Thoradipattu and 44%
of the population in Vellimalai was seasonal migrants. There were 996 household in Thoradipattu out
of which 826 households were registered with the NREGS. 1128 out of the 1418 households in
Vellimalai Panchayat were registered with the NREGS. 724 of the houses were Below Poverty Line
in the Thoradipattu whereas the figure was 741 in Vellimalai. The works are mostly roadwork, where
unmetalled roads are made from the main roads built by the government to the little hamlets and
villages. The majority of the workers were women. Unlike in Neelamangalam, because of the
complete lack of opportunities in the region, the women were also migrating in large numbers from
the Kalrayan Hills area. According to the officers wages were paid within a week. They provided a
stable and steady means of income for especially the women of the region. This was important
because when both the parents were forced to migrate, the family itself would break down, the
children would be left in the government school hostels or with the elders in the family and in
general migration occurred because of necessity, because there was no other way they could put four
meals on the table. Contract labor was the norm and the main destinations were Kerala, Karnataka
and other places in Tamil Nadu like Yaracuy with its coffee plantations. According to the Block
Officer’s approximations, distress migration was almost completely with the advent of the NREGA,
but no official figures as such were available. They said that the men continued to migrate because
they could earn as much as 300 rupees per day, whereas women could now stay in their native places
because they were willing to forego the difference between earning 100-150 rupees a day, but with
quite a lot of uncertainty as to the duration of their work and when they would next get work, and
often with contractors who were quite dishonest, in exchange for the 80 rupees a day wage from
NREGA labour,this was predictable income, where the wages were paid in full and regularly on
time, and most importantly, they could get this employment in their native places.

Findings from the survey at Thoradipattu and Vellimalai Panchayat Details of the survey: 40
families working at active NREGA sites-dealing with road construction- were surveyed. The
questionnaire is given below. It is a qualitative survey because the sample size was not large enough
to use the data for a proper empirical study. However a lot of information could be gained by talking
to the workers on a qualitative basis. The workers mostly had migrated to Yercaud for work in the
Coffee plantations from February to March or to Karnataka and Kerala under contract labour. The
contractors would loan them money for the initial expend incurred by them to travel to the
destination, find accommodation and food. This would be taken as a cut from the wages and there
was 3-4% interest which had to be paid back. The women got between 120-150 rupees per day where
as the men received 250-300 rupees per day. The women said that they would not migrate now that
NREGA was implemented because though they would earn less- as migrant laborers’ they would
earn up to 15,000 rupees per annum, then selling the forest crop and agricultural labor would give
them another 10,000,whereas under the NREGA they could earn 8000 rupees per annum plus the
amount from cultivation and selling forest produce, and working as agricultural laborers in the
season- they did not mind earning less because they had no debts to contractors, they were in their
native places and had regular work and the income was steady and reliable as opposed to the
uncertainties of informal sector work which is what they would do if they were migrant laborers. The
men said that they would continue to migrate in general, unless they were old, because they earned
so much more than 80 rupees per day that they couldn’t really afford to just depend on the NREGS,
though it provided a good back up for them in lean period select employment. Most people said that
the incomes of the families were more predictable and stable after the Act. Previously an income
graph would have resembled a spiky pattern where income would be earned in spurts, and not regular
spurts, and even dip really low at points, so families would have to migrate to find work to put food
on the table, borrow money to migrate from the contractors and get caught in cycle. Whereas after
the NREGA was implemented the income graph would smooth with more regular inflows of cash
and also the levels wouldn’t sink below a particular point because 8000 rupees per family was
guaranteed under the Act as long as the families were ready to work at unskilled labor jobs for 100
days of the year. The women in particular kept saying that nothing could be better than working in
your native land, people would care for you if you were sick, and it was your home, and they wanted
the period of 100 days of work to be extended to more. Most of the women were part of self-help
groups, but except for 2 women none of the others were in debt. The roads built by the National
Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme workers have helped the people immensely and will probably
contribute the most to the development of the region. Where as people once had to carry baskets of
their produce from the villages and make their way through to the main road to catch some transport
to the markets, today they are hiring lorries and trucks to transport themselves and their goods,
increasing the quantity they are able to sell and their profits. It is also an enormous source of pride
for them that they themselves were able to contribute to the betterment of their village, that they
created the roads. From the survey it was clear that the government had been doing a fairly decent
job in firstly selecting useful projects that would lead to rural development, secondly, in providing
the workers with their wages on time and finally, that the people needed the NREGA, it was the only
thing that stood between them and 6 months of migration away form their home and loved ones, at
the mercy of the contractors

