PL-480, Title II, Food for Work impact evaluation : recipient profile study, Catholic Relief Services; Calcutta Zone (South Bihar)
Sign inXAVIER INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Evaluates Food for Work (FFW) project implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in two areas (Ranchi and Chandwa) of India's Calcutta Zone (South Bihar).
Ahuja, S. P. · 1983

Abstract
Impact evaluation is based on interviews with a sample of 979 FFW recipients, 395 of whom were currently working on FFW projects. The majority (98%) of recipients were male, 95% were under age 50, 76% were illiterate, and 80% were married; 50% were Hindu, 36% Christian, 2% Muslim, and 12% other. Nearly all owned their own homes but none had electricity or indoor water or sanitation facilities. Most were small or marginal farmers or agricultural laborers with monthly household incomes of Rs. 101/- to Rs. 300/-. Recipients averaged 68 days of work per year on FFW projects. Most had been unemployed before the projects and worked on them because they provided assured employment. Most received their payments of bulgar and/or corn and oil in person and shared them with their families. Among them they had 1,978 children under age 15. FFW food lasted 1-2 weeks for 56% of the families but less than a week for 38%. About half of the recipients stored the commodities. On average, active recipients consumed more calories and more protein than did nonactive ones. Protein and calorie intake was normal for some 75-84% of recipients (active and nonactive). Income, caste, and type of farmer (e.g., small or marginal) did not significantly affect these intakes. Indian and American measures differ on the extent of child malnutrition. Both show the nutritional status of children of nonactive recipients, particularly boys, to be higher than that of active recipients. However, Indian standard measures of combined height/weight/age show a higher percentage of normal children in nonactive recipient families, while American standards show a higher number of normal children among active recipient families. Over half of the recipients felt they would not benefit directly from FFW construction, but would nevertheless work on the projects. Although average incomes rose by 14%, few increased their assets with FFW income.
Connected topics
Classification