38
Summary No-16
Profile of the Student:
Name: Harnidh Kaur
Degree: Masters in Public Policy
Institute / University:St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous), Mumbai
Profile of the Mentors:
(i).Name:Dr. Gyandendra Mani
Designation:DGM
Department:DEAR
Name of Office:Head Office, Mumbai
(ii).Name: D.K.Panwar
Designation:AGM
Department:DEAR
Name of Office:Head Office, Mumbai
Objectives of the study:
The major objectives of the study are as under;
1. To evaluate the progress of Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY) in Nandurbar District of Maharashtra
2. To identify the problems in the implementation of IAY
3. To enumerate lessons for take away for the upcoming Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin.
Research Methodology:
Research Design & Procedure: To gauge beneficiary administration response in order to get a perspective
on the implementation of the Indira Awaas Yojana in the Nandurbar district of Maharashtra. A sampling
procedure with questionnaire was used to extract information for the various factors impacting the
implementation of the scheme. The beneficiaries of the IAY scheme comprised of waitlist, and those
who qualify, but haven’t availed the scheme, local banks, and gram pradhans/sevaks in six villages of the
Nandurbar District, Maharashtra
Sources of Data: The data sources comprised of survey mechanism where sampled farmers were
interviewed and their responses were collected for further analysis and assessment. Since the research
also includes surveying of administrative functionaries, grassroot level officials like the employees of
DRDAs and Panchayat members were also interviewed.
Sample Size: 120 households (20 households each from 6 villages). 20 non-beneficiaries from Control
Group and 6 banks.
Major Findings:
1. The IAY is still limited in its ability to be inclusive and adequate. The beneficiaries felt that their
quality of life had improved from the time they were allotted a housing unit.
2. There was a general improvement in the living environment, safety measures and the surety of
maintenance requirements. The scheme allowed the beneficiaries’ access to medical and educational
facilities at a closer distance than they did previously (even though the facilities are limited).
3. The paucity of funds and the lack of the scheme’s cohesiveness. While the scheme provided four
walls and a roof, it ignored sanitation, community building, ventilation and utility supplies.
4. Despite immense emphasis on employment generation in the scheme; the only time employment
was generated during the construction itself. An alarming number of beneficiaries, in fact, stayed
without employment (including MNREGA), after acquiring houses.