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Research design:
The assessment has been carried out using primary data collected through a survey instrument as
well as collection of secondary data through various sources like government records, panchayat
records, life histories of people and observation on field. The survey instruments were field tested in
three districts and developed to look at specific target areas such as Monitor the creation of
productive assets such as water harvesting structures, the process of work selection under NREGA
and whether the assets created reflect the local needs. To gauge the development potential of the
productive assets created.
Assess creation of employment potential for the rural poor and marginalized, particularly for
women, Assess the creation of institutional systems created that can ensure long-term sustainability
and people’s participation. The collection of related secondary data has been an ongoing process
starting in March and lasting till the closure of the field survey. Scope of study The National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is the landmark legislation in the history of social security
and presently the largest employment guarantee scheme in the world. This Act brings forth the
crucial role of the state as the provider of livelihood for the teeming millions, offers a new deal to the
rural poor and strives for creating a base for sustainable rural development.
It is unparallel in terms of design, methodology and objectives and by conferring right to
employment it goes beyond mere poverty alleviation. This ‘revolutionary step’ is fervently expected
to impel a silent revolution and rural resurgence. The NREGA has evoked panoply of optimistic
expectations. some of which are already manifested: freedom from starvation, reduction in distress
migration from rural areas, foundation of productive assets so crucial for unlocking the growth
potential of rural India, change in rural power equation, establishment of equitable social order,
economic independence and empowerment of rural women and revitalization of panchayat
institutions. Moreover, growing awareness of employment as an entitlement and emergence of the
scheme as an axis of struggle for social change and fight against exploitation are also harped. At the
same time, the act has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from ‘minimalist state’ perspective. In view
of the fact that state Schemes (NREGS) are presently in operation across all 596 districts, one needs
not be sceptical about source of fund or viability of income support strategy. Nor it is indispensable
to insist on, say, empowerment of women, panchayat, and transformation in power structure or

fighting out injustice, which are indeed sporadic and incidental upshots of successful implementation
of the scheme. After all, NREGA has modest avowed objective of livelihood security and durable
asset creation. Following the universal dictum of first thing first, concerted focus should primarily
revolve around fructification and actualisation of the professed goals. The starting premise of
evaluation should realistically be the three watchwords, which Prime Minister Dr. Singh coined
during launching of the scheme in Andhra Pradesh: “outlays must be matched by outcomes,
productive assets must be created and guarantee must be implemented in true spirit.” For the cause of
the poor, it is imperative to scan implementation process, identify the nature and cause of
deficiencies and plug the loose ends that are holding up the efficacy of the scheme. Verily, the
NREGA is an opportunity and challenge.
Scope of the study:
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is the landmark legislation in the
history of social security and presently the largest employment guarantee scheme in the world. This
Act brings forth the crucial role of the state as the provider of livelihood for the teeming millions,
offers a new deal to the rural poor and strives for creating a base for sustainable rural development. It
is unparallel in terms of design, methodology and objectives and by conferring right to employment
it goes beyond mere poverty alleviation. This ‘revolutionary step’ is fervently expected to impel a
silent revolution and rural resurgence.
The NREGA has evoked panoply of optimistic expectations. some of which are already
manifested: freedom from starvation, reduction in distress migration from rural areas, foundation of
productive assets so crucial for unlocking the growth potential of rural India, change in rural power
equation, establishment of equitable social order, economic independence and empowerment of rural
women and revitalization of panchayat institutions. Moreover, growing awareness of employment as
an entitlement and emergence of the scheme as an axis of struggle for social change and fight against
exploitation are also harped. At the same time, the act has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from
‘minimalist state’ perspective.
Sampling:
The sample frame was developed using random sampling. Two blocks were chosen per mandal.
Within these two blocks a random sample of four villages was chosen per block. A random sample of
15 households per village was chosen from these villages for the household survey.

