Socio Economic Baseline Survey

(District Tando Allahyar, Matiari,

Tando Muhammad Khan and Sujawal, Sindh)

May 2017
Socio Economic Baseline Survey
under
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic
Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

May 2017

Authored by:
Copyright © National Rural Support Programme - May 2017

All rights reserved, but development organisations which are working in the rural areas specially non-profit
organizations working for capacity building can use this material for the benefit of poor rural communities. It is
requested that please acknowledge the effort made by NRSP. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording for
the commercial or profit making purpose or otherwise without the written permission of the National Rural Support
Programme.

Authored by: Apex Consulting

Reviewed by: Pervaiz Ahmed (Manager MER (SUCCESS) Programme), Altaf Hussain Nizamani (Communication &
Documentation Manager, (SUCCESS) Programme)
Supervised by: Ghulam Mustafa Jamro (Regional General Manager, NRSP-Hyderabad)
Muhammad Tahir Waqar (Senior Programme Manager, MER-Head Office)

Design & Layout: Mansoor Abid

National Rural Support Programme

Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme
House No. 96, Defense Housing Society, Phase II, Hyderabad, Pakistan. Ph: 92-22-2720170

“This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union under the Sindh Union
Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme. Its contents are the
sole responsibility of National Rural Support Programme (NRSP) and do not necessarily reflect the views
of the European Union.”

More information about European Union is available on:

Web: [Link]
Twitter: @EUPakistan
Facebook: European-Union-in-Pakistan
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1. INTRODUCTION 5
1.1. Programme Background 5
1.1.1. Targeted Results 6
1.2. Scope of Assignment 6
2. METHODOLOGY 7
2.1. Survey Design 7
2.2. Sample Framework 7
2.2.1. Sample Size Determination 7
2.2.2. Sample Selection Process 9
2.3. Survey Instrument - HH Questionnaire 9
2.4. Analysis Plan for Baseline Survey 10
3. BASELINE SURVEY: RESULTS 12
3.1. Socio-economic Profile of Households 12
3.1.1. Demographic Structure of Households and Work Status of Household Members 12
3.1.2. Adult Literacy and Schooling of Children 21
3.1.3. State of Health and Physical Environment 28
3.1.4. Household Income: Source and Inequality in Distribution 39
3.1.5. Household Consumption and Expenditure 43
3.1.6. Household Assets – Value and Inequality in Distribution 46
3.1.7. Household Loans: Source and Uses 50
3.1.8. Household Debt 52
3.1.9. Nutrition: Stunting, Wasting and Food Consumption 53
3.1.10. Use of Services and Facilities 58
3.1.11. Perception of Problems 82
3.2. Analysis of Poverty 84
3.2.1. Official poverty line for Rural Sindh 84
3.2.2. Poverty, Incidence, Intensity and Severity 85
4. CONCLUSION 87

Annexures
Annex I: District Short Profiles 91
Annex II: Survey Questionnaire 95

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme i

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

LIST OF FIGURES:
Figure1: Overall Population by Age and Gender 12
Figure 2: Histogram of Poverty Scorecard 13
Figure 3: Average Household Size 14
Figure 4: Male-to-Female Ratio 14
Figure 5: Not Working Status of Households (%) 16
Figure 6: Gross primary, middle and matric levels enrolment ratios (%) 23
Figure 7: Good Health Status of the Overall Household Members 29
Figure 8: Per Capita Monthly Income (Rs.) 41
Figure 9: Household Income: Percentage Share of Total Income 41
Figure 10: Gini Coefficient base on Income and Consumption Expenditure 42
Figure 11: Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure (Rs.) 44
Figure 12: % Share of Monthly per Capita Expenditure by Commodity Group 45
Figure 13: Poverty Headcount based on New Official Poverty Line 86

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Survey Objectives, Key Indicators and Methods 7

Table 2: Power Calculations by district 8
Table 3: Power Calculations by RSP 8
Table 4: Sampled UCs, RVs and HHs 9
Table 5: Demographic Composition of Households 14
Table 6: Work Status of Households 16
Table 7: Type of Skilled Labor(%) 20
Table 8: Adult Literacy in Households (Not Literate) 22
Table 9: Percent of Literate Population with Level of Education 23
Table 10: Gross primary, middle and matric levels enrolment ratios 24
Table 11: School attendance and problems faced by students 24
Table 12: Health Status of the Household Members 28
Table 13: Illness and Treatment 30
Table 14: Vaccination of children 32
Table 15: Structure of Housing and Basic Amenities for Life 36
Table 16: Household Income 2015/2016 39
Table 17: Household Income: Percentage Share of Total Income 42
Table 18: Household Expenditures, 2015/2016 43
Table 19: Household Consumption Expenditure: Percentage Share of Total Expenditure 45
Table 20: Assets of Households 46
Table 21: Quintile Distribution of Assets 48
Table 22: Land and Livestock Holdings of Households 49
Table 23: Loans Taken by Households 50
Table 24: Use of Loan 51
Table 25: Current debt of households 52
Table 26: Wasting of children under 5 years of age 53
Table 27: Stunting of children under 5 years of age 54
Table 28: Per day Food Consumption 55
Table 29: Health related Services and Facilities 59

ii Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 30: Education related Service and Facilities 64

Table 31: Agriculture related Service and Facilities 66
Table 32: Service and Facilities of Law Departments 68
Table 33: Service and Facilities Private Sector 71
Table 34: Service and Facilities by Local Government 73
Table 35: Service and Facilities by Provincial & Federal Government 78
Table 36: Ranking of Problems 83
Table 37: Poverty Headcount (%) based on Consumption Poverty Line 86
Table 38: Poverty Intensity and Severity (%) 86

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme iii

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
APEX APEX Consulting Pakistan
BHU Basic Health Unit
BISP Benazir Income Support Programme
CBN Cost of Basic Needs
CDD Community Driven Development
COs Community Organizations
CPI Consumer Price Index
FGT - P2 Foster–Greer–Thorbecke - Poverty Severity
HHs Households
LHW Lady Health Worker
LSOs Local Support Organizations
MICS Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MDES Minimum Detectable Effect Sizes
NADRA National Database & Registration Authority
NGOs Non-Governmental Organization
NRSP National Rural Support Programme
OPHI Oxford Poverty and Human Development initiatives
PGR Poverty Gap Ratio
PKR Pakistani Rupee
PSC Poverty Scorecard
RSPN Rural Support Programmes Network
RSPs Rural Support Programmes
RV Revenue Village
SES Socio Economic Survey
SRSO Sindh Rural Support Organisation
SUCCESS Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support
TAY Tando Allahyar
TMK Tando Muhammad Khan
TRDP Thardeep Rural Development Programme
UCBPRP Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Program
UCs Union Councils
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
VOs Village Organizations
WHO World Health Organisation

iv Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This baseline household income and expenditure survey covers 1,600 households in four districts of rural
Sindh: Tando Muhammad Khan (TMK), Tando Allahyar (TAY), Matiari, and Sujawal. All rural Union Councils
(UCs) within these targeted districts are the survey universe. The survey provides benchmarks on the
key indicators of the SUCCESS programme for evaluation at its conclusion. The objective of the baseline
survey is to:

a. Collect baseline data to prepare estimates of the income, sources of income, asset ownership,
incidence, depth and severity of poverty and associated social characteristics of the poor
(households) in the targeted programme districts.
b. Assemble baseline information and data in targeted poor households’ access to and use of public
services, such as access to water and sanitation, education, health, civil acts registration, etc.
c. Compile baseline statistics on children’ nutrition status to examine wasting and stunting rates of
children less than 5 years of age in the targeted districts.

In each district a three-stage sampling has been used. In the first stage, the districts are represented
roughly proportional to their number of UCs. In the second stage, within each selected UC, 4 revenue
villages have been selected randomly. In the third stage, a fixed number of 50 households have been
selected from each sampled revenue village. Within the sampled villages all households have been listed
based on the poverty score bands of 0-23 and 24-100. From each sampled revenue village, 40 (80%)
households were selected randomly and 10 (20%) more households from the PSC score of 0-23. The
total sample is 1,600 households with sample population of 10,498 and average household size of 6.6
persons.

The survey results are divided into two main sections: a) socio-economic profile of households and b)
analysis of poverty enabling us to gain an understanding of the socio-economic status of households and
poverty in the SUCCESS programme districts, and track the changes in key socio economic indicators and
poverty over the course of the five-year programme through the baseline and end-line surveys.

Demographic Structure and Work Status: Overall the demographic composition shows a high dependency
ratio at 79.1% with a high male-to-female ratio at 113. Most of the sampled population (86.3%) is
working in the four districts. It is important to highlight that women’s domestic work inside the house has
been considered as work. Overall the population between 19-55 years of age is working most (93.1%),
followed by 14-18 years of age (68.8%). More than two-thirds of the older population (56-64 years) is
also working (68.5%). More women (91.4%) are working than men (81.7%). Clearly everybody in the
two categories of PSC 0-23 and PSC 24-100 has to work for livelihood. It also shows that work inside and
outside the house is an essential part of the adult sampled population. Mainly the adult population works
as unskilled labor – more men (63.1%) than women (26.4%). There are slightly more men skilled workers
(3.9%) than women (1.8%). There are more unskilled male workers in 65.8% households with PSC 0-23
than in 57.2% households with PSC 24-100.

Literacy and Schooling of Children: A majority (83.7%) of the sampled adult population is reported to
be not literate with a higher proportion of not literate adults among female (92%) than male population
(76.2%). The gross primary school enrolment ratio is 55.1%, but the gross middle and matric level
enrolment ratios are startlingly low at 7.7% and 0.2% respectively. Poverty is the main reason for not

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 1

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

sending children to school for 62.6% households with PSC 0-23 and 54.2% households with PSC 24-100.
Moreover a higher proportion of students from poor households reported shortage of books, substandard
education, unavailability of latrines, and water as their main problems compared to students from non-
poor households.

State of Health: Most of the sampled population (66.7%) perceives itself to be in a good healthy state,
followed by 30.9% with fair health. Only 2.4% thought their health was bad. A higher proportion of
children (69.0%) than adults (64.3%) and male (68%) than females (65.3%) are in good health. More
households with PSC 0-23 reported long waiting times, unavailability of medicines and absence of doctor
as their main problems while visiting a health facility compared to households with PSC 24-100. Similarly
a higher proportion of those children who were vaccinated at least once in households with PSC 0-23
had no vaccination for BCG (8.8%), penta 1 (9.7%), penta 2 (13.4%), measles I (23.6%) and measles 2
(28%) compared to households with PSC 24-100.

Structure of Housing & Availability of Utilities: Households with PSC 0-23 largely live (80.1%) in katcha
(clay) structures. The living space is congested with average household size 6.6 persons as majority of
the sampled population (95.9%) lives in two-room houses. A large sampled population uses hand pump
for water and a significant number of households do not have drainage facility (50.7%) and another 39%
have open drains. Nearly half of sampled households (46.8%) do not have an electricity connection. A
vast majority of sample households use wood as main source of fuel. A quarter of the households do not
have an electricity connection. A vast majority of households (74.9%) use wood as main source of fuel.

Availability & Functionality of Public Services and Perceptions of Problems: There seems to be a weak
link between sampled households and the services and facilities provided by the state. This link is weak at
all levels – local, district, provincial and federal. The non-use is highest for the local government, followed
by rule of law institutions – police and court – along with the departments of health and education.

The non-use among health related services and facilities is highest for the District Health department
(83.1%), closely followed by the family planning unit (75.5%), vaccinator (46.3%) and BHU (47.9%).
The least non-use is for the LHW (37.6%). The sampled households seldom come in contact with the
District Education department as 92.9% do not use its services. Additionally half of them also do not use
the services and facilities of schools. As most of the sampled households do not own land or livestock,
78% and 83% are not using the services and facilities of agriculture and veterinary in the four districts.
There is lesser interaction with the formal rule of law institutions – police and court. Majority of the
sampled households – 92.5% and 96.9% - are not using the services of police and court respectively. Of
the households using the services of police, 43.3% are also not satisfied, maintaining that these police
services have worsened over the last 12 months.

Most of the sampled households (89.4) are not using the services of bank. The use of private transport
service – bus – is high as 82.2% households use it. However, 63.6% of the sampled households are
satisfied with the bus service. For almost one-fourth of households (28.9%) the services and facilities
provided by the private transport sector have worsened over the last 12 months. The non-use is high for
the services of local government, UC office, and local magistrate, showing disconnect of the sampled
households with the state at the local level. Sampled households – 92.8%, 91.5% and 89.2% - are
not using the services of the local government, local magistrate and UC office. The use of roads and
drinking obviously is high. But almost half of households (48.8%) are not satisfied with roads’ condition.

2 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Dissatisfaction with the condition of roads is slightly higher in 44.1% households with PSC 0-23 than
38.2% households with PSC 24-100. Similarly almost one-third households (31.2%) are not satisfied
with the service of drinking water. Overall 42.4% households maintain roads’ condition have worsened
over the last 12 months – slightly more households with PSC 0-23 than households PSC 24-100. With
regards to drinking water, 29.2% households termed it worst over the last one year.

The non-use of the provincial and federal level services by the sampled households is also high as in
the case of local government and rule of law services. Except for the services of NADRA, 95.2%, 91.7,
and 76.5% of the sampled households are not using the services of Pakistan Railways, post office,
and electricity and gas. Only 33.6% households are not using the services of NADRA. The provision
of electricity or rather lack of has been termed as the most serious problem by 60% of households,
followed by lack of healthcare (58%), income (poverty) (56.4%), drainage (57.9%), jobs (56.3%), street
pavement (57.1%) education (55%), and lack of savings (49%).

Household Income and Expenditure: Monthly per capita income in all four districts’ sampled population
is PKR 2,460. However, households with PSC 24-100 have 49.5% higher monthly per capita income (PKR
3197) than households with PSC 0-23 (PKR 2,139). The main source of income of sampled households
is unskilled labor (68.9%), followed by crops (5.9%), government/private jobs (7.7%), livestock (5.7%),
skilled labor (3.6%), business/trade (4%) and BISP (2.8%). Survey results indicate a highly skewed
pattern of income distribution. The top 20% households receive bulk of the income share at 47.5%
whereas the bottom 20% households get only 4.8% of the total income, while the remaining middle
60% households get 47.7%. Gini Coefficient based on income at 0.46 is relatively high compared with
the one based on household consumption. Monthly per capita consumption expenditure of the sampled
population is PKR 2,260. Households with PSC 24-100 (PKR 2,608) have 23.6% higher monthly per
capita consumption expenditure than households with PSC 0-23 (PKR 2,109). TAY with PKR 2,700 has
the highest monthly consumption expenditure, whereas TMK (PKR 1,767) has the lowest consumption
expenditure. The share of food expenditure 75% is much higher compared to all other commodity groups.
Other important commodity groups include clothing and footwear (7%), housing (2.7%), social functions
(3.6%), healthcare (4.2%) and education (2%).

Household Assets and Distribution: Average asset value is PKR 31870 per household. For the overall
household sample, productive assets account for 69% of total assets (comprising 50% livestock and
19% agriculture land), followed by consumer durables accounting for 15% and savings for 15% of
the total. The top 20% households hold 90.6% of the assets and bottom 20% only 0% of the assets,
whereas the remaining middle 60% majority households hold hardly 9.4% assets. Nearly 96.9% of
sampled households are landless. Around 79.5% of the sampled households do not own livestock.

Household Loans and Debt: For households taking loan (8.2%), the average size of loan is PKR 38,065
compared to average debt of PKR 92,150. A majority of households (52.2%) have taken loans from
friend and relatives, followed by other sources (mostly landlords) (18.5%), banks (15%), shopkeepers
(10%), and community organizations (4.3%). About 30.7% of the loan amount was used for education
and health followed by housing (30.4%), productive purposes (30.1%), and consumption and social
functions (6.9%).

Malnutrition: Wasting and Stunting: Stunting and wasting appears to be widespread in the sampled
households: 14.9% children under 5 are severely wasted and 26.6% moderately wasted and 39.1%

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 3

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

are severely stunted and 53.4% moderately stunted. Wasting scores are slightly higher among female
(26.9%) than male (26.4%) children in the sampled households.

Poverty, Incidence, Intensity and Severity: On the basis of the recently announced official adjusted
poverty line of PKR 3,183 for rural areas, the overall poverty level is estimated at 75.9% —substantially
higher than 35.6% estimated officially at the national level in rural areas. The highest poverty level is
in TMK (89.3%), followed by Matiari (80.7%), Sujawal (75.4%), and TAY (58.3%). Overall intensity of
poverty, reflected by poverty gap ratio, is 34% indicating a high poverty gap in the sampled population.
The highest poverty gap ratio is in TMK (46.9%) whereas the lowest is in TAY (20.2%). Severity of poverty
captured by FGT P2 measure is high at 18% suggesting a high degree of inequality among the poor.

4 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

1. INTRODUCTION
The Sindh Union Council and Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme is based on the
experiences of the Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Programme (UCBPRP) of the Government of
Sindh (GoS) that was launched in 2008. SUCCESS is aimed at supporting the GoS in developing its local
Community Driven Development (CDD) policy, allowing for a wider geographical outreach and providing
financial means to impact poverty reduction in rural Sindh. To monitor the SUCCESS Programme, baseline
and end-line Socio-Economic Surveys (SES) are planned. The purpose of the baseline survey is to collect
data on socioeconomic attributes of the households and population so as to estimate the changes in
poverty and other living standard indicators. This report analyzes the data collected through baseline
survey during November and December 2016 in eight sample districts.

The organization of the report is as follows: The subsequent sections in this chapter discuss the programme
background, scope of the assignment, methodology concerning the survey design, sample framework,
survey instrument (questionnaire) and plan of the analysis. The next chapter presents the results of the
baseline survey in two parts. The first part in section 3A presents socio-economic profile of households
based on the Poverty Scorecard (PSC) measure using the score ranges of 0-23 and 24-100 to categories
households. The 0-23 category is likely be more poor and most of the SUCCESS level interventions
are focused on the households falling in the category. This will establish the socioeconomic baseline
status of households within the 0-23 range who will be targeted for household level interventions at the
onset of the Programme, and help track the changes in their socio-economic indicators at the end of the
Programme. The section 3B analyzes the level of poverty based on the official poverty line notified in
terms of consumption based basic needs approach in April 2016 by the GoP. This will not only provide the
basis to gain an understanding of poverty incidence, its intensity and severity in the SUCCESS Programme
districts but also enable us to track the changes in poverty over the course of the five year programme.

