Impact Assessment of the District Poverty Initiative Project Rajasthan

Table 3.11: Has the Household Received Any Benefit from DPIP
District Yes No Yes No
APL
BPL
Baran 1.2 98.8 28.9 71.1
Churu 0.7 99.3 46.2 53.8
Dausa 2.8 97.2 40.0 60.0
Dholpur 2.1 97.9 38.6 61.4
Jhalawar 100.0 43.8 56.2
Rajsamand 100.0 24.0 76.0
Tonk 3.3 96.7 50.3 49.7
Total 1.5 98.5 38.1 61.9
There are four types of sub-projects viz., livestock, land-based activity, community
infrastructure and non-farm services. The household responses are recorded in table 3.12.
It was enquired as to whether the household had participated in any of the meetings organized
to select the SPA- the response reveals that of the APL households, the proportion of
households participating in meetings varies from a low of 50.0 percent in Baran and a high of
100.0 percent in Churu, Dholpur and Tonk. In Rajasamand and Jhalawar none of the
households participated in any of the meetings (table 3.13). In case of BPL households, the
proportion of households range from a low of 63.9 percent in Baran and a high of 95.1
percent in Dholpur.
Have they received training from DPIP It is found that a significant percentage reported in
affirmative in both APL and BPL households, though inter-district variations are there. Are
they still active members of CIG It appears that a higher percentage of APL households have
members who are active members of CIGs compared to BPL households.
Table 2.32: Type of Sub-projects (SPA)
Livestock Land-based Community On-farm NoR
Activity infrastructure services
APL Baran 50.0 50.0
Churu 100.0
Dausa 33.3 33.3 33.3
Dholpur 100.0
Tonk 75.0 25.0
Total 64.3 14.3 7.1 7.1 7.1
BPL Baran 59.7 23.6 16.7
Churu 89.4 2.9 3.8 2.9 1.0
Dausa 84.7 6.3 9.0
Dholpur 96.7 0.8 0.8 1.6
Jhalawar 73.0 4.5 6.7 15.7
Rajsamand 61.3 27.4 4.8 6.5
Tonk 67.0 22.7 8.2 2.1
Total 78.6 10.8 4.9 5.6 0.2
70