Method and tools of Data Collection:
Here are two sources for data collection.
• Primary source
• Secondary source
The secondary sources are those which can be collected through books, journals, news papers,
inter net and from experts in the field. The researcher used secondary source to collect information
for the introduction and review of literature. There are three options to collect data through primary
source, namely, observation, interview and questionnaire. For the present study, the researcher used
questionnaire and interview schedule for the collection of data.
The survey instrument that we developed contains detailed village and household level
questionnaires called the Productive Asset Creation and Assessment Survey Tool to collect
information on various aspects related to the implementation of NREGA. The survey has been fine
tuned further with help from peer group reviews. It gathers information along the following set of
broad parameters- An assessment of the impact of NREGA
1. On the increment of local natural resources like water, forests and land improvements;
2. On the local rural economy;
3. On the creation of sustainable and diversified rural employment opportunities;
4. On improvements in lifestyle such as changes in pattern of economy, purchasing power,
housing, gender roles and responsibilities, school attendance;
5. On the nature of institutional structures created;
6. On the manner of implementation including patterns of decision-making,
7. On the impact on marginalized and the landless poor
Analysis of Data:
. Analysis involved establishment of causal networks i.e. building a logical chain of events/evidence
in order to chart out the important indicators that explain the process of asset creation and

distribution of benefits. The general strategy has been to build descriptive display formats designed
to answer the research questions- charts and tables. We have used statistical analysis along with
qualitative data collected from field visits and reports from the field to derive trends and cross check
data. This has been repeated for both the district cases to draw cross-case conclusions.
We strive to monitor and assess the potential impact of NREGA on the creation of natural
resource asset base and the resultant impact of rural livelihood, food security, lifestyle changes,
economic regeneration and impact on rural-urban migration. Institutional aspects such as the process
of decision-making, capacity building, building long-term institutional structures have also been
assessed as also its impact on women and marginalized groups. The final objective has been to draw
comparisons between the performances of NREGA in the two districts. This will help us learn what
steps need to be taken in order to move towards the final objective of ensuring short term and long
term food and livelihood security of the rural poor.
Statistical Procedures:
For the purpose of the interpretation of data, the researcher used various statistical
procedures namely, percentage and quartile deviation. out the statistical significance between
independent and dependent variable.
CHAPTER IV
PROFILE OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents belong to different sections of economic status, education and age groups. This
classification of the respondents can clearly be seen the form of tables. The columns indicate the
class of the respondents e.g. male or female and below it is mentioned the number of respondents
who have participated in the research. The main aim here is to find the frequencies among age and
gender.

TABLE NO. 1
AGE OF RESPONDENTS (INDEPENDENT VARIABLE)
AGE (IN YEAR)
Distribution of Respondents
Frequencies Percentage
18-25 10 25%
25-35 18 45%
35to above 12 30%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.1. 45% respondents of between 25-35 age. 30% respondents are
belongs to 35 above and 25% respondents is 35 above.
Here from the above table No. 1. It is clearly given majority 45% of respondents of between
age 25to35 years.
TABLE NO. 2
SEX OF RESPONDENTS
SEX Distribution of Respondents
Male 20 50%
Female 20 50%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.2. 50% respondents are male. And 50 respondents are female.
Here from the above table No. 2. It is clearly given majority 50% of respondents are male and
50% of respondents are female