1.1. Programme Background

The Sindh government launched the Union Council Based Poverty Reduction Programme (UCBPRP) in
four districts in 2008. Implemented by the Rural Support Programmes (RSPs), the Programme was aimed
at mitigating extreme/chronic poverty rates in rural Sindh. Encouraged by positive outcomes produced
by UCBPRP in terms of community development, the Government of Sindh (GoS) planned to scale up the
program.

Subsequently in 2015, after an agreement with the GoS, the European Union launched the Sindh Union
Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme (SUCCESS), in partnership with
the Rural Support Programmes Network (RSPN), National Rural Support Programme (NRSP), Sindh Rural
Support Organisation (SRSO) and Thardeep Rural Development Programme (TRDP). The overall objective
of the SUCCESS Programme is to support the Sindh government to develop a local development policy with
emphasis on community-driven development with corresponding budgetary allocation for implementation
from 2018. The purpose of the SUCCESS Programme is to stimulate community-driven local development
to reduce poverty in eight poor rural districts of Sindh, with particular emphasis on empowering women.
Under various SUCCESS initiatives, living conditions are expected to improve by building the local social
capital for better access to basic social and economic services, and, by diversifying income generating
activities.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 5

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The SUCCESS Programme is based on community-driven development through social mobilization

approach. Working in eight districts, the SUCCESS Programme will mobilize 770,000 rural poor households
into 32,400 Community Organizations (COs), 3,240 Village Organizations (VOs) and 307 Local Support
Organizations (LSOs). The SUCCESS Programme districts are Sujawal, Matiari, TMK, TAY (with NRSP),
Larkana, Kambar Shahdadkot (with SRSO), and Dadu and Jamshoro (with TRDP).

1.1.1. Targeted Results

The targeted results of the SUCCESS Programme are:

4. Rural households (770,000) in eight districts mobilised and capacitated through community
organizations, of which at least 70% will continue to function effectively after the project;
5. An average sustainable increase of poor household incomes by 30%;
6. Increased socioeconomic services and benefits from upgraded community infrastructures and
productive assets operated and maintained with community involvement; and
7. A dedicated Sindh policy and budget framework for community-driven local development
implemented from 2018 onwards.

1.2. Scope of Assignment

The main purpose is to conduct a household socio-economic baseline survey covering about 1,600
households before rolling out the SUCCESS Programme. With the technical support of the University
of Mannheim, RSPN has designed the sampling strategy and survey instruments. After a competitive
bidding process, APEX Consulting Pakistan (APEX) was selected to conduct the baseline survey in the
four selected districts.

The purpose of the baseline survey is to:

1. Collect baseline data to prepare estimates of the income, sources of income, asset ownership,
incidence, depth and severity of poverty and associated social characteristics of the poor
(households) to estimate the change in the targeted programme districts.
2. Assemble baseline information and data in targeted poor households’ access to and use of public
services, such as access to water and sanitation, education, health, civil acts registration, etc. to
estimate the change in the targeted programme districts.
3. Compile baseline statistics on children’ nutrition status to examine wasting and stunting rates
of children less than 5 years of age to estimate the change in the targeted programme districts.

6 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Survey Design

The surveys mainly used quantitative methods and included supplementary qualitative information and
analysis, wherever possible. Due to programmatic limitation and unavailability of reliable controls the
design of the assessment was limited to measuring overall development impact in the programme area
using a before and after intervention design. Table 1 presents a summary of the objectives, key indicators,
tools and survey methods used for data collection.

Table 1: Survey Objectives, Key Indicators and Methods

No. Objective Key Indicators Method Tools

1 Estimating the • Demographic information (age, • Sample household • HH roster
change in the income, education status, health status, (adult member) • HH
source of income, work status of household interviews using questionnaire
asset ownership, members) quantitative
incidence, depth and • Income levels and sources methods
severity of poverty, • Expenditure level and • Consumption
with associated expenditure heads based head
social characteristics • Assets – quantity, value and count ratio/
of the poor people ownership multidimensional
(households) in • Liabilities-loan amount and poverty index
programme targeted sources, debt amount and • Sen’s inequality
districts. sources index/Gini
• Poverty incidence coefficient
• Depth and Severity of poverty

2 Estimating the change • Availability, use and sources • Sample household • Household
in targeted poor of household facilities (water, (adult member) questionnaire
households‘ access sanitation, fuel) interviews using on access,
to and use of public • Availability, access and use quantitative use and
services, such as of public facilities (education, methods functionality of
access to water and health, sanitation, civil acts • Public facilities public services
sanitation, education, registration etc.) access and use
health, civil acts survey
registration, etc.

3 Estimating the change • Stunting rate of under- 5 years • Targeted nutrition • Measurement
in the stunting rate old children survey of under- of height and
of under-5 year 5years children age of children
old children in the in the sample • Interviews with
targeted districts. households parents and
children

2.2. Sample Framework

2.2.1. Sample Size Determination

The power and sample size calculation followed from the evaluation objectives formulated above. The
intension was to measure the change of several key indicators over time precisely enough to confirm a

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 7

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

significant trend. The following objectives were therefore taken as given:

• The sample share from each district was to be roughly proportional to its number of Union
Councils (see description of sampling below)
• Within the lowest sampling stage (the revenue village), about 50 households were to be sampled
in order to maximize cost-effectiveness of the survey logistics
• District level analysis needed to be sufficiently precise.
• At the district level, there was a desire to be able to detect changes in indicators of roughly 20%
relative to the baseline level. For the extremely poor, even higher effects were expected.

Given that there was a need to evaluate changes over time, sample sizes needed to be computed using
paired samples as observations could be expected to be correlated over time. Differencing out these
common error components over time would result in lower standard errors. At the same time, there might
be time-specific effects that were correlated within the village level. This would again increase standard
errors compared to conventional levels. Combining both effects in power calculations was not trivial, but
we believed that in our setting correlation of measurements over time needed to be at least as relevant
as (time specific) correlation within villages. In actuality, both were ignored within village correlation
and correlation over time and replaced with a simple version of the power calculations. Hence, the Stata
command “power two means” (“power two proportions” for binary variables) was used.

The power calculation presented in Table 2 indicated that at least 388 observations per district needed
to be obtained in order to reach an acceptable precision per district, thus a minimum sample of 400
households in each district was taken. This number would suffice to detect significant changes of ten
percentage points or even less. This also meant that the precision for analyses on the RSP or overall level
would be higher.

Table 2: Power Calculations by district

Poverty Headcount Extreme Poverty Headcount

MEAN AT BASELINE 0.5 0.32
MDES 0.1 0.09
MDES / BSL MEAN 20% 28%
N 388 386

Similarly, Power Calculations at RSP level were as follows:

Table 3: Power Calculations by RSP

Poverty Headcount Extreme Poverty Headcount

MEAN AT BASELINE 0.5 0.32
N 1,200 1,200
MDES 0.057 0.052
MDES / BSL MEAN 11.4% 16.3%

Table 3 suggests that at the RSP level changes of about five percentage points can be detected.

8 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

2.2.2. Sample Selection Process

Universe: All rural UCs within the four targeted districts are the universe of this survey. Urban UCs have
been excluded as SUCCESS is being implemented in rural UCs union councils.

Sample Selection Strategy: In each district a three stage sampling was used.

Stage 1: Selection of Union Councils: In districts where the total numbers of UCs were up-to 40, two UCs
were selected randomly; where the total number of UCs union councils was between 40 to 50, three UCs
were selected randomly, and finally where total UCs were more than 50, four UCs were selected. This
guaranteed that districts’ representation was roughly proportional to their number of UCs.

Stage 2: Selection of Revenue Villages: Within each selected UC, four revenue villages were selected
randomly.

Stage 3: Selection of Households: A fixed number of 50 households were selected from each sampled
revenue village. Within the sampled villages all households were listed based on the poverty score bands
of below 23 score and rest. Forty households (80%) from each revenue village were selected randomly
and 10 additional households (20%) were selected from 0-23 PSC score households. This means that
from the 0-23 PSC category a 20% oversampling is done as most of the SUCCESS programme household
level interventions are focused on 0-23 PSC category - so is the measurement of the change in their
socio-economic indicators.

The total sample includes 1,600 households from 32 revenue villages and eight UCs. The following table
represents the total number of UCs, revenue villages, households and corresponding number of samples
for the baseline survey in the targeted districts. The same sampling plan will be repeated in the follow up
survey at the end of the programme.

Table 4: Sampled UCs, RVs and HHs

Sample 1
Overall Overall Sampled Sampled Sample 2 Total
RSP District (overall
UCs RVs UCs RVs PS (0-23) Sample
random)
Matiari 30 107 2 8 320 80 400
Sujawal 37 388 2 8 320 80 400
NRSP
TAY 25 79 2 8 320 80 400
TMK 29 158 2 8 320 80 400
Total 121 732 8 32 1,280 320 1,600

2.3. Survey Instrument - HH Questionnaire

To achieve the three objectives of the survey, the questionnaire comprised of three distinct modules.

Module I- Household Income and poverty: Structured questionnaires were used containing sections
on various socio-economic characteristics of the sample households. This module of the questionnaire
included the following sections:

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 9

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

i. Age, education, profession of respondent

ii. Demographic composition of household (age and gender distribution)
iii. Work status of household members (by age and gender)
iv. Educational achievement of adults including any technical/vocational skills training
v. Schooling of children (by age and gender)
vi. Health status of household members (by age and gender)
vii. Household income with sources of income
viii. Food consumption (by major commodities on a weekly basis)
ix. Household expenditure on different needs
x. Number and value of household assets (consumer durables, productive, and housing )
xi. Value of loans taken from informal and formal sources use of loans for different purposes
(production, consumption, etc.)
xii. Household debt (loans outstanding at present)
xiii. Membership in any existing CO (duration, savings, etc.) and its benefits
xiv. Poverty scorecard indicators

Module II - Availability, accessibility and use of public sector social and economic services: The
following sections were included in this module:

i. Housing facilities (structure, drinking water and sources, drainage, electricity, fuel, etc.)
ii. Availability, access and use of irrigation water
iii. Availability, access and use of education facilities
iv. Availability, access and use of health facilities
v. Availability, access and use agriculture extension services
vi. Availability, access and use of civil act registration services
vii. Identification and perceptions of major problems at the household and village

Module III: Nutrition: To measure the stunting rate of children aged less than 5 years, height, weight and
basic indicators associated with nutrition of all such children were measured.

Actual questionnaires used in the survey are attached as annexure II to this report.

2.4. Analysis Plan for Baseline Survey

The baseline survey has two purposes. Firstly, it is aimed at providing a snapshot of the current situation
and profile of sample households in the targeted districts. Secondly, it sets a benchmark of the key
socioeconomic indicators for the SUCCESS Logframe to measure the change at the end of the programme.
While the analysis of change can only be done after the follow up survey, the baseline results focus
primarily on providing descriptive statistics of key socioeconomic indicators along with providing an
understanding of poverty incidence, its intensity and severity in the SUCCESS programme districts levels.

Descriptive Statistics: Based on the household questionnaire and indicators identified above the descriptive
statistics include the following sections:

1. Socio-Economic Profile of Households

2. Status of households access and use of public social sector services

10 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

3. Status of availability and functionality of public social sector facilities available in sample villages
and Union Councils

Poverty Analysis: The poverty analysis includes the following measure of poverty:

a. Incidence of Poverty: To calculate the incidence of poverty the commonly used measure of
absolute poverty in developing countries, namely Head Count Ratio (HCR) - the proportion of
the households/population with income (consumption as proxy to income) per capita below the
national poverty line defined by the Government of Pakistan - is used. The households needed an
adequate level of income to meet basic needs. These basic needs simply include a basket of food
providing a minimum calorie intake of 2,350 per adult per day and other non-food needs such as
clothing, housing, healthcare and education that are regarded necessary for human existence.
b. The depth and severity of (income) poverty: This is measured by using the following methods:
i. Poverty gap ratio is the sum of income gap ratios of the population below the poverty line
divided by the population of the poor:
PGR = 1/n Σ[(z – yi)/z], where z is the poverty line income, yi is the income of each poor
person (indexed by ) and n is the total population (poor and non-poor). PGR is an index of the
income transfer required to get every poor person out of poverty.
ii. Severity of poverty takes into account the distribution of income among the poor and is
measured by the squared proportionate poverty gap ratio: SP = 1/n Σ[(z – y1/z)2 + (z –
y2/z)2 + (z – y3/z)2 + …. + (z – yq/z)2 ], where z is the poverty line income level, y1 to yq
is the individual income level of the q poor persons. n is the total population (poor and non-
poor).
c. Stunting and Wasting Rate: This includes calculation of stunting and wasting rate for children
of under-five year‘s age. For calculation WHO’s Anthro Plus software1 for assessing growth and
development growth and development of the world’s children has been used.

1 Software for assessing growth and development growth and development of the world’s children

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 11

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

3. BASELINE SURVEY: RESULTS

The results are divided into two main sections:

Socio-economic Profile of Households: This section provides a socio-economic profile of households

bifurcated by the Poverty Scorecard (PSC) measure, specifically using the score ranges of 0-23 and
24-100 to categorize households. In the PSC measure, households with the score of 0 are the poorest,
and those with the score of 100 are likely to be the least poor. This serves the purpose of being able to
establish the socioeconomic baseline status of households within the 0-23 range at the onset of the
Programme, and track the changes in their socio-economic indicators at the end of the programme.
Households within the 0-23 range are being specifically targeted for household level interventions in the
SUCCESS programme.

Analysis of Poverty and Inequality: This section serves the purpose of gaining an understanding of
poverty and inequality in the SUCCESS programme districts, and also to be able to track the changes in
poverty over the course of the five-year programme through baseline and end-line surveys. Poverty has
been measured using the concept of the official poverty line with reference to the consumption based
basic needs approach. In addition, the depth and severity of poverty have also been measured to provide
a holistic analysis of poverty in the programme districts.

3.1. Socio-economic Profile of Households

3.1.1. Demographic Structure of Households and Work Status of Household Members

This section provides information and data on demographic structure of households and work status of
members.

Table 5 indicates demographic composition of the survey sample by age groups in the four districts. The
baseline survey population is 10,498 comprising 7,607 individuals (72.5 %) in households with PSC 0-23
and 8,764 individuals (27.5 %) in households with PSC 24-100.

Figure 1: Overall Population by Age and Gender

70+ 1.6% 1.7% Male Female

65-69 1.2% 1.3%
60-64 2.1% 2.0%
55-59 1.9% 2.0%
50-54 2.7% 2.9%
45-49 4.2% 4.5%
40-44 4.9% 3.6%
35-39 6.1% 6.2%
30-34 6.7% 6.0%
25-29 8.1% 7.0%
20-24 6.8% 7.0%
15-19 10.7% 11.4%
10-14 13.1% 14.3%
5-9 18.2% 18.9%
0-4 11.7% 11.2%
25.0% 15.0% 5.0% 5.0% 15.0% 25.0%

12 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Figure 1 illustrates a population pyramid that shows the distribution of various age groups in sampled
population, which is relatively young. Almost 65% population is below the age of 34, and the number of
young person will continue to grow rapidly during the next 5-10 years. The provision of employment to this
rapidly growing sampled population is a big challenge. The right interventions and policies could enable
youth to become the driving force for poverty reduction. Figure 2 depicts a histogram of poverty scorecard.
It shows how different the two brackets are in terms of the average score. The histogram is asymmetrical
and skewed towards left with average score 20.13 and standard deviation 11.16 representing more poor
households than the non-poor households in the overall sample.

Figure 2: Histogram of Poverty Scorecard

Histogram
600 Mean = 20.13
Std. Dev. = 11.156
N = 10,498
500

400
Frequency

300

200

100

0
-20 0 20
PSC

The sample comprises 49% adults and 51% children with male-to-female ratio at 113, higher than
the national ratio2 at 109. The highest male-to-female ration is in Matiari (119), followed by Dadu
(115), Sujawal and TAY (113 each), and TMK (108). Male-to-female ratio is, however, slightly higher in
households with PSC 24-100 (114) than the households with PSC 0-23 (113). Studies have pointed out
that son preference and unfairness in healthcare practices for girls lead to high female infant mortality
rate3 which in turn leads to high male-to-female ratio, especially among the poor.

The data on demographic composition shows a high overall dependency ratio4 at 79.1% with a higher
dependency ratio among households with PSC 0-23 (88.6%) compared to households with PSC 24-100
(58.1%).

Average household size 6.6 is a little lower than the nationally reported household size (6.8) in rural
Sindh5. However, average size in households with PSC 0-23 is higher (6.8) than households with PSC 24-
100 (6). The highest average household size is in Matiari (6.9), followed by TMK and Sujawal (6.5 each),
and TAY (6.4).

