12.07.2015 Views

Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Chittagong Hill Tracts - chtdf

Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Chittagong Hill Tracts - chtdf

Socio-economic Baseline Survey of Chittagong Hill Tracts - chtdf

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

HDRC<strong>Socio</strong>-<strong>economic</strong> <strong>Baseline</strong> <strong>Survey</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chittagong</strong> <strong>Hill</strong> <strong>Tracts</strong>145<strong>of</strong> Livestock (DoL), Department <strong>of</strong> Fisheries (DoF), Bangladesh Agriculture DevelopmentCorporation (BADC), Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BARD), andso on.19.2.2 Access to Union level institutionsHouseholds were asked in thesurvey to Figure19.1: Incidence <strong>of</strong> visit by any household membertoreport on their visits to various localvarious institution/<strong>of</strong>fices/persons during last three monthsgovernmentinstitutions,andHeadman32governmentandnon-governmentalUP Chairman40UP member48institutions duringlast three monthsFWA/HA30preceding the survey. Overall, slightlyFWV/SACMO20more than half <strong>of</strong> the respondents have Sub-Assisstant Agriculture Officer3Police Stationreportedvisiting with Karbari (51%),2Army/BDR/APB Camp10followed by 48% reported visiting UPNGO24members, 40% UP chairman, 32%Post Office3Headman, 30% health worker (FWA/Forest Department/Bit/Range Office1HA), 24% NGO, 20% Union Healthand Family Welfare Centre (FWV/HW), and 10% Army/BDR/APB Camp. Householdsreportedvisiting sub-assistantt agriculture<strong>of</strong>fice constitutes only3% (Figure 19.1).19.2.3 Access to upazila and district level institutionsAlthough the access to the public healthsystem seems to be relatively high with62% <strong>of</strong>the households reporting visit in theUpazilaaHealth Complex,and 10%reporting visit inthe District Hospitalduring last one year- access to variousgovernment <strong>of</strong>fices seems very low with1% reporting visit both in the BADC, DoL,and DoF, and 2% reporting visit both in theBRDB and Co-operatives.19.2.4Access to the CHT regional levelinstitutionssFigure 19.3 showss the status <strong>of</strong> access to the CHTRegional Level Institutions during last three years byanybodyy <strong>of</strong> the households. It depicts a very lowlevel <strong>of</strong>access to the CHT regional levell institutionsamong both the Bangalee and Indigenous peoples.Overalll 3% <strong>of</strong> the households have reported visitduring last three years to the Circle Chief, 4%reporting visit to <strong>Hill</strong> Districtt Council, and 1% bothin the CHT Development Board and CHT RegionalCouncil.Figure 19.2: Incidence <strong>of</strong> visit by anyhousehold member to variousinstitutuion/<strong>of</strong>fices/personduring last one yearUpazila health ComplexDistrict HospitalDepartment <strong>of</strong> Agriculture ExtensionBADCDepartment <strong>of</strong> LivestockDepartment <strong>of</strong> FisheriesYouth training centerSocial welfare <strong>of</strong>ficerUpazilla nirbahi <strong>of</strong>ficerAC-landInsurance company2.7BRDBCooperativesFigure 19.3: Incidence <strong>of</strong> visit by any household number tovarious institutions during last three years4111111112234.25104.73.51.1 11.2Circle chief (king)CHT development board<strong>Hill</strong> District CouncilCHT regional councilAll Indigenous Banglaeee1.32.1620.3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!