TABLE NO. 3
EDUCATION OF RESPONDENTS
EDUCTION Distribution of Respondents
Illiterate 18 45%
Primary 16 40%
Secondary 06 15%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.3. 45% respondents are illiterate. 40% respondents are primary and
15%respondents are secondary.
Here from the above table No. 3. It is clearly given majority 45% of respondents are illiterate.
TABLE NO. 4
OCCUPATION OF RESPONDENTS
OCCUPATION Distribution of Respondents
Agriculturist 30 75%
Labour 10 25%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.4. 75% respondents are agriculturists. And 25% respondents are
labour. Here from the above table No. 4. It is clearly given majority 75% of respondents are
agriculture.
TABLE NO. 5

MARITAL STATUS OF RESPONDENTS
MARITEL STATUS
Married 09 22.5%
Un-married 26 65%
Divorce 02 05%
Widow 03 07.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.5. 65% respondents are married. 22.5% respondents are un-married.
7.5%respondents are widow and 5% respondents are divorce.
Here from the above table No. 5. It is clearly given majority 65% of respondents are married.
TABLE NO. 6
CAST OF RESPONDENTS
CAST
SC & STs 20 50%
BC 12 30%
Others 08 20%
Total 40 100. %0
From the above table No.6. 50% respondents are SC & Sts. 30% respondents are BC. And
20%respondents are other casts. Here from the above table No. 6. It is clearly given majority 50% of
respondents are married.
TABLE NO. 7

RELIGION OF RESPONDENTS
RELIGION
Hindu 28 70%
Muslim 08 20%
Christian 04 10%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.7. 70% respondents are Hindu. 20% respondents are Muslim. And
10%respondents are Christian. Here from the above table No. 7. It is clearly given majority 70% of
respondents are married.
TABLE NO. 8
ANNUAL INCOME OF RESPONDENTS
ANNUAL INCOME
20.000 to 30.000 21 52.5%
31.000 to 45.000 12 30%
46.000 to 60.000 07 17.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.8. 52.5% respondents are 20.000 to 30.000. 30% respondent’s
31.000 to 45.000 and 17.5%respondents are 46.000 to 60.000.
Here from the above table No.8. It is clearly given majority 52.5 of respondents are 20.000 to
30.000/-.
TABLE NO. 9

TYPES OF HOUSE
TYPES OF HOUSE
Hut 06 15%
Kacha house 12 30%
Pakka house 22 55%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No 9. 55% respondents are Pakka houses. 30% respondents are Kacha
house and 15%respondents are Hut.
Here from the above table No. 9. It is clearly given majority 55% of respondents are haven
Kacha houses.
TABLE NO. 10
YOU KNOW MGNREG SCHEME
YOU KNOW MGNREGS
Yes 38 95%
I don’t know 02 05%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.10. 95% respondents are yes and 5% respondents I don’t
know. Here from the above table No. 10. It is clearly given majority 95% of respondents are yes.
TABLE NO. 11
TYPES OF WORKS PROVIDE IN MGNREGS

NREGS WORK
Roads 00 00%
Water tanks 15 37.5%
Water bounds 05 02.5%
Land level 20 50%
Total 40 100. %%
From the above table No.11. 50% respondents are Land levels. 37.5% respondents are told
water tanks and 02.5%respondents are told water bounds. Here from the above table No. 11. It is
clearly given majority 50% of respondents are told MGNREGS provide land level work.
TABLE NO. 12
POSSES OF MGNREGS JOB CARD
MGNREGS JOB CORD
Yes 35 87.5%
No 05 12.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.12. 87.5% respondents are yes and 12.5% respondents I have no
card. Here from the above table No. 12. It is clearly given that majority 87.5% of respondents are
yes.
TABLE NO. 13
WHO HELP GETTING THE JOB CARD
NREGS JOB CARD
Sarpanch 18 45%