2 Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2005), Pakistan Statistical Yearbook

3 See Therese Hesketh and Zhu Wei Xing (2006), Abnormal sex ratios in human populations: Causes and consequences,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
4 Dependency ratio is defined as the ratio of population in the age groups of up to 13 years plus over 64 years to the population
of those in the age groups of over 13 to 64 years
5 Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (2014) HIES, 2013-14

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 13

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Figure 3: Average Household Size

6.8
6.6
6

All HHs HHs with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

Figure 4: Male-to-Female Ratio

113 113 114

All HHs HHs with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

Table 5: Demographic Composition of Households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Households 399 402 398 400 1,599
Total 2,759 2,600 2,533 2,606 10,498
Male 1,497 1,382 1,342 1,353 5,574
Female 1,262 1,218 1,191 1,253 4,924
Male : Female 119 113 113 108 113
Adults 1,412 1,201 1,185 1,349 5,147
% 51.2 46.2 46.8 51.8 49.0
Male 753 624 617 693 2687
Female 659 577 568 656 2,460
Over 55 Years (%) 6.3 5.7 5.3 7.0 6.1
Children 1,347 1,399 1,348 1,257 5,351
% 48.8 53.8 53.2 48.2 51.0

14 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Male 744 758 725 660 2,887
Female 603 641 623 597 2,464
Up to 10 Years (%) 31.0 36.7 36.7 32.0 34.0
Average Size of HH 6.9 6.5 6.4 6.5 6.6
Households with PSC 0-23
Households 288 325 255 247 1,115
Total 2,061 2,130 1,709 1,707 7,607
Male 1,117 1,117 903 895 4,032
Female 944 1,013 806 812 3,575
Male : Female 118 110 112 110 113
Adults 977 932 727 810 3,446
% 47.4 43.8 42.5 47.5 45.3
Male 517 471 378 418 1,784
Female 460 461 349 392 1,662
Over 55 Years (%) 5.8 5.0 4.2 6.4 5.4
Children 1,084 1,198 982 897 4,161
% 52.6 56.2 57.5 52.5 54.7
Male 600 646 525 477 2,248
Female 484 552 457 420 1,913
Up to 10 Years (%) 33.8 38.2 39.5 35.0 36.6
Average Size of HH 7.2 6.6 6.7 6.9 6.8
Households with PSC 24-100
Households 111 77 143 153 484
Total 698 470 824 899 2,891
Male 380 265 439 458 1,542
Female 318 205 385 441 1,349
Male : Female 119 129 114 104 114
Adults 435 269 458 539 1,701
% 62.3 57.2 55.6 60.0 58.8
Male 236 153 239 275 903
Female 199 116 219 264 798
Over 55 Years (%) 7.7 8.5 7.4 8.1 7.9
Children 263 201 366 360 1,190
% 37.7 42.8 44.4 40.0 41.2
Male 144 112 200 183 639
Female 119 89 166 177 551
Up to 10 Years (%) 22.8 29.8 30.9 26.3 27.3
Average Size of HH 6.3 6.1 5.8 5.9 6.0

Work status of household members:

Table 6 provides data on the work status of the sampled household members between 14-64 years of
age. Most of the sampled population (86.3%) is working. It is important to highlight that domestic work
inside the house has been taken as work. The population between 19-55 years of age is working most
(93.1%), followed by 14-18 years old (68.8%). Nearly two-thirds of the older population (56-64 years)
is also working (68.5%). Clearly everybody in the two categories of PSC 0-23 and PSC 24-100 has to
work for livelihood.

More women (91.4%) are working than men (81.7%). Women’s work status for the age group (19-55)
is slightly higher (94.9%) than men’s (91.4%). It shows that work inside and outside the house is an
essential part of the adult population.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 15

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Of the 13.7% population not working in the sampled households, most (31.5%) are in the 56-64 age
bracket, followed by 31.2% who are between 14-18 years old. Slightly more 15.4% households with PSC
24-100 have members not working than 12.9% in households with PSC 0-23. In both the categories
the adult population (19-55 years) is not working – 5.6 % in households with PSC 0-23 and 9.5% in
households with PSC 24-100. The prevalence of child labour (10-13 years) in the sampled households
is 8.2%, slightly higher (9.1%) in households with PSC 0-23 than 4.9% households with PSC 24-100.

Mainly the adult population works as unskilled labour – more men (63.1%) than women (26.4%). There
are slightly more men skilled workers (3.9%) than women (1.8%). TMK and TAY have the most skilled
workers– 4.9% each for men and TMK has the most skilled workers with 3.7% for women.

Other professions for men are farm labour (15.7%), government job (2.7%), business trade (2.7%),
cultivating own farm (1%), share cropping (0.8%). Men (6.5%) reported household chores as work.

There are more unskilled male workers in 65.8% households with PSC 0-23 than in 57.2% households
with PSC 24-100. The main work for women is household chores (65.6%).

Figure 5: Not Working Status of Households (%)

20.5
18.3
17.3
15.4
13.7
12.9

9.6
8.6 8.2

Overall HHs with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

All HHs Male Female

Table 6: Work Status of Households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

ALL Households
All HH Total 1,634 1,382 1,357 1,490 5,863
Members 14- Male % 53.2 51.7 52.0 52.6 52.4
64 Years Female % 46.8 48.3 48.0 47.4 47.6
Not working
Overall Total 214 215 139 235 803
% 13.1 15.6 10.2 15.8 13.7
56-64 Years % 24.5 38.1 30.4 34.7 31.5
19-55 Years % 7.1 7.6 5.2 7.5 6.9
14-18 Years % 29.1 35.1 21.7 38.8 31.2
Male Male 150 147 92 174 563
% 17.3 20.6 13.0 22.2 18.3

16 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

56-64 Years % 20.3 40.0 20.6 40.5 29.4
19-55 Years % 7.7 10.1 6.0 10.4 8.6
14-18 Years % 45.5 49.1 32.4 55.2 45.6
Female Female 64 68 47 61 240
% 8.4 10.2 7.2 8.6 8.6
56-64 Years % 30.2 36.4 40.0 28.9 33.8
19-55 Years % 6.5 4.8 4.4 4.4 5.1
14-18 Years % 9.1 19.7 8.6 18.5 13.9
Working
Overall Total 1,420 1,167 1,218 1,255 5,060
% 86.9 84.4 89.8 84.2 86.3
56-64 Years % 75.5 61.9 69.6 65.3 68.5
19-55 Years % 92.9 92.4 94.8 92.5 93.1
14-18 Years % 70.9 64.9 78.3 61.2 68.8
Male Male 719 567 614 610 2510
% 82.7 79.4 87.0 77.8 81.7
56-64 Years % 79.7 60.0 79.4 59.5 70.6
19-55 Years % 92.3 89.9 94.0 89.6 91.4
14-18 Years % 54.5 50.9 67.6 44.8 54.4
Female Female 701 600 604 645 2550
% 91.6 89.8 92.8 91.4 91.4
56-64 Years % 69.8 63.6 60.0 71.1 66.3
19-55 Years % 93.5 95.2 95.6 95.6 94.9
14-18 Years % 90.9 80.3 91.4 81.5 86.1
%Child Labour (10-13 years) 13.1 2.2 14.7 3.2 8.2
Male
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 58.3 64.6 78.0 52.5 63.1
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 25.5 12.3 4.0 19.2 15.7
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share 0.6 0.4 1.9 0.5 0.8
cropper
Skilled labour 1.9 4.4 4.9 4.9 3.9
Business/ trade 3.8 1.1 1.1 4.6 2.7
Self-cultivator/own farm 1.0 1.6 - 1.5 1.0
Livestock only 2.5 0.9 0.6 2.6 1.7
Govt Job 4.2 2.1 1.6 2.5 2.7
Private Job 0.1 0.9 1.5 1.3 0.9
Household chores/work 2.2 8.5 6.3 10.0 6.5
Begging - 3.4 - 0.3 0.8
Other - - - 0.2 -
Female
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 43.7 2.8 45.7 11.3 26.4
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 15.4 0.2 0.3 3.4 5.2
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share - - - 0.2 -
cropper
Skilled labour 0.9 1.8 0.7 3.7 1.8
Business/ trade 0.1 0.3 - 0.6 0.3
Self-cultivator/own farm - - - - -
Livestock only 0.3 - - 0.2 0.1
Govt Job 0.3 - 0.2 0.3 0.2
Private Job - - 0.3 - 0.1
Household chores/work 39.4 94.0 52.8 79.8 65.6

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 17

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Begging - 0.8 - 0.5 0.3
Other - - - - -
Households with PSC 0-23
All HH Total 1,159 1,098 859 918 4,034
Members 14- Male % 53.1 50.7 51.3 52.8 52.0
64 Years Female % 46.9 49.3 48.7 47.2 48.0
Not working
Overall Total 136 171 70 144 521
% 11.7 15.6 8.1 15.7 12.9
56-64 Years % 21.4 41.7 33.3 40.9 33.3
19-55 Years % 5.2 6.8 3.9 6.3 5.6
14-18 Years % 28.2 35.6 15.9 37.9 29.7
Male Male 99 112 42 110 363
% 16.1 20.1 9.5 22.7 17.3
56-64 Years % 20.0 44.4 17.6 50.0 32.1
19-55 Years % 5.8 8.9 3.9 9.0 7.0
14-18 Years % 41.6 47.1 23.3 53.9 42.0
Female Female 37 59 28 34 158
% 6.8 10.9 6.7 7.9 8.2
56-64 Years % 23.3 39.4 47.4 31.8 34.6
19-55 Years % 4.6 4.7 4.0 3.5 4.2
14-18 Years % 10.1 22.8 7.1 16.7 14.4
Working
Overall Total 1,023 927 789 774 3513
Working 88.3 84.4 91.9 84.3 87.1
56-64 Years % 78.6 58.3 66.7 59.1 66.7
19-55 Years % 94.8 93.2 96.1 93.7 94.4
14-18 Years % 71.8 64.4 84.1 62.1 70.3
Male Male 517 445 399 375 1736
% 83.9 79.9 90.5 77.3 82.7
56-64 Years % 80.0 55.6 82.4 50.0 67.9
19-55 Years % 94.2 91.1 96.1 91.0 93.0
14-18 Years % 58.4 52.9 76.7 46.1 58.0
Female Female 506 482 390 399 1777
% 93.2 89.1 93.3 92.1 91.8
56-64 Years % 76.7 60.6 52.6 68.2 65.4
19-55 Years % 95.4 95.3 96.0 96.5 95.8
14-18 Years % 89.9 77.2 92.9 83.3 85.6
%Child Labour (10-13 years) 13.9 2.5 18.2 3.2 9.1
Male
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 61.3 67.6 83.0 51.5 65.8
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 25.9 12.1 2.3 22.7 16.2
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share 0.2 0.4 1.3 0.8 0.6
cropper
Skilled labour 1.5 3.1 4.5 5.9 3.6
Business/ trade 3.5 0.9 0.3 4.3 2.2
Self-cultivator/own farm 1.2 1.1 - 1.9 1.0
Livestock only 2.9 0.9 0.5 2.9 1.8
Govt Job 2.3 1.3 0.8 0.5 1.3
Private Job - 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.7
Household chores/work 1.2 7.9 6.5 8.0 5.6
Begging - 3.6 - 0.5 1.0

18 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Other - - - - -
Female
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 48.0 3.3 54.6 11.3 29.1
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 16.4 0.2 0.3 4.3 5.7
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share - - - 0.3 0.1
cropper
Skilled labour 1.0 2.3 0.5 3.8 1.9
Business/ trade 0.2 0.4 - 0.5 0.3
Self-cultivator/own farm - - - - -
Livestock only - - - - -
Govt Job - - - - -
Private Job - - 0.5 - 0.1
Household chores/work 34.4 92.9 44.1 79.4 62.5
Begging - 0.8 - 0.5 0.3
Other - - - - -
Households with PSC 24-100
All HH Total 475 284 498 572 1,829
Members 14- Male % 53.3 55.3 53.2 52.3 53.3
64 Years Female % 46.7 44.7 46.8 47.7 46.7
Not working
Overall Total 78 44 69 91 282
% 16.4 15.5 13.9 15.9 15.4
56-64 Years % 31.3 29.2 27.3 25.8 28.3
19-55 Years % 11.4 10.3 7.3 9.4 9.5
14-18 Years % 32.1 31.9 34.7 40.8 35.6
Male Male 51 35 50 64 200
% 20.2 22.3 18.9 21.4 20.5
56-64 Years % 21.1 30.8 23.5 26.7 25.0
19-55 Years % 11.8 14.0 9.3 12.6 11.7
14-18 Years % 61.5 60.9 51.9 58.5 57.4
Female Female 27 9 19 27 82
% 12.2 7.1 8.2 9.9 9.6
56-64 Years % 46.2 27.3 31.3 25.0 32.1
19-55 Years % 11.0 5.4 5.1 5.8 6.9
14-18 Years % 6.7 4.2 12.2 22.0 12.5
Working
Overall Total 397 240 429 481 1,547
Working 83.6 84.5 86.1 84.1 84.6
56-64 Years % 68.8 70.8 72.7 74.2 71.7
19-55 Years % 88.6 89.7 92.7 90.6 90.5
14-18 Years % 67.9 68.1 65.3 59.2 64.4
Male Male 202 122 215 235 774
% 79.8 77.7 81.1 78.6 79.5
56-64 Years % 78.9 69.2 76.5 73.3 75.0
19-55 Years % 88.2 86.0 90.7 87.4 88.3
14-18 Years % 38.5 39.1 48.1 41.5 42.6
Female Female 195 118 214 246 773
% 87.8 92.9 91.8 90.1 90.4
56-64 Years % 53.8 72.7 68.8 75.0 67.9
19-55 Years % 89.0 94.6 94.9 94.2 93.1
14-18 Years % 93.3 95.8 87.8 78.0 87.5
%Child Labour (10-13 years) 10.2 0.0 4.8 3.1 4.9

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 19

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Male
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 50.5 53.3 68.9 54.0 57.2
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 24.3 13.1 7.3 13.6 14.5
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share 1.5 - 3.2 - 1.3
cropper
Skilled labour 3.0 9.0 5.5 3.4 4.8
Business/ trade 4.5 1.6 2.7 5.1 3.7
Self-cultivator/own farm 0.5 3.3 - 0.9 0.9
Livestock only 1.5 0.8 0.9 2.1 1.4
Govt Job 8.9 4.9 3.2 5.5 5.7
Private Job 0.5 0.8 2.3 1.7 1.4
Household chores/work 5.0 10.7 5.9 13.2 8.6
Begging - 2.5 - - 0.4
Other - - - 0.4 0.1
Female
Unskilled labour/mazdoor 32.3 0.8 29.4 11.4 20.1
Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 12.8 - 0.5 2.0 4.0
contract/wages)
Cultivation on partnership/share - - - - -
cropper
Skilled labour 0.5 - 0.9 3.7 1.6
Business/ trade - - - 0.8 0.3
Self-cultivator/own farm - - - - -
Livestock only 1.0 - - 0.4 0.4
Govt Job 1.0 - 0.5 0.8 0.6
Private Job - - - - -
Household chores/work 52.3 98.3 68.7 80.5 72.8
Begging - 0.8 - 0.4 0.3
Other - - - - -

Table 7 reports types of labor skills within the survey sample. Out of 5,060 working population, 151
(2.9%) are reported as skilled labour. Out of skilled workforce, 40.4% were drivers followed by handicraft
workers (21.9%), tailors (15.2%), cook (4.6%), masons (4%), plumber and electrician (3.3% each),
carpenters (2.8%), and mechanics (2%).

Table 7: Type of Skilled Labor(%)

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Number of Skilled labour 22 38 36 55 151
Distribution of skill labour by types (%)
Tailor 22.7 10.5 19.4 12.7 15.2
Mason - 7.9 2.8 3.6 4.0
Metal work - - - - -
Carpenter - 5.3 - 3.6 2.6
Plumber - - 2.8 7.3 3.3
Electrician - - 11.1 1.8 3.3
Mechanic 4.5 5.3 - - 2.0
Driver 45.5 50.0 44.4 29.1 40.4
Cook 9.1 2.6 8.3 1.8 4.6

20 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari
Sujawal TAY TMK Total
Mobile repair - - - - -
Handicraft 13.6 15.8 5.6 40.0 21.9
Beautician/barber - - 2.8 - 0.7
Others labour (specify) 4.5 2.6 2.8 - 2.0
Households with PSC 0-23
Number of Skilled labour 15 26 20 37 98
Distribution of skill labour by types (%)
Tailor 20.0 15.4 20.0 8.1 14.3
Mason - 11.5 5.0 5.4 6.1
Metal work - - - - -
Carpenter - - - 5.4 2.0
Plumber - - 5.0 5.4 3.1
Electrician - - 15.0 - 3.1
Mechanic 6.7 - - - 1.0
Driver 40.0 46.2 40.0 32.4 38.8
Cook 13.3 - 5.0 2.7 4.1
Mobile repair - - - - -
Handicraft 20.0 23.1 - 40.5 24.5
Beautician/barber - - 5.0 - 1.0
Others labour (specify) - 3.8 5.0 - 2.0
Households with PSC 24-100
Number of Skilled labour 7 11 15 17 50
Distribution of skill labour by types (%)
Tailor 28.6 - 20.0 23.5 18.0
Mason - - - - -
Metal work - - - - -
Carpenter - 18.2 - - 4.0
Plumber - - - 11.8 4.0
Electrician - - 6.7 5.9 4.0
Mechanic - 18.2 - - 4.0
Driver 57.1 54.5 53.3 23.5 44.0
Cook - 9.1 13.3 - 6.0
Mobile repair - - - - -
Handicraft - - 6.7 35.3 14.0
Beautician/barber - - - - -
Others labour (specify) 14.3 - - - 2.0

In sub-sample of skilled labor in households with PSC 0-23, 38.8% were drivers followed by handicraft
workers (24.5%), tailors (14.3%), masons (6.1%), cook (4.1%), plumber and electrician (3.1% each),
carpenters (2%), and mechanics (1%). Households with PSC 24-100 also reported more or less similar
proportion of various skillsets.

3.1.2. Adult Literacy and Schooling of Children

Education has been identified as a key component of human capital quality essential for achieving
higher incomes and sustainable economic growth6. It is also recognized as an essential ingredient in
poverty eradication. One of the outcomes of basic education is literacy (the ability to read and write with
understanding in any language and perform simple arithmetic). Table 8 presents data on adult literacy.

6 Papadenos, Lucas (2007), “Human Capital and Economic Growth” speech in 35th Economic Conference by National bank
Vienna. Also see Keuger, Alan, B and Mikael Lindhal (2001), “Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?” Journal of Economic
Literature 6(2): 289-339.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 21

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Unfortunately, 83.7% of the sampled population is reported to be not literate with a higher proportion of
not literate adults among female (92%) than male population (76.2%).

The not literate adult sampled population at 83.7% is much higher than 42% in Sindh and 43% in the
country7. It may be due to the fact that SUCCESS sample households belong to the poorest of the poor
groups in the country. Thus, such poor outcome is expected in the sample.

Not surprisingly, households with PSC 0-23 reported more adult not literates (88.1%) than households
with PSC 24-100 (75.0%). Similarly, households with PSC 0-23 reported more male and female adult not
literates than households with PSC 24-100. A higher female adult proportion with no literacy is visible in
households with PSC 0-23 (95.2%) compared with households with PSC 24-100 (85.2%).