Ward member 13 32.5%
MPTC 09 22.5%
Others 00 00%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.13. 45% respondents are Sarpanch. 32.5% respondents are Ward
members and 22.5%respondents are told MPTC. Here from the above table No. 13. It is clearly given
majority that 45% of respondents are told MGNREGS Job cards given Sarpanch.
TABLE NO. 14
YOU PAID ANY AMOUNT FOR GETTING THE JOB CARD
MGNREGS JOB CARD
Yes 11 27.5%
No 29 72.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.14. 72.5% respondents are yes and 27.5% respondents are told
no. Here from the above table No. 14. It is clearly given that majority 72.5% of respondents are no
paid any amount.
TABLE NO. 15
YOU HAVE JOINED IN THE SCHEME
YOU HAVE JOINED IN THE SCHEME
Since inception of the scheme 29 72.5%
Joined later 11 27.5%
Total 40 100.0%

From the above table No.15. 72.5% respondents are told since inception of the scheme and
27.5% respondents told Joined later. Here from the above table No. 15. It is clearly given that
majority 72.5% of respondents are told since inception of the scheme.
TABLE NO. 16
IMPLEMENTATION THIS SCHEME MIGRATION STATUS
MIGRATION STATUS Distribution of Respondents
Increased 00 00%
Decreased 26 65%
Same position 08 20%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.16. 65% respondents are decreased. 20% respondents are same
position and 15%respondents are told I don’t know. Here from the above table No. 16. It is clearly
given majority that 65% of respondents are told migration
TABLE NO. 17
IMPLEMENTATION THIS SCHEME MEN/WOMEN EQUAL WAGE
MEN/WOMEN EQUAL WAGE
Yes 36 90%
No 04 10%
Total 40 100%

From the above table No.17. 90% respondents are yes and 10% respondents are told number
here from the above table No. 17. It is clearly given that majority 90% of respondents are told yest
his scheme paid men/women equal wage.
TABLE NO. 18
IN THE FIELD PROVIDE WATER
PROVIDE WATER
Yes 26 65%
No 14 35%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.18. 65% respondents are yes and 35% respondents are
tool. Here from the above table No. 18. It is clearly given that majority 65% of respondents are told
yes this scheme provided water.
TABLE NO. 19
IN THE FIELD PROVIDE FIRST AID
PROVIDE FIRST AID
Yes 16 40%
No 15 37.5%
I don’t know 09 22.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.19. 40% of respondents are yes. 37.5% of respondents are no 22.5%
respondents are told I don’t. Here from the above table No. 19. It is clearly given that majority 40%
of respondents are told yes this scheme provided first AID.

TABLE NO. 20
MGNREGS PROVIDING WORKING TOOLS IN THE FIELD
PROVIDING WORKING TOOLS
Yes 11 27.5%
No 06 15%
Self tools 18 45%
Other tools 05 12.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.20. 45% of respondents are use self tools 27.5% of respondents are
yes and 15%respondents are no and 12.5 of respondents use other tools. Here from the above table
No. 20. It is clearly given majority that 45% of respondents are using self tools.
TABLE NO. 21
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SCHEME
ELIGIBLE FOR THE SCHEME
Poor people 12 30%
Land less people 03 07.5%
Migrant people 04 10%
Above all 21 52.5%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.21. 52.5% of respondents are told all. 30% of respondents are told
poor people. 10%respondents are told migrant people and 7.5 of respondents are told land less
people. Here from the above table No. 21. It is clearly given majority that 52.5% of respondents are
told this scheme use above all.

TABLE NO. 22
IN THIS SCHEME PROVIDED WORKING DAYS
WORKING DAYS
100 days 22 55%
120 days 06 15%
130 days 04 10%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.22. 55% of respondents are told 100days. 20% respondents are told
I don’t know. 15% of respondents are told 120days and 10%respondents are told 130days. Here from
the above table No. 22. It is clearly given that majority 55% of respondents are told this scheme
provided working days 100days.
TABLE NO. 22
IN THIS SCHEME PROVIDED WORKING DAYS
WORKING DAYS
100 days 22 55%
120 days 06 15%
130 days 04 10%
Total 40 100%
From the above table No.22. 55% of respondents are told 100days. 20% respondents are told
I don’t know. 15% of respondents are told 120days and 10%respondents are told 130days. Here
from the above table No. 22. It is clearly given that majority 55% of respondents are told this scheme
provided working days 100days.

TABLE NO. 23
HOW MUCH PAY FOR A DAY UNDER THIS SCHEME
HOW MUCH PAY FOR A DAY
100 Rs 13 32.5%
120 Rs 19 47.5%
150 Rs 00 00%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.22. 47.5% of respondents are told 120Rs. 32.5% respondents are told
100Rs and 20% of respondents are told I don’t know. Here from the above table No. 23. It is clearly
given that majority 47.5% of respondents are told this scheme given daily wage
TABLE NO. 24
YOU KNOW THAT TO GET EMPLOYMENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT
EMPLOYMENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT
Yes 12 30%
No 10 25%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.19. 45% of respondents said I don’t know. 30% of respondents are
Yes and 25% respondents they did not know. Here from the above table No.24. It is clearly given
that majority 45% of respondents said I don’t know.

TABLE NO. 25
HOW MANY HOURS DO YOU WORK UNDER THE SCHEME
HOW MANY HOURS DO YOU
6 hours 00 00%
8 hours 12 30%
Depend on work 18 45%
Don’t know 10 25%
Total 40 100.0%
From the above table No.19. 45% of respondents said I depend on work. 30% of respondents
are 8 hours and 25% respondents they do not know. Here from the above table No.25. It is clearly
given that majority 45% of respondents said depend on work
TABLE NO. 26
WHICH SEASON DOES THE SCHEME PROVIDE THE WORK
WHICH SEASON DOES THE SECHEME
PROVIDE THE WORK
Distribution of
Respondents
Rain season 00 00%
Winter season 05 12.5%
Summer season 27 67.5%
Don’t know 08 20%
Total 40 100.0%
Findings

This section lists the main findings of the survey, followed by a comparative analysis of the
mandal in terms of performance of NREGA to draw conclusions from this analysis. Looking at the
household level analysis, we queried the people on the general level of awareness of the act and its
provisions. Data from 60 respondent households in Kalluru shows high awareness about the
existence of the act as 84.58% of the respondents knew about the act.
This figure only depicts the knowledge about the presence of NREGA and not about what it
entails or its provisions. The provisions of the act are not known to a large sample as also the
procedures to apply for work etc. Impact of the NREGA The dependence on forests is very high as
depicted in the survey as 71.61% of the survey respondents stated that their community depended on
resources for their livelihood. We queried whether the availability, remained unchanged or decreased
in the past year.
In response 43% respondents felt the availability had increased some what due to the
NREGA works under taken while 41.8% believed it had actually decreased regardless of the works.
As regards the act, with the little amount of work that has been available under NREGA it is highly
unlikely that it could have had any significant impact on positive changes in forest resources.
In the future however, when work expands and covers such projects it would be interesting
to reassess the impact of the act on the inter relationships between the community.
Agriculture
A good measure of a programmes development impact on the sustainability and livelihood
opportunities of the rural population in an agriculture dominated region would be to see if the
programme has helped diversify the crop mix in their production basket. The responses in this regard
were slightly encouraging. 15% of the respondents had changed their crop mix in the last one year.
While earlier they were mostly dependant on Paddy and Biri, over the previous year they were able
to diversify and produce crops such as groundnut, millet and vegetables. Though small but
encouraging is the percentage of people who were able to increase the area sown. 14.5% of the
respondents reported such an increase due to the increased water availability as a result of works
undertaken through NREGA. Overall, for our sample, NREGA works had led to a total increase in
area sown by 18.25 acres.
A shift in focus from providing employment to creation of productive assets could possibly
help improve monitoring and evaluation of the programme in the different districts. Physical assets
are more easily perceptible then wages paid to individuals. That may be one of the reasons why
schemes such as Prada Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna (PMGSY) and the Watershed Development