However, the average of the sampled population conceals significant differences across districts. The
highest not literate population is in Sujawal (90.2%), followed by Matiari (85.6%), TAY (83.0%), and TMK
(76.7.9%). Most of the sampled household members are from poor community – 72.5% are from PSC
0-23. Additionally, 54.2% households cited poverty as the main reason for not going to school presently
or for never getting admission in a school (See Table 11) implying that households with PSC 24-100 also
belong to the poor segments of the population.

In the selected districts TAY has least number of primary schools8 (342) with overall only a little more
than half of the population (54%) completing primary level or higher education9. Similarly in Sujawal and
Matiari only 43.9% and 43.3% population has completed primary level or higher education10. The literacy
rate (10+) in TAY, Sujawal, and Matiari is 60%, 66% and 61% respectively11.

Table 8 provides data on percentage of literate population with level of education. In the sample of literate
population, 40.8% adults acquired primary level education. Interestingly, a higher proportion of the
literate adults attended education up to high school and post matriculation than middle level education.
A low proportion of 1% of the literate adults did not attend any formal school. Interestingly, a higher
proportion of the literate adults attended primary school in households with PSC 0-23 (46.9%) than in
households with PSC 24-100 (35.0%).

Table 8: Adult Literacy in Households (Not Literate)

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Overall 85.6 90.2 83.0 76.7 83.7
Male 78.4 83.7 75.2 68.0 76.2
Female 93.9 97.2 91.4 86.0 92.0
Households with PSC 0-23
Overall 87.0 92.7 89.3 83.0 88.1
Male 79.7 87.0 84.1 74.6 81.4
Female 95.2 98.5 94.8 91.8 95.2
7 Based on not literate adults > 15 years, PSLM, 2014-15. Analyzing sampled households adult literacy based on > 15 years
would hardly make any difference.
8 District Education Profile 2013-14, SINDH Education Management Information System (SEMIS), Reform Support Unit
9 PSLM 2014-15
10 Ibid
11 Ibid. The findings of low literacy rate in the sampled population is not comparable with District Education Pofile 2013-14 since
the baseline survey only covers the rural households with significantly more households below the cut-off threshold of 23 poverty
scorecard in an effort to identify them as poor for programme intervention.

22 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Households with PSC 24-100
Overall 82.5 81.4 72.9 67.3 75.0
Male 75.4 73.2 61.1 57.8 65.9
Female 91.0 92.2 85.8 77.3 85.2

Table 9: Percent of Literate Population with Level of Education

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Primary School 43.3 43.9 37.7 40.1 40.8
Middle School 13.3 12.3 19.1 12.4 14.2
High School 29.1 30.7 20.1 20.1 23.7
Post Matriculation 13.3 13.2 23.1 25.5 20.2
No Schooling 1.0 - - 1.9 1.0
Households with PSC 0-23
Primary School 52.0 54.7 35.9 44.9 46.9
Middle School 15.0 14.1 19.2 10.1 14.0
High School 23.6 25.0 26.9 23.9 24.6
Post Matriculation 7.9 6.3 17.9 18.1 13.0
No Schooling 1.6 - - 2.9 1.5
Households with PSC 24-100
Primary School 28.9 30.0 38.8 36.4 35.0
Middle School 10.5 10.0 19.0 14.2 14.4
High School 38.2 38.0 15.7 17.0 22.9
Post Matriculation 22.4 22.0 26.4 31.3 27.2
No Schooling - - - 1.1 0.5

Table 10 shows the gross primary, middle and matric levels enrolment ratios12 in the sampled population.
The overall gross primary enrolment ratio is 55.1% for all households with much lower proportion in
households with PSC 0-23 (45.7%) compared to households with PSC 24-100 (91.4%), (See
Figure 6).

Figure 6: Gross primary, middle and matric levels enrolment ratios (%)

91.4

55.1
45.7

23.2

7.7
3.4
0.2 0.2 0

Primary Middle Matric

All HH HH with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

12 The gross enrolment ratios at the primary, middle and matric levels are defined as children studying in schools divided by the
population with age 5-9 for primary, with age 10-12 for middle and with age 13-14 for matric, respectively.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 23

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 10: Gross primary, middle and matric levels enrolment ratios

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

ALL Households
Primary 64.9 53.4 37.1 67.0 55.1
Middle 8.1 2.0 10.4 10.8 7.7
Matric 0.6 - - - 0.2
Households with PSC 0-23
Primary 56.6 50.2 21.1 54.8 45.7
Middle 1.9 1.2 5.0 6.3 3.4
Matric 0.8 - - - 0.2
Households with PSC 24-100
Primary 103.8 75.8 81.5 102.5 91.4
Middle 31.0 6.7 27.9 22.4 23.2
Matric - - - - -

Gross primary enrolment ratio in the sampled households 55.1% is lower compared to 79% in Sindh and
91% in the country13. As explained above, SUCCESS sample households belong to the poorest of the poor
groups and thus a relatively low outcome in the sample is quite likely.

The highest gross primary enrolment ratio is in TMK (67%), followed by Matiari (64.9%), Sujawal (53.4%)
and TAY (37.1%).

However, there appears to be sharp changes in enrolment ratios with the change in the level of education.
The gross enrolment ratios decline rapidly with increasing level of education. For all households, the
gross middle and matric level enrolment ratios are 7.7% and 0.2% respectively. The proportions for
middle level enrollments are much lower in households with PSC 0-23 (3.4%) compared to households
with PSC 24-100 (23.2%). On the other hand, the results relating to the matric level enrollments are
alarming with only 0.8% enrolment only in Matiari and zero in households with PSC 0-23 whereas no one
is studying in matric in households with PSC 24-100 in any of the districts.

Table 11 reports data on school attendance, problems faced by students, and reasons for not attending
school. The results are alarming. In the overall sample, 75.9% of all children were not in school with
69.4% male and 83.7% female. The proportion of all children not in school is much higher in households
with PSC 0-23 (79.9%) than in households with PSC 24-100 (61.8%).The highest proportion of all
children not in school was in TAY at 83.1% whereas the lowest proportion was in TMK at 69.4%.

Table 11: School attendance and problems faced by students

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

ALL Households
All Children (5-18 Years) 1,123 1,156 1,125 1,032 4,436
Children Not in School
% Overall 73.7 76.8 83.1 69.4 75.9
% Male 67.4 68.3 77.3 64.2 69.4
% Female 81.9 87.2 90.0 75.2 83.7
Minor/aged 7.1 7.9 5.1 16.1 8.7
Education Completed - 0.3 0.1 - 0.1

13 PSLM 2014-15

24 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Education is costly 17.0 21.7 1.3 5.7 11.5
Far Away 22.8 18.0 18.2 14.9 18.6
Household chores 1.3 3.7 1.0 16.9 5.2
Helping in work 10.4 3.3 1.4 5.3 4.9
Not Useful 0.1 2.0 4.6 0.3 1.9
Ill/incapacitated 1.1 7.2 0.4 2.4 2.8
Marriage/pregnancy - - 0.3 - 0.1
Employment/Work 5.1 1.5 - 0.8 1.8
Substandard School 1.9 13.3 0.2 3.4 4.8
Shortage of male/female teachers 2.1 6.6 1.8 3.8 3.6
Parents do not permit 9.1 10.4 46.7 9.4 19.9
Child is not ready 32.7 20.2 11.4 35.1 24.0
Poverty 64.3 52.4 72.5 53.5 61.1
Others 0.8 0.8 - 0.8 0.6
Children in School
% Overall 26.3 23.2 16.9 30.6 24.1
% Male 32.6 31.7 22.7 35.8 30.6
% Female 18.1 12.8 10.0 24.8 16.3
Satisfied 84.4 67.5 40.0 94.3 75.2
Shortage of teachers 13.6 9.7 54.2 7.9 18.1
Shortage of Books 3.4 19.0 7.9 0.6 7.3
Substandard Education 7.1 6.0 18.9 3.5 7.9
Far away 10.8 17.2 29.5 5.7 14.2
Education is Costly 3.4 2.6 4.2 1.9 2.9
Latrine/water not available 2.0 5.6 9.5 - 3.6
Others 2.4 - 0.5 - 0.7
Current Class
< Class-I - - - - -
Class-I 37.6 47.0 36.3 22.2 35.2
Class-II 10.8 16.0 13.7 14.6 13.8
Class-III 10.8 13.1 9.5 12.3 11.6
Class-IV 8.8 6.3 13.7 9.2 9.2
Class-V 10.5 5.6 3.7 8.5 7.5
Class-VI 6.1 4.1 5.8 9.8 6.6
Class-VII 2.4 1.9 3.7 5.1 3.3
Class-VIII 3.4 1.5 5.8 5.1 3.8
Class-IX 1.7 2.2 2.1 4.4 2.7
Class-X 3.1 1.1 2.1 4.4 2.8
FA/F.S.C. 1.4 1.1 3.2 2.5 2.0
BA/[Link]. 1.0 - 0.5 1.9 0.9
Degree in Engineering - - - - -
MBBS - - - - -
Degree in Computer - - - - -
Degree in Agriculture - - - - -
MA/MSC - - - - -
[Link]/Ph.D - - - - -
Others 2.4 - - - 0.7
Households with PSC 0-23
All Children (5-18 Years) 897 997 823 744 3461
Children Not in School
% Overall 77.0 77.8 90.2 74.6 79.9
% Male 71.5 70.4 85.4 68.2 73.8
% Female 84.3 86.8 95.8 81.9 87.2
Minor/aged 6.4 7.7 4.0 15.7 8.0

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 25

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Education Completed - 0.3 - - 0.1
Education is costly 18.1 22.4 1.6 4.9 12.2
Far Away 22.6 18.6 18.2 16.2 19.0
Household chores 1.2 4.0 1.1 18.2 5.4
Helping in work 9.4 3.5 1.2 3.8 4.4
Not Useful 0.1 2.3 4.3 0.2 1.9
Ill/incapacitated 0.9 7.7 0.5 1.8 2.9
Marriage/pregnancy - - - - -
Employment/Work 5.1 1.3 - 0.5 1.7
Substandard School 1.9 14.0 0.3 4.0 5.3
Shortage of male/female teachers 2.3 6.8 1.9 3.4 3.7
Parents do not permit 8.1 10.3 46.8 9.7 19.4
Child is not ready 32.0 19.8 9.6 36.4 23.4
Poverty 67.9 52.4 75.6 53.0 62.6
Others 0.7 0.9 - 1.1 0.7
Children in School
% Overall 23.0 22.2 9.8 25.4 20.1
% Male 28.5 29.6 14.6 31.8 26.2
% Female 15.7 13.2 4.2 18.1 12.8
Satisfied 85.9 67.0 39.5 91.0 75.9
Shortage of teachers 10.7 10.4 64.2 10.6 16.8
Shortage of Books 2.9 20.4 3.7 1.1 8.0
Substandard Education 7.3 5.9 19.8 4.8 7.6
Far away 9.7 17.2 29.6 7.9 13.9
Education is Costly 1.9 2.7 3.7 1.6 2.3
Latrine/water not available 0.5 5.0 8.6 - 2.7
Others 1.9 - - - 0.6
Current Class
< Class-I - - - - -
Class-I 38.8 50.7 39.5 25.4 39.0
Class-II 13.6 14.0 13.6 13.2 13.6
Class-III 13.1 13.6 8.6 14.3 13.1
Class-IV 7.8 6.8 9.9 9.0 8.0
Class-V 9.7 4.5 7.4 10.1 7.9
Class-VI 5.8 3.2 8.6 7.9 5.9
Class-VII 3.4 1.4 - 4.8 2.7
Class-VIII 3.4 1.8 4.9 6.9 4.0
Class-IX 1.0 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.0
Class-X 1.9 0.9 1.2 3.7 2.0
FA/[Link]. - 0.5 3.7 1.6 1.0
BA/[Link]. 0.5 - - 1.1 0.4
Degree in Engineering - - - - -
MBBS - - - - -
Degree in Computer - - - - -
Degree in Agriculture - - - - -
MA/MSC - - - - -
[Link]/Ph.D - - - - -
Others 1.0 - - - 0.3
Households with PSC 24-100
All Children (5-18 Years) 226 159 302 288 975
Children Not in School
% Overall 60.6 70.4 63.9 55.9 61.8
% Male 50.4 55.6 55.7 53.7 53.9
% Female 72.8 89.9 74.1 58.3 71.3

26 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Minor/aged 10.9 8.9 9.3 17.4 11.8
Education Completed - 0.9 0.5 - 0.3
Education is costly 11.7 17.0 - 8.7 8.1
Far Away 24.1 14.3 18.1 10.6 16.7
Household chores 2.2 1.8 0.5 12.4 4.3
Helping in work 15.3 1.8 2.1 10.6 7.3
Not Useful - - 5.7 0.6 2.0
Ill/incapacitated 2.2 3.6 - 4.3 2.3
Marriage/pregnancy - - 1.6 - 0.5
Employment/Work 5.1 2.7 - 1.9 2.2
Substandard School 2.2 8.0 - 1.2 2.3
Shortage of male/female teachers 0.7 5.4 1.6 5.0 3.0
Parents do not permit 13.9 10.7 46.6 8.1 22.2
Child is not ready 36.5 22.3 18.7 30.4 26.5
Poverty 46.0 51.8 60.6 55.3 54.2
Others 1.5 - - - 0.3
Children in School
% Overall 39.4 29.6 36.1 44.1 38.2
% Male 49.6 44.4 44.3 46.3 46.1
% Female 27.2 10.1 25.9 41.7 28.7
Satisfied 80.9 70.2 40.4 99.2 73.9
Shortage of teachers 20.2 6.4 46.8 3.9 20.7
Shortage of Books 4.5 12.8 11.0 - 5.9
Substandard Education 6.7 6.4 18.3 1.6 8.3
Far away 13.5 17.0 29.4 2.4 14.8
Education is Costly 6.7 2.1 4.6 2.4 4.0
Latrine/water not available 5.6 8.5 10.1 - 5.4
Others 3.4 - 0.9 - 1.1
Current Class
< Class-I - - - - -
Class-I 34.8 29.8 33.9 17.3 28.0
Class-II 4.5 25.5 13.8 16.5 14.0
Class-III 5.6 10.6 10.1 9.4 8.9
Class-IV 11.2 4.3 16.5 9.4 11.3
Class-V 12.4 10.6 0.9 6.3 6.7
Class-VI 6.7 8.5 3.7 12.6 8.1
Class-VII - 4.3 6.4 5.5 4.3
Class-VIII 3.4 - 6.4 2.4 3.5
Class-IX 3.4 - 1.8 7.9 4.0
Class-X 5.6 2.1 2.8 5.5 4.3
FA/[Link]. 4.5 4.3 2.8 3.9 3.8
BA/[Link]. 2.2 - 0.9 3.1 1.9
Degree in Engineering - - - - -
MBBS - - - - -
Degree in Computer - - - - -
Degree in Agriculture - - - - -
MA/MSC - - - - -
[Link]/Ph.D - - - - -
Others 5.6 - - - 1.3

Table 11 also reports data on two main reasons for not going to school presently or for never getting
admission in a school. Both households with PSC 0-23 (62.6%) and PSC 24-100 (54.2%) cited poverty
as the main reason for not sending their children to school. Other main reasons often cited by households
with PSC 0-23 are child not ready to go to school, minor age of child, costly education, school being far

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 27

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

away, ill or incapacitated child and substandard school. On the other hand, more households with PSC
24-100 quoted parents not permitting, household chores, marriage or pregnancy, and employment or
work as the main reasons for not sending kids to school.

Table 11 also reports on whether the students are facing any problem in the institutions where they are
studying. Interestingly, the higher proportion of households with PSC 24-100 reported long distance to
the institutions and cost of education as their main problems. However, more students from households
with PSC 0-23 reported shortage of books, substandard education, unavailability of latrine, and water as
their main problems.

3.1.3. State of Health and Physical Environment

Health is an important component of human capital because ill health results in loss of earning opportunities
and perpetuation of poverty. Thus, achieving a good health for the target group is considered to be an
important component in many poverty alleviation14 programmes.

To assess the health status of the sample population, the respondents were asked to place the status
of each member of household in one of the three given categories: good, fair and poor. The first two are
regarded as healthy states, and the third one indicates chronic and acute ailments. Table 12 reports data
on health status of household members. Two-third of the sampled population (66.7%) considers itself in
a good healthy state while 30.9% perceive themselves in fair health. Only 2.4% considered themselves
to be in bad health. However, a higher proportion of children (69.0%) than adults (64.3%) and male
(68%) than females (65.3%) are in good health. Similar differences exist in sub-samples of households
with PSC 0-23 and PSC 24-100.

Table 12: Health Status of the Household Members

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Percent in Good Health Total 85.8 50.5 75.0 54.7 66.7
Male 87.0 50.8 76.0 56.4 68.0
Female 84.3 50.1 73.8 52.8 65.3
Children 91.2 52.5 74.1 57.9 69.0
Adults 80.6 48.0 75.9 51.7 64.3
Percent in Fair Health Total 12.7 46.2 24.4 41.3 30.9
Male 11.8 45.3 23.4 39.8 29.7
Female 13.8 47.3 25.4 43.0 32.3
Children 7.9 45.7 25.5 39.0 29.5
Adults 17.3 46.8 23.0 43.5 32.4
Percent in Bad Health Total 1.5 3.3 0.7 4.0 2.4
Male 1.2 3.9 0.6 3.8 2.4
Female 1.9 2.6 0.8 4.2 2.4
Children 0.9 1.7 0.4 3.1 1.5
Adults 2.1 5.2 1.0 4.8 3.3
Households with PSC 0-23
Percent in Good Health Total 86.6 50.6 76.0 55.9 67.2
Male 87.6 51.2 76.4 58.2 68.5
Female 85.4 50.0 75.4 53.4 65.8

14 For example, Benazir Income Support Program.

28 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Children 91.3 52.6 75.1 58.2 69.2
Adults 81.3 48.1 77.2 53.5 64.9
Percent in Fair Health Total 12.1 46.1 23.2 40.2 30.4
Male 11.5 44.9 22.9 38.0 29.2
Female 12.9 47.4 23.6 42.7 31.9
Children 8.0 45.7 24.4 38.7 29.3
Adults 16.7 46.7 21.6 42.0 31.8
Percent in Bad Health Total 1.3 3.3 0.8 3.8 2.3
Male 1.0 3.8 0.7 3.8 2.3
Female 1.7 2.7 1.0 3.8 2.3
Children 0.6 1.8 0.5 3.1 1.5
Adults 2.0 5.3 1.2 4.6 3.3
Households with PSC 24-100
Percent in Good Health Total 83.5 49.8 72.9 52.3 65.3
Male 85.5 49.1 75.2 52.8 66.6
Female 81.1 50.7 70.4 51.7 63.8
Children 90.9 52.2 71.6 57.2 68.2
Adults 79.1 48.0 74.0 49.0 63.3
Percent in Fair Health Total 14.3 46.8 26.7 43.4 32.2
Male 12.6 46.8 24.4 43.2 30.9
Female 16.4 46.8 29.4 43.5 33.6
Children 7.2 46.3 28.4 39.7 30.2
Adults 18.6 47.2 25.3 45.8 33.6
Percent in Bad Health Total 2.1 3.4 0.4 4.3 2.5
Male 1.8 4.2 0.5 3.9 2.5
Female 2.5 2.4 0.3 4.8 2.6
Children 1.9 1.5 - 3.1 1.6
Adults 2.3 4.8 0.7 5.2 3.2

However, there are significant differences in the state of health across the sampled population in the four
districts. The lowest percentage of the sampled population that considers itself in a good healthy state is
in Sujawal (50.5%).