Programmes perform so well in some states. A need to complete the physical assets in time would
also ensure timely payment of wages to the workers and be a step towards livelihood security of the
individuals. It would also help ensure that productive assets which are started are completed and not
left abandoned in between which is quite often the case.
Migration
Kalluru mandal of khammam district witnesses large scale migration during the winter
months of December till February or early March. The labourers come back during March-April for
the harvest season of rabbi crop and to prepare for the monsoons. With NREGA works concentrated
in January and February as well as summer months, these people now have the option to stay within
the village instead of migrating outside looking for work. In our sample, migration has reduced by
around 60% due to availability of work under NREGA. However, a lot of people feel the 100 days
per family is not enough. If each member in a family of 5 works under NREGA, then they can only
work for 20 days in a year which is not sufficient to pass through the entire lean season. So they have
to migrate the rest of the year. Even the women accompany them in the migration when the work is
suitable. Around 20-25% women accompany their husbands in migration. According to the survey,
60 respondents said they had migrated at least once in the past two years. The average duration of
migration for those over the past two years was 140 days. This implies that they migrate out of the
village for over 20% of the year. However, we do not have data for the migration before the launch
of the NREGA and hence cannot compare the reduction brought about because of it. This is a
massive reduction though the figures might not be representative as the rates of migration in other
parts of the district might vary. This is a huge success for the NREGA and a significant step in the
direction of attaining the short term objective of food and livelihood security within the village
throughout the year.However, despite the large availability of work in Kalluru migration has not
ceased completely. We could observe two probable explanations for this. One is the fact that
educated individuals do not want to work under NREGA and would rather migrate in search for
better opportunities.
This is verified by the data as the proportion of literate individuals among those who migrate
was much higher than the illiterate. While the proportion of literate individuals was 51% overall, the
proportion of literate persons among the migrants was a much higher 62%. Further, the stipulated
100 days per household is hardly enough for a family of reasonable size to pass through the entire
lean season when there is no work for months. Even these 100 days are rarely provided. Within

kalluru mandal, this could be a reflection of the much higher demand for work in kalluru mandal due
to the absence of alternative means of livelihood.
Demand for the work
Even with the current levels of awareness the demand for work under NREGA is huge. A
mere 9% of the respondents wished less than 125 days of employment, about 34 % stated that they
would want to work for 150 days while the remaining 57% said they want work for more than 100
days. The average number of days demanded from the entire sample of 480 households is 141 at the
going wage rate. However, a district wise study of demand presents some interesting finding. The
demand in kalluru is much higher at 177 days on average, then where the average demand is 108
days. This is surprising as the level of unemployment and poverty, if anything is higher in kalluru
However; this might have an explanation in the level of awareness in the kalluru mandal lagging
behind in terms of knowledge of the act and its provisions.
As the findings suggest there is a high potential demand for work under NREGA as many of
the respondents showed a willingness to work for more than 100 days under the act. The actual
person days of employment availed by the households in the sample are much below even the
stipulated 100 days. This might be because of the lack of involvement of the people in the planning
process as that might have resulted in less number of projects coming to villages.
CONCLUSION
Monitor the creation of productive assets such as water harvesting structures, the
process of work selection under NREGA and whether the assets created reflect the local
needs. To gauge the development potential of the productive assets created. Assess creation
of employment potential for the rural poor and marginalized, particularly for women, Assess
the creation of institutional systems created that can ensure long-term sustainability and

people’s participation. The collection of related secondary data has been an ongoing process
starting in March and lasting till the closure of the field survey.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Deshingkar, Priya- Understanding the Implications of Migration for Pro-poor
Agricultural Growth
2. Tenth Plan document-Chapter 3.2–Poverty Alleviation in Rural India-Strategy
And Programmes, ‘Wage Employment Programme’
3. Fan, Hazel and Haque (2000).