Figure 7: Good Health Status of the Overall Household Members

85.8
75.0
66.7

54.7
50.5

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 29

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

According to the perception of respondents, only 2.4% considered themselves to be in bad health because
of chronic and acute ailments. The proportion of people in bad health is higher in households with PSC
0-23 than households with PSC 24-100 for all sub-samples of male, female, children and adults. More
adults (3.3%) than children (1.5%) and equal proportion of males and females (2.4% each) considered
themselves to be in bad state of health.

Table 13 reports data on illness and treatment. Half of the sampled population (52.4%) suffered from
illness or injury during the last year, of which 97% consulted health facilities for treatment. The first
choice for seeking treatment is private clinic/hospital/chemist (42.1%), followed by government hospital
at Taluka/District level (33.8%), government dispensary (16.2%), BHU (6.5%) and RHC (0.8%). A
similar trend follows for households with PSC 0-23 and households with PSC 24-100. Among those who
consulted health facilities, 61.7% were satisfied. Households with PSC 0-23 are slightly less satisfied
(60.3%) than households with PSC 24-100 (65.1%) during a visit to a health facility.

Table 13: Illness and Treatment

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
% of Illness/injury during last year Yes 47.6 69.6 71.7 21.3 52.4
No 52.4 30.4 28.3 78.7 47.6
% of population consulted for Yes 90.0 99.6 99.6 96.8 97.0
treatment No 10.0 0.4 0.4 3.2 3.0
% of who was consulted for treatment?
LHW/LHV - - 0.1 2.0 0.2
Govt. Dispensary 30.0 1.7 18.6 26.6 16.2
Govt. Basic Health Unit (BHU) 0.7 9.2 0.4 30.1 6.5
Rural Health Centre 0.2 1.8 0.2 0.9 0.8
Govt. Hospital (Taluka/District level) 40.0 48.4 19.4 19.9 33.8
Private Clinic/Hospital/chemist 29.0 38.5 61.1 19.1 42.1
Hakeem 0.2 0.3 - 0.7 0.2
Homoeopath - - 0.3 0.2 0.1
One who performs ‘Dum’ (spiritualism) - - - 0.2 -
Other (Please Specify) - - - 0.2 -
% Problems in health facilities (multiple responses question)
Satisfied 84.6 41.9 61.3 79.2 61.7
Doctor not present 1.9 2.2 3.8 1.5 2.6
Staff non-cooperative 4.1 3.5 1.2 2.8 2.8
Lady staff not present 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4
Lack of cleanliness 2.2 0.9 1.7 0.6 1.4
Long wait 4.1 27.3 33.4 31.4 24.6
Costly treatment 26.8 50.6 56.6 8.9 43.2
Staff untrained 0.8 4.4 0.6 - 1.9
Medicines not available 6.2 16.0 21.1 8.0 14.7
Unsuccessful Treatment 3.5 5.2 1.2 9.7 3.9
Other (Please Specify) 26.5 - - - 5.9
Households with PSC 0-23
% of Illness/injury during last year Yes 45.3 68.6 68.3 21.7 51.7
No 54.7 31.4 31.7 78.3 48.3
% of population consulted for Yes 87.6 99.5 99.5 95.7 96.3
treatment No 12.4 0.5 0.5 4.3 3.7

30 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

% of who was consulted for treatment?
LHW/LHV - - 0.1 2.5 0.3
Govt. Dispensary 32.4 1.9 18.9 25.1 15.8
Govt. Basic Health Unit (BHU) 0.7 8.8 0.6 29.4 6.5
Rural Health Centre 0.1 1.5 0.3 1.1 0.8
Govt. Hospital (Taluka/District level) 41.6 46.5 21.0 22.6 35.4
Private Clinic/Hospital/chemist 25.1 40.9 59.0 18.9 41.0
Hakeem - 0.4 - - 0.2
Homoeopath - - 0.2 - 0.1
One who performs ‘Dum’ (spiritualism) - - - 0.3 -
Other (Please Specify) - - - - -
% Problems in health facilities (multiple responses question)
Satisfied 83.1 44.5 58.5 79.1 60.3
Doctor not present 2.1 2.1 4.7 1.7 2.9
Staff non-cooperative 5.1 3.5 1.6 2.8 3.2
Lady staff not present - 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
Lack of cleanliness 2.9 0.8 1.5 0.6 1.5
Long wait 4.0 28.8 33.0 28.5 24.7
Costly treatment 25.7 49.1 56.3 7.6 42.4
Staff untrained 0.6 4.3 0.7 - 2.0
Medicines not available 6.4 16.4 22.9 7.1 15.3
Unsuccessful Treatment 4.2 5.2 1.5 9.9 4.3
Other (Please Specify) 23.5 - - - 5.1
Households with PSC 24-100
% of Illness/injury during last year Yes 54.6 74.0 78.8 20.7 54.1
No 45.4 26.0 21.2 79.3 45.9
% of population consulted for Yes 96.1 100.0 99.7 98.9 98.8
treatment No 3.9 - 0.3 1.1 1.2
% of who was consulted for treatment?
LHW/LHV - - - 1.1 0.1
Govt. Dispensary 24.6 1.1 18.1 29.3 17.2
Govt. Basic Health Unit (BHU) 0.5 10.9 0.2 31.5 6.4
Rural Health Centre 0.3 3.2 0.2 0.5 0.9
Govt. Hospital (Taluka/District level) 36.3 56.0 16.4 14.7 29.8
Private Clinic/Hospital/chemist 37.7 28.7 64.8 19.6 44.9
Hakeem 0.5 - - 2.2 0.4
Homoeopath - - 0.5 0.5 0.3
One who performs ‘Dum’ (spiritualism) - - - - -
Other (Please Specify) - - - 0.5 0.1
% Problems in health facilities (multiple responses question)
Satisfied 88.0 31.0 66.5 79.3 65.1
Doctor not present 1.6 2.3 2.2 1.1 1.9
Staff non-cooperative 1.9 3.7 0.3 2.7 1.7
Lady staff not present 0.3 0.9 0.5 - 0.5
Lack of cleanliness 0.5 1.4 2.0 0.5 1.4
Long wait 4.4 21.0 34.0 37.0 24.4
Costly treatment 29.2 56.9 57.2 11.4 45.0
Staff untrained 1.1 5.2 0.5 - 1.6
Medicines not available 5.7 14.4 17.9 9.8 13.3
Unsuccessful Treatment 1.9 5.2 0.6 9.2 3.0
Other (Please Specify) 33.3 - - - 7.9

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 31

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 13 also reports data on whether a household has faced any problem in visiting health facilities.
A slightly more households with PSC 0-23 reported long waiting times, unavailability of medicines and
absence of doctor as their main problems. On the other hand, more households with PSC 24-100 cited
cost of treatment, unsuccessful treatment, non-cooperativeness of staff, absence of lady staff, and lack
of cleanliness as main problems.

Table 14 provides data relating to vaccination of children under five years of age. In the overall sample
90.3% of all children are vaccinated with a slightly lower proportion of vaccinated children (89.2%) in
households with PSC 0-23 compared to households with PSC 24-100 (93.5%). Similarly, 57.6% of all
households possessed vaccination cards with a lower proportion of households with PSC 0-23 (55.7%)
compared to households with PSC 24-100 (62.8%).

Table 14: Vaccination of children

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
% Vaccination Yes 98.6 82.1 86.8 94.1 90.3
Status No 1.4 17.9 13.2 5.9 9.7
% Possession of Yes 49.0 40.9 84.8 56.6 57.6
vaccination card No 51.0 59.1 15.2 43.4 42.4
% Administration of various types of vaccination of children
BCG Yes, according to Card 20.3 6.3 71.2 70.3 42.3
Yes, according to memory 77.6 26.2 19.8 29.4 39.3
Yes, during polio campaign 0.7 45.6 - - 10.8
No 1.4 21.8 8.9 0.3 7.6
Penta 1 Yes, according to Card 12.1 5.2 75.1 68.5 40.3
Yes, according to memory 80.7 21.0 8.6 28.3 35.9
Yes, during polio campaign 3.1 57.1 0.8 - 14.3
No 4.1 16.7 15.6 3.1 9.5
Penta 2 Yes, according to Card 11.0 5.6 68.9 66.8 38.2
Yes, according to memory 78.3 15.9 6.6 27.6 33.5
Yes, during polio campaign 3.8 59.5 1.2 - 15.1
No 6.9 19.0 23.3 5.6 13.3
Penta 3 Yes, according to Card 12.4 5.6 63.4 65.4 36.9
Yes, according to memory 72.1 13.1 6.2 27.6 31.1
Yes, during polio campaign 4.1 59.5 1.9 - 15.4
No 11.4 21.8 28.4 7.0 16.7
POLIO ZERO DOZE Yes, according to Card 1.7 5.2 79.8 66.1 38.0
Yes, according to memory 37.6 14.3 16.3 27.6 24.5
Yes, during polio campaign 57.2 75.4 0.8 - 33.0
No 3.4 5.2 3.1 6.3 4.5
POLIO 1 Yes, according to Card 1.7 4.8 77.8 66.8 37.6
Yes, according to memory 38.3 11.9 16.7 27.3 24.1
Yes, during polio campaign 57.9 80.6 1.6 - 34.6
No 2.1 2.8 3.9 5.9 3.7
POLIO 2 Yes, according to Card 1.7 4.4 75.5 66.8 37.0
Yes, according to memory 41.0 9.5 16.0 27.3 24.1
Yes, during polio campaign 53.4 81.7 1.6 - 33.6
No 3.8 4.4 7.0 5.9 5.3
POLIO 3 Yes, according to Card 3.4 4.4 69.3 66.8 35.9
Yes, according to memory 39.3 8.3 16.0 27.3 23.4

32 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Yes, during polio campaign 49.7 80.6 1.9 - 32.4
No 7.6 6.7 12.8 5.9 8.2
POLIO 4 Yes, according to Card 1.7 4.4 68.5 66.8 35.3
Yes, according to memory 40.0 8.3 15.6 27.3 23.5
Yes, during polio campaign 49.0 75.0 1.6 - 30.9
No 9.3 12.3 14.4 5.9 10.3
Pneumo 1 Yes, according to Card 2.8 4.4 70.0 66.1 35.8
Yes, according to memory 70.7 14.3 7.0 27.6 31.2
Yes, during polio campaign 6.2 55.2 0.8 - 14.7
No 20.3 26.2 22.2 6.3 18.4
Pneumo 2 Yes, according to Card 3.1 4.4 64.2 66.1 34.5
Yes, according to memory 66.9 13.5 6.6 26.9 29.7
Yes, during polio campaign 5.9 54.8 0.8 0.3 14.6
No 24.1 27.4 28.4 6.6 21.3
Pneumo 3 Yes, according to Card 2.8 4.4 59.1 64.7 32.8
Yes, according to memory 63.1 12.7 6.6 27.3 28.6
Yes, during polio campaign 5.5 54.0 1.6 0.3 14.5
No 28.6 29.0 32.7 7.7 24.1
Measles 1 Yes, according to Card 2.4 4.8 66.9 62.6 34.1
Yes, according to memory 63.8 15.5 7.0 26.2 29.2
Yes, during polio campaign 5.5 55.2 0.8 - 14.5
No 28.3 24.6 25.3 11.2 22.2
Measles 2 Yes, according to Card 2.4 4.8 62.6 56.6 31.5
Yes, according to memory 60.3 13.9 6.6 25.5 27.6
Yes, during polio campaign 5.2 53.6 0.8 - 14.0
No 32.1 27.8 30.0 17.8 26.8
Households with PSC 0-23
% Vaccination Yes 98.3 79.9 86.8 92.6 89.2
Status No 1.7 20.1 13.2 7.4 10.8
% Possession of Yes 48.1 37.7 79.8 61.4 55.7
vaccination card No 51.9 62.3 20.2 38.6 44.3
% Administration of various types of vaccination of children
BCG Yes, according to Card 18.6 6.5 66.9 73.5 39.4
Yes, according to memory 79.7 21.6 20.8 25.9 39.3
Yes, during polio campaign 0.9 49.2 - - 12.5
No 0.9 22.6 12.4 0.5 8.8
Penta 1 Yes, according to Card 9.1 4.5 68.5 72.5 36.3
Yes, according to memory 83.5 15.6 11.2 24.9 36.5
Yes, during polio campaign 3.9 64.8 1.1 - 17.6
No 3.5 15.1 19.1 2.6 9.7
Penta 2 Yes, according to Card 8.2 5.0 62.9 69.8 34.3
Yes, according to memory 81.0 10.6 9.0 24.3 33.9
Yes, during polio campaign 4.8 66.8 1.7 - 18.4
No 6.1 17.6 26.4 5.8 13.4
Penta 3 Yes, according to Card 10.0 5.0 58.4 68.8 33.5
Yes, according to memory 75.3 9.0 8.4 24.3 31.7
Yes, during polio campaign 4.8 66.3 2.2 - 18.4
No 10.0 19.6 30.9 6.9 16.3
POLIO ZERO DOZE Yes, according to Card 2.2 5.0 73.0 69.3 34.6
Yes, according to memory 39.4 10.6 22.5 24.9 25.0
Yes, during polio campaign 55.0 79.4 1.1 - 36.0
No 3.5 5.0 3.4 5.8 4.4

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 33

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

POLIO 1 Yes, according to Card 2.2 5.0 71.9 70.4 34.6
Yes, according to memory 40.3 8.5 22.5 24.3 24.6
Yes, during polio campaign 55.0 82.9 1.7 - 37.0
No 2.6 3.5 3.9 5.3 3.8
POLIO 2 Yes, according to Card 2.2 4.5 68.5 70.4 33.8
Yes, according to memory 43.7 7.0 21.9 24.3 25.1
Yes, during polio campaign 50.2 83.9 1.7 - 35.9
No 3.9 4.5 7.9 5.3 5.3
POLIO 3 Yes, according to Card 3.9 4.5 62.9 70.4 33.0
Yes, according to memory 41.6 6.0 21.9 24.3 24.2
Yes, during polio campaign 47.6 82.9 2.2 - 35.0
No 6.9 6.5 12.9 5.3 7.8
POLIO 4 Yes, according to Card 2.2 4.5 62.4 70.4 32.4
Yes, according to memory 42.0 6.0 21.3 24.3 24.2
Yes, during polio campaign 47.6 77.4 2.2 - 33.6
No 8.2 12.1 14.0 5.3 9.8
Pneumo 1 Yes, according to Card 2.6 4.5 62.4 69.3 32.2
Yes, according to memory 71.0 10.6 9.6 24.9 31.2
Yes, during polio campaign 6.5 59.3 1.1 - 16.9
No 19.9 25.6 27.0 5.8 19.6
Pneumo 2 Yes, according to Card 3.0 4.5 57.9 69.3 31.4
Yes, according to memory 66.7 9.5 9.0 23.8 29.4
Yes, during polio campaign 7.4 58.8 1.1 0.5 17.2
No 22.9 27.1 32.0 6.3 22.1
Pneumo 3 Yes, according to Card 2.6 4.5 52.2 67.7 29.6
Yes, according to memory 64.5 9.0 9.0 24.3 28.7
Yes, during polio campaign 6.5 58.3 2.2 0.5 17.1
No 26.4 28.1 36.5 7.4 24.6
Measles 1 Yes, according to Card 2.6 4.5 57.9 65.6 30.4
Yes, according to memory 64.1 11.1 9.6 23.8 29.1
Yes, during polio campaign 6.5 59.3 1.1 - 16.9
No 26.8 25.1 31.5 10.6 23.6
Measles 2 Yes, according to Card 2.6 4.5 54.5 60.3 28.4
Yes, according to memory 59.7 9.5 9.0 23.3 27.2
Yes, during polio campaign 6.1 57.8 1.1 - 16.4
No 31.6 28.1 35.4 16.4 28.0
Households with PSC 24-100
% Vaccination Yes 100.0 91.4 86.8 97.0 93.5
Status No - 8.6 13.2 3.0 6.5
% Possession of Yes 52.5 52.8 96.2 47.4 62.8
vaccination card No 47.5 47.2 3.8 52.6 37.2
% Administration of various types of vaccination of children
BCG Yes, according to Card 27.1 5.7 81.0 63.9 50.3
Yes, according to memory 69.5 43.4 17.7 36.1 39.2
Yes, during polio campaign - 32.1 - - 5.9
No 3.4 18.9 1.3 - 4.5
Penta 1 Yes, according to Card 23.7 7.5 89.9 60.8 51.4
Yes, according to memory 69.5 41.5 2.5 35.1 34.4
Yes, during polio campaign - 28.3 - - 5.2
No 6.8 22.6 7.6 4.1 9.0

34 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Penta 2 Yes, according to Card 22.0 7.5 82.3 60.8 49.0
Yes, according to memory 67.8 35.8 1.3 34.0 32.3
Yes, during polio campaign - 32.1 - - 5.9
No 10.2 24.5 16.5 5.2 12.8
Penta 3 Yes, according to Card 22.0 7.5 74.7 58.8 46.2
Yes, according to memory 59.3 28.3 1.3 34.0 29.2
Yes, during polio campaign 1.7 34.0 1.3 - 6.9
No 16.9 30.2 22.8 7.2 17.7
POLIO ZERO DOZE Yes, according to Card - 5.7 94.9 59.8 47.2
Yes, according to memory 30.5 28.3 2.5 33.0 23.3
Yes, during polio campaign 66.1 60.4 - - 24.7
No 3.4 5.7 2.5 7.2 4.9
POLIO 1 Yes, according to Card - 3.8 91.1 59.8 45.8
Yes, according to memory 30.5 24.5 3.8 33.0 22.9
Yes, during polio campaign 69.5 71.7 1.3 - 27.8
No - - 3.8 7.2 3.5
POLIO 2 Yes, according to Card - 3.8 91.1 59.8 45.8
Yes, according to memory 30.5 18.9 2.5 33.0 21.5
Yes, during polio campaign 66.1 73.6 1.3 - 27.4
No 3.4 3.8 5.1 7.2 5.2
POLIO 3 Yes, according to Card 1.7 3.8 83.5 59.8 44.1
Yes, according to memory 30.5 17.0 2.5 33.0 21.2
Yes, during polio campaign 57.6 71.7 1.3 - 25.3
No 10.2 7.5 12.7 7.2 9.4
POLIO 4 Yes, according to Card - 3.8 82.3 59.8 43.4
Yes, according to memory 32.2 17.0 2.5 33.0 21.5
Yes, during polio campaign 54.2 66.0 - - 23.3
No 13.6 13.2 15.2 7.2 11.8
Pneumo 1 Yes, according to Card 3.4 3.8 87.3 59.8 45.5
Yes, according to memory 69.5 28.3 1.3 33.0 30.9
Yes, during polio campaign 5.1 39.6 - - 8.3
No 22.0 28.3 11.4 7.2 15.3
Pneumo 2 Yes, according to Card 3.4 3.8 78.5 59.8 43.1
Yes, according to memory 67.8 28.3 1.3 33.0 30.6
Yes, during polio campaign - 39.6 - - 7.3
No 28.8 28.3 20.3 7.2 19.1
Pneumo 3 Yes, according to Card 3.4 3.8 74.7 58.8 41.7
Yes, according to memory 57.6 26.4 1.3 33.0 28.1
Yes, during polio campaign 1.7 37.7 - - 7.3
No 37.3 32.1 24.1 8.2 22.9
Measles 1 Yes, according to Card 1.7 5.7 87.3 56.7 44.4
Yes, according to memory 62.7 32.1 1.3 30.9 29.5
Yes, during polio campaign 1.7 39.6 - - 7.6
No 33.9 22.6 11.4 12.4 18.4
Measles 2 Yes, according to Card 1.7 5.7 81.0 49.5 40.3
Yes, according to memory 62.7 30.2 1.3 29.9 28.8
Yes, during polio campaign 1.7 37.7 - - 7.3
No 33.9 26.4 17.7 20.6 23.6

Table 14 also reports data for various types of vaccination of children. More households with PSC 0-23
reported no vaccination for BCG (8.8%), penta 1 (9.7%), penta 2 (13.4%), measles 1 (23.6%) and

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 35

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

measles 2 (28%) compared to households with PSC 24-100 for BCG (4.5%), penta 1 (9%), penta 2
(5.9%), measles 1 (18.4%) and measles 2 (23.6%).

Further investigation reveals that according to vaccination card and memory, a lower proportion of
vaccinated children for BCG, penta 1-3, polio 0-4, pneumonia 1-3 and measles 1-2 are reported
in households with PSC 0-23 compared to households with PSC 24-100. In contrast, a significantly
higher proportion of vaccinated children for polio are reported in households with PSC 0-23 compared
to households with PSC 24-100, pointing out the effectiveness of polio campaign for reaching out to
households with PSC 0-23.

Structure of Housing and Availability of Utilities: The quality of life can be judged from the respondents’
housing structures and the availability/use of utilities. Results portray a low quality of life with a general
lack of basic amenities for the sampled population, which is also a reflection of the majority of rural
population of the province.

Table 15 provides data on the various types of dwellings and availability of basic household amenities. A
majority of houses have a katcha (mud/clay) structure (73.3%), followed by a mix of pucca (concrete)-
katcha (16.1%) and pucca (10.6%) structures. As expected, a substantially higher proportion of
households with PSC 0-23 (80.1%) have katcha structures than households with PSC 24-100 (28.5%).

A majority of the sampled population (95.9%) lives in two-room houses. With average household size 6.6
persons, the living space is highly congested. More households (97.3%) with PSC 0-23 live in two-room
households than households (92.6%) in PSC 24-100. The average number of persons per room used in
Sindh, according to MICS 2014, is 4.6 in rural areas.

The quality of life is dependent upon availability of clean drinking water and proper drainage and sewerage
systems, which is rarely the case in most rural areas of the province. Only 5.9% households with PSC
0-23 and 10.5% with PSC 24-100 have access to piped water. Overall most of the sampled population
gets water from hand pump (56.2%). In Sindh among the improved sources of drinking sources, hand
pumps are most common (40.9%), followed by piped water into a dwelling (30%).15

Table 15: Structure of Housing and Basic Amenities for Life

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Household
All Household 399 402 398 400 1599
% Pucca Structure 28.8 4.2 13.1 18.5 16.1
% Katcha Structure 55.4 91.5 77.6 68.5 73.3
% P+K Structure 15.8 4.2 9.3 13.0 10.6
On Average Room Size 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3
% Household with
Upto 2 Rooms 95.7 97.8 95.0 95.0 95.9
3-4 Rooms 4.0 2.2 3.5 4.8 3.6
5 or more rooms 0.3 - 1.5 0.3 0.5
Water Supply
Piped Water piped into property 12.3 5.0 11.6 0.5 7.3
Hand Pump in the dwelling 45.4 24.1 78.1 77.5 56.2

15 MICS 2014

36 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Public tap / standpipe 26.3 2.5 1.0 8.0 9.4
Private Borehole (with motor pump) 4.3 7.5 3.8 2.5 4.5
Public Borehole (with motor pump) 4.0 2.0 2.8 0.5 2.3
Protected Well(include dug well) - 0.5 - - 0.1
Unprotected well (include dug well) - 0.2 - - 0.1
Protected Spring - - - 0.3 0.1
Rainwater collection - 0.2 - - 0.1
Bottled water - - - - -
Cart with small tank/drum - - - - -
Surface Water (river or stream or dam or 0.5 22.9 1.8 - 6.3
lake or pond or canal or irrigation channel)
Filtration Plan/Unit - - 0.8 - 0.2
Tanker Truck - 0.2 - - 0.1
Underground Water Tube well 0.3 28.1 - - 7.1
Piped into dwelling 6.0 6.7 0.3 - 3.3
Other 1.0 - - 10.8 2.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Latrine
% Inside 51.9 63.4 51.8 42.5 52.4
% Outside 48.1 36.6 48.2 57.5 47.6
Drainage
% Yes 29.3 62.4 44.0 25.3 40.3
% No 70.7 37.6 56.0 74.8 59.7
Electricity
% Yes 71.2 41.8 60.8 39.3 53.2
% No 28.8 58.2 39.2 60.8 46.8
Fuel used
% Wood 66.9 77.6 95.0 60.3 74.9
% Others 33.1 22.4 5.0 39.8 25.1
Households with PSC 0-23
288 325 255 247 1,115
% Pucca Structure 22.9 2.5 6.3 12.1 10.8
% Katcha Structure 62.5 93.2 86.3 76.9 80.1
% P+K Structure 14.6 4.3 7.5 10.9 9.1
On Average Room Size 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3
% Household with
Upto 2 Rooms 97.6 98.5 97.6 95.1 97.3
3-4 Rooms 2.1 1.5 1.6 4.5 2.3
5 or more rooms 0.3 - 0.8 0.4 0.4
Water Supply
Piped Water piped into property 9.7 3.7 10.2 - 5.9
Hand Pump in the dwelling 49.0 23.1 80.4 77.7 55.0
Public tap / standpipe 26.4 2.5 1.2 8.9 9.8
Private Borehole (with motor pump) 3.5 7.4 1.6 2.4 3.9
Public Borehole (with motor pump) 2.8 0.9 3.5 0.4 1.9
Protected Well(include dug well) - 0.3 - - 0.1
Unprotected well (include dug well) - 0.3 - - 0.1
Protected Spring - - - - -
Rainwater collection - 0.3 - - 0.1
Bottled water - - - - -
Cart with small tank/drum - - - - -
Surface Water (river or stream or dam or 0.7 25.2 2.7 - 8.2
lake or pond or canal or irrigation channel)

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 37

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Filtration Plan/Unit - - 0.4 - 0.1
Tanker Truck - - - - -
Underground Water Tube well 0.3 29.8 - - 8.8
Piped into dwelling 6.3 6.5 - - 3.5
Other 1.4 - - 10.5 2.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Latrine
% Inside 44.8 60.0 42.7 34.0 46.4
% Outside 55.2 40.0 57.3 66.0 53.6
Drainage
% Yes 22.9 62.2 38.0 15.0 36.1
% No 77.1 37.8 62.0 85.0 63.9
Electricity
% Yes 67.4 39.1 53.3 35.2 48.8
% No 32.6 60.9 46.7 64.8 51.2
Fuel used
% Wood 72.2 77.5 95.3 70.0 78.6
% Others 27.8 22.5 4.7 30.0 21.4
Households with PSC 24-100
111 77 143 153 484
% Pucca Structure 44.1 11.7 25.2 28.8 28.5
% Katcha Structure 36.9 84.4 62.2 54.9 57.6
% P+K Structure 18.9 3.9 12.6 16.3 13.8
On Average Room Size 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5
% Household with
Upto 2 Rooms 91.0 94.8 90.2 94.8 92.6
3-4 Rooms 9.0 5.2 7.0 5.2 6.6
5 or more rooms - - 2.8 - 0.8
Water Supply
Piped Water piped into property 18.9 10.4 14.0 1.3 10.5
Hand Pump in the dwelling 36.0 28.6 74.1 77.1 59.1
Public tap / standpipe 26.1 2.6 0.7 6.5 8.7
Private Borehole (with motor pump) 6.3 7.8 7.7 2.6 5.8
Public Borehole (with motor pump) 7.2 6.5 1.4 0.7 3.3
Protected Well(include dug well) - 1.3 - - 0.2
Unprotected well (include dug well) - - - - -
Protected Spring - - - 0.7 0.2
Rainwater collection - - - - -
Bottled water - - - - -
Cart with small tank/drum - - - - -
Surface Water (river or stream or dam or - 13.0 - - 2.1
lake or pond or canal or irrigation channel)
Filtration Plan/Unit - - 1.4 - 0.4
Tanker Truck - 1.3 - - 0.2
Underground Water Tube well - 20.8 - - 3.3
Piped into dwelling 5.4 7.8 0.7 - 2.7
Other - - - 11.1 3.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Latrine
% Inside 70.3 77.9 67.8 56.2 66.3
% Outside 29.7 22.1 32.2 43.8 33.7
Drainage
% Yes 45.9 63.6 54.5 41.8 50.0

38 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

% No 54.1 36.4 45.5 58.2 50.0
Electricity
% Yes 81.1 53.2 74.1 45.8 63.4
% No 18.9 46.8 25.9 54.2 36.6
Fuel used
% Wood 53.2 77.9 94.4 44.4 66.5
% Others 46.8 22.1 5.6 55.6 33.5

More than two-thirds of households (52.4%) have indoor latrines, whereas 47.6% have no latrine. Only
40.3% households are connected to a drainage system. The proportion of households with an indoor
latrine is lower in PSC 0-23 households (46.4%) than the PSC (24-100) households (66.3%). In rural
Sindh, mostly households have non-flush latrines16. In Sujawal, according to PSLM 2014-15, 35%
households do not have a latrine.

The unavailability of drainage facility for waste disposal is a major problem faced by the sampled population
as almost half of households do not have drainage facility (50.7%). The proportion of households with
no drainage is higher in households (63.9%) with PSC 0-23 than with PSC 24-100 households (50%).
Nearly half of sampled households (46.8%) do not have an electricity connection. More households
(51.2%) in PSC 0-23 category are without electricity connection than households (36.6%) in PSC 24-
100. A majority of the households get electricity between 1-8 hours every day. A slightly lower proportion
of households with PSC 0-23 get electricity 1-8 hours daily compared to households with PSC 24-100.
Overall in Sindh, 91.4% households have electricity connections.17
The sampled households are predominantly dependent upon wood as main fuel (74.9%). The use of wood
as fuel is lower among households (66.5%) with PSC 24-100 than households with PSC 0-23 (78.6%).

3.1.4. Household Income: Source and Inequality in Distribution

Household income is the sum total of monetary income and income “in kind”. Household income consists
of receipts, which are received regularly by the household or by individual members at annual or more
frequent intervals.

Table 16 reports monthly household income of the sampled population.

Table 16: Household Income 2015/2016

Household Income/Sources Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Average/household (Rs.) 254,800 117,182 221,508 134,841 181,907
Average/Capita (Rs.) 38,467 19,817 38,107 21,785 29,515
Per Capita/month (Rs.) 3,206 1,651 3,176 1,815 2,460
% Share in Household Income
Crop 4.8 11.5 1.4 10.4 5.9
Livestock 3.7 7.9 7.0 5.8 5.7
Unskilled labour 68.7 54.8 81.5 60.0 68.9
Skilled labour 2.1 5.7 3.5 5.1 3.6
Business/ trade 6.9 1.8 1.0 4.9 4.0

16 PSLM 2014-15
17 MICS 2014

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 39

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Household Income/Sources Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Govt./Private Job 9.9 8.6 4.2 8.5 7.7
Pension 1.8 1.0 - 0.2 0.8
Rental Income - - - - -
Remittances - 0.1 - - -
Bait-ul-mal - 0.1 - - -
BISP 1.8 5.8 1.4 4.7 2.8
Zakat - - - 0.1 -
Gift/Cash - - - 0.1 -
Other sources 0.2 2.7 - 0.1 0.5
Households with PSC 0-23
Average/household (Rs.) 236,588 94,405 222,127 131,601 168,580
Average/Capita (Rs.) 34,192 15,493 34,823 19,690 25,673
Per Capita/month (Rs.) 2,849 1,291 2,902 1,641 2,139
% Share in Household Income
Crop 2.3 4.7 0.6 14.7 4.5
Livestock 4.1 9.5 8.1 6.5 6.6
Unskilled labour 76.3 65.0 84.7 61.3 74.3
Skilled labour 1.7 4.4 2.9 6.2 3.3
Business/ trade 6.5 1.0 0.4 3.9 3.3
Govt./Private Job 4.2 6.1 1.9 2.1 3.4
Pension 2.5 - - 0.2 0.9
Rental Income - - - - -
Remittances - - - - 0.0
Bait-ul-mal - 0.1 - - -
BISP 2.2 7.2 1.4 4.9 3.2
Zakat - - - 0.1 -
Gift/Cash - - - 0.1 -
Other sources 0.2 1.9 - - 0.4
Households with PSC 24-100
Average/household (Rs.) 302,051 213,317 220,404 140,071 212,607
Average/Capita (Rs.) 49,559 38,066 43,962 25,167 38,366
Per Capita/month (Rs.) 4,130 3,172 3,663 2,097 3,197
% Share in Household Income
Crop 9.7 26.6 3.0 3.5 8.5
Livestock 2.9 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.1
Unskilled labour 54.0 31.9 75.5 57.9 58.6
Skilled labour 2.9 8.7 4.5 3.4 4.3
Business/ trade 7.7 3.7 2.1 6.6 5.2
Govt./Private Job 21.0 14.0 8.6 19.0 15.8
Pension 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.7
Rental Income - - 0.0 0.1 0.0
Remittances - 0.2 0.0 - -
Bait-ul-mal - - - - -
BISP 1.0 2.7 1.4 4.4 2.1
Zakat - - - 0.1 -
Gift/Cash - - - - -
Other sources - 4.5 - 0.1 0.6

The average annual household income of the sampled households is PKR 181,907 with average annual
per capita income of PKR 28,872. Monthly per capita income is PKR 2,460. However, households with
PSC 24-100 have 49.5% higher monthly per capita income (PKR 3,197) than households with PSC 0-23
(PKR 2,139). There are significant differences in income across districts. Matiari with PKR 3,206 has the

40 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

highest monthly per capita income, followed by TAY (PKR 3,176), TMK (PKR 1,815) and Sujawal (PKR
1,651).

Figure 8: Per Capita Monthly Income (Rs.)

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

4,130
3,663
3,206 3,176 3,172 3,197
2,849 2,902
2,460
2,139 2,097
1,815
1,651 1,641
1,291

All HHs HHs with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

This survey estimates household income from various sources. The main source of income of sampled
households is unskilled labor (68.9%), followed by crops (5.9%), government/private jobs (7.7%),
livestock (5.7%), skilled labor (3.6%), business/trade (4%) and BISP (2.8%).

Figure 9: Household Income: Percentage Share of Total Income

4.8

Bottom 20%
47.5 Middle 60%

Top 20%
47.7

The main source of income of households with PSC 0-23 is unskilled labour (58.6%), followed by crops
(8.5%), livestock (4.6%), skilled labour (6.2%), government/private jobs (5.2%), business/trade (3.3%),
and BISP (3.2%).

On the other hand, households with PSC 24-100 derive their income from unskilled labour (58.6%),
followed by crops (4.5%), livestock (4.1%), skilled labour (4.3%), government/private jobs (15.8%),
business/trade (5.2%), and BISP (2.1%).

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 41

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Distribution of Household Income: Table 17 reports percentage shares of total income by quintile in the
sampled population of the four districts. The income appears to be highly unequally distributed among
the sampled households. In overall sample, the top 20% households receive bulk of the income share
(47.5%) whereas the bottom 20% households get only 4.8% of the total income, while the remaining
middle 60% households get 47.7%. The distribution of income among top 10% and bottom 10% is
extremely unequal. The bottom 10% households only get 1.5% of total income while top 10% receive
32.5%.