4. Deshingkar, Priya, Understanding the Implications of Migration for Pro-poor
Agricultural Growth.
5. Tenth Plan document.
6. Olsen and Ramana Murthy [2000]- study of the Palamur labourers from
Mahbubnagar district in Andhra Pradesh
7. Due to a paucity of accurate migration data a more quantitative analysis could not
be carried out and I did not have the resources to conduct a statistically
Impeccable quantitative survey.
8. Centre for Environment and Food Security (CEFS) Survey conducted in 100
Villages from six districts of KBK (Kalahandi-Bolangir-Koraput) region -
Bolangir, Nuapada
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
PART – A
1. Name of the Respondent :
2. Age :

3. Sex : 1. Male 2. Female
4. Education : 1. Illiterate 2. Primary 3. Secondary 4. Inter 5. Degree & above
5. Occupation :
6. Marital Status : 1 Un-Married 2.Married 3.Divorcee 4.Widow
7. Caste : 1. ST. 2.. S C 3. B C 4 Others
8. Religion : 1. Hindu 2. Muslim 3. Christian
9. Type of House : 1. Hut 2. Kacha House 3. Pakka House
10. Family Annual Income : 1.20,000 to 30,000 2. 31,000 to 45,000 3.46,000 to 60,000
PART –B
11. Do you know about MGNREGS Scheme? ( )
1) Yes 2) No
12. Under the MGNREGS Scheme which type of works are under taken?
1) Roads 2) Water tanks 3) Water Bunds 4) Land levels ( )

13. Do you posses MGNREGS Job card?
1) Yes 2) No ( )
14. Who helped in getting the Job card?
1) Sarpanch 2) Ward Member 3) MPTC 4) Others ( )
15. Have you paid any amount for getting the card?
1) Yes 2) No ( )
16. If Yes? Specify the amount Rs._________________
17. When you have joined in the Scheme or hold the card?
1) Science inception of the Scheme (2) Joined later (specify) ( )
18. Reasons for joining later?
1) Migration 2) Don’t know 3) other reasons ( )
19. By implementing this Scheme in your village does migration status?
1) increased 2) decreased 3) Same position 4) I don’t know ( )
20. By implementing this Scheme in your village does Men/Women get equal wage?
1) Yes 2) No ( )
21. Are they providing drinking water in the field?
1) Yes 2) No ( )
22. Are they providing first AID in the field?
1) Yes 2) No 3) I don’t know ( )
23. Are they providing working tools in the field?
1) Yes 2) No 3) self tools 4) Others tools ( )
24. Who are eligible for the Scheme (specify)
1) Poor people 2) Land less people 3) Migrant people 4) All ( )
25. How many days does Scheme provide in the year?

1) 100 2) 120 3) 130 4) I don’t Know ( )
26. How much you are paid in a day in this Scheme?
1) Rs.100 2) 125 3) 150 4) I don’t Know ( )
27. Do you know that “TO GET EMPLOYMENT IS A HUMAN RIGHT”?
1) Yes 2) No 3) I don’t know ( )
28. How many hours Scheme should a card holed work in the field?
1) 6 Hours 2) 8 Hours 3) Depend on Work 4) I don’t know ( )
29. Is there any children working in this Scheme?
1) Yes 2) No ( )
30. In which season does the Scheme provide the work in the village?
1) Rain Season 2) Winter Season 3) Summer Season 4) I don’t know ( )

P.nagarjuna .dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to P.nagarjuna .dissertation

Similar to P.nagarjuna .dissertation (20)

More from Ramesh Ankathi

More from Ramesh Ankathi (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

P.nagarjuna .dissertation