The Gini coefficient, a well-known measure of inequality of a distribution, is used for the measurement of
inequality of income among households. The value of Gini Coefficient ranges between 0 and 1. The value
of zero represents absolute equality while 1 represents absolute inequality. The values between 0 and 1
represent different degrees of inequality. Table 17 also reports Gini Coefficients based on income for the
sampled households. The overall Gini Coefficient based on income is 0.46 is reflecting a highly unequal
distribution of household income. The Gini Coefficient for households with PSC 24-100 (0.5) is relatively
high compared with households with PSC 0-23 (0.46).

Figure 10: Gini Coefficient base on Income and Consumption Expenditure

Income Expenditure
0.52
0.46
0.43
0.39
0.38
0.28
0.31
0.27
0.22 0.21

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Table 17: Household Income: Percentage Share of Total Income

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Bottom 10% 2.5 0.4 0.9 1.3 1.5
Bottom 20% 6.5 3.4 4.0 4.2 4.8
Middle 60% 47.3 38.9 53.6 46.6 47.7
Top 20% 46.2 57.7 42.4 49.2 47.5
Top 10% 31.3 45.0 26.6 33.3 32.5
Gini Coefficient 0.39 0.52 0.38 0.43 0.46
Households with PSC 0-23
Bottom 10% 2.9 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.6
Bottom 20% 7.8 4.1 3.6 4.3 5.4
Middle 60% 53.9 50.0 54.0 49.6 52.5
Top 20% 38.3 45.9 42.4 46.1 42.1
Top 10% 25.4 29.2 25.4 27.6 26.4
Gini Coefficient 0.37 0.42 0.34 0.41 0.44

42 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Households with PSC 24-100
Bottom 10% 1.9 0 0.8 1.8 1.3
Bottom 20% 3.7 2.1 4.6 4.0 3.8
Middle 60% 34.0 18.2 52.8 42.1 38.9
Top 20% 62.4 79.7 42.6 53.8 57.3
Top 10% 43.3 74.6 28.6 41.9 43.5
Gini Coefficient 0.38 0.66 0.42 0.46 0.5

3.1.5. Household Consumption and Expenditure

Household consumption expenditure refers to all money expenditure by the household and individual
members on goods intended for consumption plus expenses on services. It also includes the value of
goods and services received “in kind” or “own produced” and consumed by the household.

Table 18 provides data on household consumption expenditure of the sampled population.

Table 18: Household Expenditures, 2015/2016

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Annual Average/Household (Rs.) 164,651 169,411 190,553 126,835 162,835
Annual Average/Capita (Rs.) 25,697 29,151 32,403 21,198 27,109
Per Capita/Month (Rs.) 2,141 2,429 2,700 1,771 2,260
% Share of Household Expenditure
Food 79.1 81.2 64.6 73.6 75.0
Clothing and Footwear 5.9 5.2 11.3 3.8 7.0
Durable Goods and Services 1.8 2.3 0.4 0.4 1.2
Housing 1.8 0.8 6.0 1.8 2.7
Education 1.6 1.3 0.9 3.7 2.0
Healthcare 3.7 3.2 5.9 2.8 4.2
Transportation 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8
Fuel 1.4 0.8 1.5 1.0 1.2
Social Functions 2.2 1.6 5.3 10.8 3.6
Telephone & Internet 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Other Expenditures 1.4 2.3 2.7 1.2 2.0
Households with PSC 0-23
Annual Average/Household (Rs.) 157,200 161,901 197,974 124,845 160,728
Annual Average/Capita (Rs.) 23,178 27,592 30,683 19,160 25,291
Per Capita/Month (Rs.) 1,932 2,299 2,557 1,604 2,109
% Share of Household Expenditure
Food 79.6 82.0 67.7 79.2 77.0
Clothing and Footwear 6.1 5.2 10.0 4.1 6.7
Durable Goods and Services 1.4 2.1 0.3 0.4 1.1
Housing 1.6 0.7 5.7 1.8 2.5
Education 1.2 1.2 0.8 2.1 1.3
Healthcare 4.3 3.1 5.5 2.6 4.2
Transportation 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7
Fuel 1.4 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.2
Social Functions 1.8 1.5 5.1 6.6 3.0
Telephone & Internet 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4
Other Expenditures 1.4 2.3 2.5 1.2 1.9

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 43

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Households with PSC 24-100
Annual Average/Household (Rs.) 183,982 201,111 177,319 130,047 167,689
Annual Average/Capita (Rs.) 32,234 35,733 35,472 24,490 31,299
Per Capita/Month (Rs.) 2,686 2,978 2,956 2,041 2,608
% Share of Household Expenditure
Food 78.2 78.3 58.2 65.3 70.7
Clothing and Footwear 5.6 5.2 14.2 3.5 7.6
Durable Goods and Services 2.5 3.1 0.6 0.5 1.5
Housing 2.1 1.0 6.9 1.7 3.1
Education 2.1 1.8 1.2 5.2 3.1
Healthcare 2.4 3.7 6.6 3.0 4.2
Transportation 0.9 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.9
Fuel 1.4 0.7 1.6 0.8 1.2
Social Functions 2.9 2.1 6.0 18.0 5.2
Telephone & Internet 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4
Other Expenditures 1.6 2.6 3.3 1.2 2.1

Average annual household consumption expenditure of the sampled households is PKR162,835 whereas
average annual per capita consumption expenditure is PKR 27,109. Monthly per capita consumption
expenditure is PKR 2,260, which is 63.7% lower than PKR 3,700—national average of rural Pakistan
from HIES 2013-14. Households with PSC 24-100 (PKR 2,608) have 23.6% higher monthly per capita
consumption expenditure than households with PSC 0-23 (PKR 2,109).

However, there are significant differences across districts. TAY with (PKR 2,700) has the highest monthly
consumption expenditure, followed by Sujawal (PKR 2,429), Matiari (PKR 2,141), and TMK (PKR 1,767).

Figure 11: Per Capita Monthly Consumption Expenditure (Rs.)

2978

2956
2686

2700

2608
2557
2429
2299

2260
2109
2141

2041
1932

1604
1771

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All HHs HHs with PSC 0-23 HHs with PSC 24-100

Share of Expenditure: Table 18 also provides share of household expenditure on various commodity
groups. The share of food expenditure 75% is much higher compared to all other commodity groups (see
Figure 12). The other important commodity groups include clothing and footwear (7%), housing (2.7%),
social functions (3.6%), healthcare (4.2%) and education (2%).

44 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The share of food expenditure of the sampled household (75%) is much higher than the share of food
expenditure in rural areas (48.3%) at national level estimated from HIES 2013-14. This is mainly due to
the fact that the sampled population is tilted towards poverty stricken region where poverty and welfare
indicators are expected to be worse than the national averages. Households with PSC 0-23 (77%) have
higher share of food expenditure than households with PSC 24-100 (70.7%).

Figure 12: % Share of Monthly per Capita Expenditure by Commodity Group

3.6 0.4 2
1.2
0.8
4.2
Food
2
2.7 Clothing and Footwear

1.2 Durable Goods and Services

Housing
7 Education
Heatlhcare
Transportation
Fuel
Social Functions
Telephone & Internet
Other Expenditures

75

Distribution of Household Consumption Expenditure: Table 19 reports percentage shares of household

consumption expenditure by quintile in the sampled population of the four districts.

The household consumption expenditure is unequally distributed. In overall sample, the top 20%
households spend a higher share of consumption expenditure at 35.4% than bottom 20% households at
9.6%, while the remaining middle 60% households spend 55% of share of total household consumption
expenditure. The distribution of household consumption expenditure, between top and bottom 10%, is
more unequal. The bottom 10% households get only 3.9% of total consumption expenditure, whereas
top 10% receive higher share of income at 21.1%. The distribution of consumption expenditure into
quintiles appears to be more equally distributed in households with PSC 0-23 than PSC 24-100. Table
19 also reports Gini Coefficients based on consumption expenditure for the sampled households. The
overall Gini Coefficient of consumption expenditure is 0.27 which is not considered to be high compared
with Gini coefficient based on household income reflecting a relatively equal distribution of household
consumption relative to household income. However, the Gini Coefficient for households with PSC 24-
100 (0.29) is relatively high compared with households with PSC 0-23 (0.26), reflecting a higher unequal
distribution of household consumption expenditure.

Table 19: Household Consumption Expenditure: Percentage Share of Total Expenditure

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Bottom 10% 3.3 4.4 4.0 3.7 3.9
Bottom 20% 8.2 10.7 10.3 9.0 9.6
Middle 60% 51.7 55.9 58.1 53.4 55.0
Top 20% 40.0 33.4 31.6 37.6 35.4

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 45

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Top 10% 24.1 20.6 18.0 22.6 21.1
Gini Coefficient 0.31 0.22 0.21 0.28 0.27
Households with PSC 0-23
Bottom 10% 4.6 4.6 2.1 3.2 3.6
Bottom 20% 10.1 11.5 8.0 8.8 9.7
Middle 60% 52.7 61.2 60.6 53.8 57.6
Top 20% 37.1 27.3 31.3 37.3 32.6
Top 10% 23.1 14.9 18.0 20.2 18.8
Gini Coefficient 0.32 0.19 0.18 0.26 0.26
Households with PSC 24-100
Bottom 10% 0.5 3.8 7.7 4.5 4.4
Bottom 20% 4.0 8.0 14.7 9.2 9.4
Middle 60% 49.5 38.0 53.1 52.8 49.2
Top 20% 46.5 54.1 32.2 38.0 41.4
Top 10% 26.3 39.8 18.0 26.3 26.3
Gini Coefficient 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.3 0.29

3.1.6. Household Assets – Value and Inequality in Distribution

Table 20 provides data on value of sampled households’ assets during the last one year. Average asset
value is PKR 31,870 per household and PKR 4,907 per capita. The average value of assets for households
with PSC 24-100 (PKR 26,938) is 60% higher than households with PSC 0-23 (PKR 43,232).

Table 20: Assets of Households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Value of Assets (Rs.)
Per Household 37,583 21,890 30,112 37,951 31,870
Per Capita 5,631 3,470 3,846 6,684 4,907
Value of Assets:
% Productivity Assets 66.1 71.0 46.0 90.0 69.0
Agriculture Land - - 4.0 61.0 19.0
Machinery/equipment - - - - -
Livestock 66.1 71.0 42.0 29.0 50.0
% Consumer Durable 27.7 22.0 4.0 9.0 15.0
% Savings 6.2 7.0 51.0 1.0 15.0
Cash/Account 4.1 - 32.0 - 9.0
Jewellery 2.0 - 16.0 - 5.0
Loan Given - 6.0 2.0 - 2.0
Percent Households:
Purchased Assets 79.7 61.2 41.0 76.8 64.7
Sold Assets 9.5 38.1 24.9 9.8 20.6
Value of Assets per Household
Purchased Assets 18,692 15,278 17,262 11,797 15,607
Sold Assets 23,486 5,291 53,391 137,913 37,587
Households PSG 0-23
Value of Assets (Rs.)
Per Household 26,428 16,037 17,113 52,023 26,938
Per Capita 3,600 2,730 2,229 9,447 4,328
Value of Assets:
% Productivity Assets 63.0 79.0 75.0 95.0 81.0

46 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Agriculture Land - - 11.0 71.0 32.0
Machinery/equipment - - - - -
Livestock 63.0 79.0 64.0 23.0 49.0
% Consumer Durable 30.0 19.0 4.0 4.0 13.0
% Savings 6.0 2.0 21.0 1.0 5.0
Cash/Account 5.0 - 13.0 - 3.0
Jewellery 1.0 - 3.0 - 1.0
Loan Given - 1.0 5.0 1.0 1.0
Percent Households:
Purchased Assets 78.8 57.8 42.0 72.5 62.9
Sold Assets 9.0 36.6 26.3 6.9 20.5
Value of Assets per Household
Purchased Assets 15,104 12,045 17,777 11,603 13,798
Sold Assets 18,210 3,392 55,121 297,306 42,028
Households PSG 24-100
Value of Assets (Rs.)
Per Household 66,528 46,596 53,293 15,234 43,232
Per Capita 10,901 6,594 6,731 2,222 6,240
Value of Assets:
% Productivity Assets 69.0 60.0 29.0 66.0 53.0
Agriculture Land - - - 9.0 1.0
Machinery/equipment - - - - -
Livestock 69.0 60.0 29.0 58.0 52.0
% Consumer Durable 25.0 26.0 3.0 32.0 18.0
% Savings 6.0 14.0 67.0 1.0 29.0
Cash/Account 3.0 - 43.0 - 17.0
Jewellery 3.0 - 24.0 1.0 10.0
Loan Given - 14.0 - - 2.0
Percent Households:
Purchased Assets 82.0 75.3 39.2 83.7 68.8
Sold Assets 10.8 44.2 22.4 14.4 20.7
Value of Assets per Household
Purchased Assets 27,641 25,756 16,279 12,068 19,416
Sold Assets 34,917 11,934 49,769 14,745 27,418

Household assets have been categorised into three categories: productive assets, consumer durables,
and savings. For the overall household sample, productive assets account for 69% of total assets
(comprising 50% livestock and 19% agriculture land), followed by consumer durables accounting for
15% and savings for 15% of the total. Households with PSC 0-23 have more productive assets (81%)
than households with PSC 24-100 (53%). The average value of assets sold and purchased in last one year
are PKR 37,587 and PKR 15,607 respectively. The values of asset purchased are higher for households
with PSC 24-100 than households with PSC 0-23.

Distribution of Assets: Table 21 presents data on distribution of assets into quintiles. The assets (in value)
are highly unequally distributed among the sampled households. In the overall sample, the top 20%
households hold 90.6% of the assets and bottom 20% only 0% of the assets, whereas the remaining
middle 60% majority households hold hardly 9.4% assets. The distribution of assets among top 10%
and bottom 10% is extremely unequal. The bottom 10% households hold no assets while top 10% hold
77.2%. The distribution of assets is more unequal among households with PSC 24-100 than households
with PSC 0-23.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 47

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 21 also reports Gini Coefficients for the sampled households. The overall Gini Coefficient based on
asset holding at 0.87 is extremely high compared with Gini coefficient based on household income (0.43),
reflecting a highly unequal distribution of asset holding of households than the distribution of income.

Table 21: Quintile Distribution of Assets

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Bottom 10% - - - - -
Bottom 20% 0.1 - - - -
Middle 60% 22.9 5.6 2.1 3.9 9.4
Top 20% 77.0 94.4 97.9 96.1 90.6
Top 10% 58.5 78.7 85.2 88.6 77.2
Gini Coefficient 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Households with PSC 0-23
Bottom 10% - - - - -
Bottom 20% 0.2 - - - 0.1
Middle 60% 30.5 7.7 3.5 2.2 10.5
Top 20% 69.3 92.3 96.5 97.8 89.4
Top 10% 42.9 70.9 76.7 91.8 73.6
Gini Coefficient 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
Households with PSC 24-100
Bottom 10% - - - - -
Bottom 20% - - - - -
Middle 60% 15.0 2.7 1.3 13.4 7.7
Top 20% 85.0 97.3 98.7 86.6 92.3
Top 10% 74.7 90.0 90.0 70.9 82.5
Gini Coefficient 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8

Household Land and Livestock Ownership: Land and livestock ownership are the main sources of
income generation in an agrarian economy. The distribution of agriculture land ownership is central to
understanding poverty since land is the principal asset in rural economy of Sindh playing a key role in
economic, social and political life.

Table 22 reports data on land and livestock holdings of the sampled households. Nearly 96.9% of
households are landless with 97.8% among the households with PSC 0-23 and 95% among households
with PSC 24-100.

In TAY, Sujawal, Matiari, and TMK 93%-99.5% of the sampled households do not own any agricultural
land. Most of the sampled households in TAY (89.2%), TMK (83.3%), and Sujawal (82.3%) do not also
own livestock. Among landless farmers, share cropping and tenancy is a common arrangement.
Overall less than 20% households own agricultural land in Matiari, TAY and TMK – 14.2%, 17.6%, and
18.9 respectively18. Sujawal, which became district in 2013, has the most households (36.1%) owning
agricultural land, followed by KSK (34.6%), and Dadu (32.8%)19.

Of the households which own land, 8.3% have up to one acre, 16.7% 1-2 acres, 33.3% 2-5 acres, 22.9%
5-12.5 acres, 12.5 % 12.5-25 acres and only 6.3% households have more than 25 acres land. As only
12.5% hold 5-12.5 acres of land, it is hardly sufficient for subsistence farming20.
18 MICS 2014
19 Ibid
20 See Anwar, Talat; Qureshi, Sarfraz Khan and Ali, Hammad (2004). Landlessness and Rural Poverty in Pakistan, Pakistan
Development Review, PIDE, Islamabad

48 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The average size of land holding per owner household is 8.3 acres in the overall sample with 8 acre in
households with PSC 0-23 and 8.7 acres in households with PSC 24-100—insufficient for subsistence
farming. According to the Agricultural Census 2010, which was carried out by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics
(PBS), only 20% of private landholdings in the country were above 100 acres.

An important source of livelihood of rural population depends on livestock farming but 79.5% of the
sampled households do not own livestock. The proportion of households without livestock is higher
among households with PSC 0-23 (80.9%) than households with PSC 24-100 (76.4%).

Table 22: Land and Livestock Holdings of Households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
% of Households not owning land 98.2 93.0 99.5 97.0 96.9
% of owner Households
Up to 1 Acre - 3.6 - 25.0 8.3
>1-2 Acres 14.3 21.4 - 8.3 16.7
>2-5 Acres 57.1 32.1 100.0 16.7 33.3
>5-12.5 Acres - 21.4 - 41.7 22.9
>12.5-25 Acres 28.6 10.7 - 8.3 12.5
> 25 Acres - 10.7 - - 6.3
Average size of holding per owner 9.1 9.0 4.0 5.7 8.1
% of household not owning livestock 63.4 82.3 89.2 83.3 79.5
Average number of Livestock/household 2.5 1.9 3.0 2.1 2.3
Households with PSC 0-23
No 99.0 96.3 99.6 96.4 97.8
% of owner Households
Up to 1 Acre - - - 22.2 8.0
>1-2 Acres - 33.3 - 11.1 20.0
>2-5 Acres 100.0 41.7 100.0 11.1 40.0
>5-12.5 Acres - 8.3 - 55.6 24.0
>12.5-25 Acres - 16.7 - - 8.0
> 25 Acres - - - - -
Average size of holding per owner 4.0 5.4 4.0 5.1 5.1
% of household not owning livestock 68.1 84.9 89.4 81.8 80.9
Average number of Livestock/household 2.2 1.8 3.0 2.1 2.2
Households with PSC 24-100
No 96.4 79.2 99.3 98.0 95.0
% of owner Households
Up to 1 Acre - 6.3 - 33.3 8.7
>1-2 Acres 25.0 12.5 - - 13.0
>2-5 Acres 25.0 25.0 - 33.3 26.1
>5-12.5 Acres - 31.3 - - 21.7
>12.5-25 Acres 50.0 6.3 - 33.3 17.4
> 25 Acres - 18.8 - - 13.0
Average size of holding per owner 13.0 11.8 7.3 11.4
% of household not owning livestock 51.4 71.4 88.8 85.6 76.4
Average number of Livestock/household 2.9 2.0 3.0 2.1 2.6

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 49

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

3.1.7. Household Loans: Source and Uses

Poverty is one of the major causes of indebtedness for the poor and vulnerable households. The low level
of income of the poor and its uncertainty makes it impossible to meet the needs required for their living.
Often poor households take loans to meet these needs. The respondents were asked to report the amount
of loans taken from different sources and their use. Table 23 presents data on loans taken by households
along with sources of loans.

In the overall sample, 8.2% households took loans during the last one year from different sources. The
average loan size of recipient households in the four districts is PKR 38,065 with a higher average reported
by households with PSC 24-100 (PKR 68,655) than households with PSC 0-23 (PKR 29,368).

Table 23: Loans Taken by Households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Average amount of loan per HH(Rs.) 67,500 15,187 77,063 46,500 38,065
% HH taken loans 6.0 16.7 4.0 6.0 8.2
% of loan amount from:
Friends & relatives 37.5 36.3 72.6 69.7 52.2
Shopkeepers 2.9 28.7 5.2 16.7 10.0
Banks 23.9 10.4 - 13.6 15.0
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - 22.2 - 4.3
Other sources 35.8 24.7 - - 18.5
Households with PSC 0-23
Average amount of loan per HH(Rs.) 63,429 15,621 52,538 35,077 29,368
% HH taken loans 4.9 19.1 5.1 5.3 9.1
% of loan amount from:
Friends & relatives 36.6 35.5 84.4 40.0 42.7
Shopkeepers 3.1 29.0 15.6 12.0 12.0
Banks 1.1 10.5 - 48.0 9.6
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - - - -
Other sources 59.2 24.9 - - 35.6
Households with PSC 24-100
Average amount of loan per HH(Rs.) 73,200 9,800 183,333 60,000 68,655
% HH taken loans 9.0 6.5 2.1 7.2 6.0
% of loan amount from:
Friends & relatives 38.8 100.0 66.7 81.4 62.4
Shopkeepers 2.6 - - 18.6 7.9
Banks 58.6 - - - 20.8
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - 33.3 - 8.9
Other sources - - - - -

In the households who took loan, 52.2% have taken loans from friend and relatives, followed by other
sources (mostly landlords) (18.5%), banks (15%), shopkeepers (10%), and community organizations
(4.3%). The proportion of loans taken from friends and relative is significantly lower among households
with PSC 0-23 (42.7%) than households with PSC 24-100 (62.4%). Conversely, more households with

50 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

PSC 0-23 have taken loans from shopkeepers and banks compared with households with PSC 24-100.
Table 24 reports data on utilization of loan. In the overall sample, 30.7% of the loan amount was used for
education and health followed by for housing (30.4%), productive purposes (30.1%), and consumption
and social functions (6.9%). Loans taken for the consumption and social functions are mostly used for
purchase of foods, meeting marriage expenses, and covering the expenses of rituals after the death of
relatives.

Table 24: Use of Loan

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Productive Purpose 29.5 13.4 54.9 11.8 30.1
Land 29.5 10.2 45.0 - 24.1
Livestock - - - - -
Machinery - 0.3 - - 0.1
Business - 2.9 - 11.8 3.1
Farm Input - - 9.8 - 2.9
Housing 37.1 33.3 20.4 31.7 30.4
Consumption & Social Functions 10.0 11.8 - 8.0 6.9
Education and health 21.7 34.3 24.7 48.5 30.7
Repay Loans 1.7 2.2 - - 0.9
Other Uses - 4.0 - - 0.7
Cash Available - 1.0 - - 0.2
Total loan 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Households with PSC 0-23
Productive Purpose - 14.0 71.4 - 22.1
Land - 10.7 54.5 - 16.8
Livestock - - - - -
Machinery - 0.3 - - 0.1
Business - 3.0 - - 0.8
Farm Input - - 16.9 - 4.4
Housing 53.1 30.2 27.5 32.9 37.1
Consumption & Social Functions 11.8 12.3 - 6.6 8.0
Education and health 32.6 35.9 1.1 60.6 30.0
Repay Loans 2.5 2.3 - - 1.4
Other Uses - 4.2 - - 1.1
Cash Available - 1.1 - - 0.3
Total loan 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Households with PSC 24-100
Productive Purpose 88.6 - 31.9 23.8 45.6
Land 88.6 - 31.9 - 38.0
Livestock - - - - -
Machinery - - - - -
Business - - - 23.8 7.6
Farm Input - - - - -
Housing 5.1 100.0 10.6 30.5 17.3
Consumption & Social Functions 6.3 - - 9.5 4.9
Education and health - - 57.4 36.2 32.1
Repay Loans - - - - -
Other Uses - - - - -
Cash Available - - - - -
Total loan 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 51

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The use of loans in households with PSC 24-100 (45.6%) for productive purposes is higher than
households with PSC 0-23 (22.1%). Similarly, more households with PSC 24-100 (7.6%) have taken
loans for businesses compared with households with PSC 0-23 (0.8%). However, a lower proportion of
households with PSC 0-23 (30.0%) have taken loans for education and health than households with PSC
24-100 (32.1%).

3.1.8. Household Debt

The respondents were asked to report the amount of current debt from different sources. Table 25 reports
data on current debt of all households along with its sources.

In the overall sample, 12.5% households were indebted from different sources. The average debt for
overall sample households in the four districts is PKR 92,150 with a higher average debt reported by
households with PSC 24-100 (PKR 105,847) than households with PSC 0-23 (86,418).

In the overall sample, 56.6% households were indebted to friend and relatives followed by shopkeepers
(25.8%), banks (10%), and other sources (mostly landlords) (7.5%).

The proportion of households indebted to friends and relative is significantly higher among households
with PSC 0-23 (56.6%) than households with PSC 24-100 (34%). On the other hand, more households
with PSC 24-100 have taken loans from banks compared with households with PSC 0-23. In contrast
to zero percent household with PSC 0-23, 12.6% households with PSC 24-100 were indebted from
community organization.

Table 25: Current debt of households

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Average amount of debt/household (Rs.) 77,429 11,395 119,576 71,902 92,150
Debt to Income ratio 0.04 0.29 0.22 0.11 0.2
% of household in debt 8.77 4.73 26.38 10.25 12.5
% of debt to:
Friends & relatives 15.1 35.7 81.4 31.1 47.1
Shopkeepers 11.8 52.4 4.8 52.6 22.9
Banks 57.6 11.3 - 16.4 20.3
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - 13.7 - 5.3
Other sources 15.6 0.6 - - 4.4
Households with PSC 0-23
Average amount of debt/household (Rs.) 71,952 12,719 114,466 66,667 86,418
Debt to Income ratio 0.04 0.35 0.26 0.13 0.2
% of household in debt 7.29 4.92 29.02 12.15 12.6
% of debt to:
Friends & relatives 41.1 32.5 91.5 33.7 56.6
Shopkeepers 2.6 54.7 8.5 37.8 25.8
Banks 12.4 12.2 - 28.5 10.0
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - - - -

52 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Other sources 43.9 0.6 - - 7.5
Households with PSC 24-100
Average amount of debt/household (Rs.) 85,643 4,333 131,774 86,182 105,847
Debt to Income ratio 0.05 0 0.16 0.09 0.1
% of household in debt 12.61 3.9 21.68 7.19 12.2
% of debt to:
Friends & relatives 0.8 76.1 68.1 27.5 34.0
Shopkeepers 16.9 23.9 - 72.5 19.0
Banks 82.3 - - - 34.5
NGOs - - - - -
Community org. - - 31.9 - 12.6
Other sources - - - - -

3.1.9. Nutrition: Stunting, Wasting and Food Consumption

Malnutrition, according to National Nutrition Survey 2011, is various forms of poor nutrition which leads
to both underweight and overweight conditions caused by a complex array of issues, including dietary
inadequacy, infections, and socio-cultural factors. Malnutrition can lead to wasting21 and stunting22,
micronutrient deficiencies, as well as diabetes and other diseases.

Wasting is defined as a low weight-for-height while stunting as a low height-for-age. Table 26 reports
data on wasting of children under 5 in eight districts. In overall sample 14.9% of children under 5 are
severely wasted (< -3SD) whereas 26.6% are moderately wasted (< -2SD). These scores are slightly
higher among female (26.9%) than male (26.4%) children. The sampled households in TAY have the most
children (36.3%) under 5 moderately wasted, followed by Sujawal (32.2%), TMK (21.2%), and Matiari
(19.6%). Notably, these wasting rates are alarmingly high and much23 higher than 16.1% reported by
National Nutrition Survey in rural areas of Pakistan in 2011. More children with PSC 0-23 are moderately
(27.2%) and severely (25%) wasted compared with households with PSC 24-100.

Table 26: Wasting of children under 5 years of age

Male Female Overall

N %< %< N %< %< N %< %<
-3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD
All Households
Total 335 13.7 26.4 350 16 26.9 685 14.9 26.6
Matiari 96 13.3 23.3 86 9 15.4 182 11.3 19.6
Sujawal 96 15.3 34.1 101 18.9 30.5 197 17.2 32.2
TAY 59 16.7 25.9 63 20.3 45.8 122 18.6 36.3
TMK 84 10.3 21.8 100 16.3 20.7 184 13.5 21.2
Households with PSC 0-23
Total 236 15.1 26.1 249 17.2 28.2 485 16.2 27.2
Matiari 72 14.7 25 70 9.5 17.5 142 12.2 21.4
Sujawal 74 17.2 34.4 78 20.8 30.6 152 19.1 32.4

21 Wasting - Moderate and severe - below minus two standard deviations from median weight for height of reference population
[[Link]
22 Stunting - Moderate and severe - below minus two standard deviations from median height for age of reference population
[[Link]
23 In addition, MICS 2014 suggests that the moderate wasting rates in these district range between 9.8% in Larkana to 23.8% in
Jamshoro.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 53

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Male Female Overall

N %< %< N %< %< N %< %<
-3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD
TAY 35 18.2 18.2 40 21.1 44.7 75 19.7 32.4
TMK 55 11.3 22.6 61 18.5 25.9 116 15 24.3
Households with PSC 24-100
Total 98 10.2 27.3 100 13.5 22.9 198 12 25
Matiari 24 9.1 18.2 16 6.7 6.7 40 8.1 13.5
Sujawal 22 9.5 33.3 23 13 30.4 45 11.4 31.8
TAY 24 14.3 38.1 22 20 45 46 17.1 41.5
TMK 28 8.3 20.8 39 13.2 13.2 67 11.3 16.1

Table 27 presents data on stunting of children under 5 in the four districts. In the overall sample, 39.1%
of children under 5 are severely stunted (< -3SD) whereas 53.4% are moderately stunted (< -2SD). The
score is slightly higher among male than female children. The highest percentage of children under 5 with
score of < -2SD have been found in TAY (62.3%) followed by TMK (57.6%), Matiari (55.5%), and Sujawal
(42.1%). In TMK, the severely stunting scores are relatively higher among female than male children
whereas the scores are relatively higher among male than female children in the remaining districts. The
stunting rates in sample districts are relatively higher than 43.7% reported by National Nutrition Survey
in rural areas in 2011. Similar results for moderately stunted are observed for children with PSC 0-23
(41.9%) and PSC 24-100 (32.3%) whereas severely stunting is high in PSC 0-23 (55.9%) than PSC 24-
100 (47.5%).

Table 27: Stunting of children under 5 years of age

Male Female Overall

%< %< %< %< %< %<
N N N
-3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD -3SD -2SD
All Households
Total 335 43.6 56.1 350 34.9 50.9 685 39.1 53.4
Matiari 96 47.9 58.3 86 29.1 52.3 182 39 55.5
Sujawal 96 35.4 42.7 101 28.7 41.6 197 32 42.1
TAY 59 55.9 69.5 63 38.1 55.6 122 46.7 62.3
TMK 39.3 59.5 44 56 184 41.8 57.6
Households with PSC 0-23
Total 236 45.8 58.5 249 38.2 53.4 485 41.9 55.9
Matiari 72 50 61.1 70 27.1 48.6 142 38.7 54.9
Sujawal 74 39.2 44.6 78 33.3 43.6 152 36.2 44.1
TAY 35 62.9 77.1 40 52.5 70 75 57.3 73.3
TMK 55 38.2 61.8 61 47.5 60.7 116 43.1 61.2
Households with PSC 24-100
Total 98 37.8 50 100 27 45 198 32.3 47.5
Matiari 24 41.7 50 16 37.5 68.8 40 40 57.5
Sujawal 22 22.7 36.4 23 13 34.8 45 17.8 35.6
TAY 24 45.8 58.3 22 13.6 31.8 46 30.4 45.7
TMK 28 39.3 53.6 39 38.5 48.7 67 38.8 50.7

It appears that stunting and wasting are widespread in the sampled households in the four districts,
which may be caused by a combination24 of dietary deficiencies, poor maternal and child health and
nutrition, a high burden of morbidity, and low micronutrient content in the soil, especially iodine and zinc.

24 For details see National Nutrition Survey (2011)

54 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

These micronutrients can have profound effects on immunity, growth, and mental development. There is
a need to address poverty, high illiteracy rates among mothers and food insecurity, which are considered
root causes of high malnutrition rate.

Daily Per Capita Consumption of Food: The baseline survey collected data on quantities of food consumption
for each sampled household which can be used to calculate the daily per capita food intake for each
category of food. Using the calorie content of each food item, the daily per capita calorie intake can be
computed. Using the expenditure on each food item, the average daily expenditure on food consumed on
per capita basis can be estimated.

Table 28 provides data on daily per capita food consumption (with calories) and expenditure on food
items. The average daily per capita intake for the overall sample is 1,603 calories with average daily per
capita intake of 1,458 for households with PSC 0-23 and 1,939 for households with PSC 24-100. Average
daily per capita intake of all sampled households including both PSC 0-23 and PSC 24-100 are well short
(about 47% for all households) of minimum calorie intake of 2,350 per capita per criterion prescribed
under the basic need approach of official poverty measurement method.

Thus, it can be safely concluded that majority of sampled households are classified as poor since they
face a state of under-nourishment according to official poverty norm defined in terms of 2,350 calorie
intake. This highlights the precision of poverty criterion defined in terms of calorie intake which is not
captured by the poverty score card method that uses the asset based criterion. This also explains why the
poverty level is much higher at 80.3% in the four districts of rural Sindh compared with 35.6% estimated
in rural areas because both groups of households are classified as poor under the calorie intake poverty
norm.

Most of the daily calorie intake is from grains (about 48%). Oil adds another 24% to the average daily
calorie intake. The daily per day per person calorie intake from beef, mutton and fish is 45, 41 and 59
calories, respectively. The daily per day per person calorie intake from fish for household with PSC 24-
100 (60) is much higher than households with PSC 0-23 (58). The daily per capita food expenditure is
PKR 20.1 in the overall sample with PKR 19.8 in households with PSC 0-23 and PKR 20.9 in households
with PSC 24-100.

Table 28: Per day Food Consumption

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Total Calories per day per person 1,977 1,247 1,835 1,360 1,603
% of Calories from Grains 55 40 46 50 48
% Calories from Grains and oil 67 58 97 66 72
Daily per capita food expenditure Rs. 17.97 24.35 20.19 17.99 20.13
Milk (Grams) 198 149 146 148 160
Calories 210 159 155 157 170
Beef (Grams) 20 9 20 16
Calories 55 26 57 45
Mutton (Grams) 13 11 8 12
Calories 44 38 27 41
Chicken (Grams) 17.72 18.92 41.47 14.43 19.81
Calories 35 38 83 29 40

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 55

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Eggs 6 5 4 5 5
Fish (Grams) 15.88 29.23 40.63 13.74 26.74
Calories 35 64 89 30 59
Vegetables (Grams) 94.94 80.03 100.43 75.12 87.29
Calories 57 48 60 45 52
Sugar (Grams) 62.67 53.33 48.23 61.76 56.50
Calories 235 200 181 232 212
Honey 0.02 0.02 0.02
Sweets (Grams) 12.16 8.00 10.56
Calories 20 13 18
Beverages (Grams)
Calories
Wheat (Grams) 364.56 234.51 334.81 251.76 325.73
Calories 1199 772 788 828 953
Rice (Grams) 26.04 332.33 100.59 244.61 187.78
Calories 35 449 454 330 313
Maize (Grams) 10.00 88.89 4.76 38.98 35.46
Calories 34 299 16 131 119
Suji and Maida (Grams) 8.34 15.25 9.95 7.70 9.24
Calories 30 55 36 28 33
Pulses (grams) 14.18 12.57 34.99 16.07 18.65
Calories 48 42 118 54 63
Oils (Grams) 27.23 29.61 40.76 21.90 29.96
Calories 240 261 299 193 248
Tea and Coffee (Grams) 13.03 12.38 1871.07 13.06 493.79
Calories 9 2
Jams 1 0 1
Biscuits 2 12 28 2 12
Fresh Fruits (Grams) 30.54 29.65 20.81 106.67 52.61
Calories 26 25 18 91 45
Dry Fruits
Sugarcane Juices (Grams) 8.93 8.93
Calories 4 4
Readymade meals 11 41 8 17
Cereals products
Per day per person Calories & Grams (0-23)
Total Calories per day per person 1,781 1,178 1,679 1,222 1,458
% of Calories from Grains 55 40 45 50 47
% Calories from Grains and oil 66 58 94 64 70
Daily per capita food expenditure Rs. 16.89 23.37 21.00 17.29 19.81
Milk (Grams) 208 141 144 146 160
Calories 221 150 153 155 170
Beef (Grams) 12 11 11
Calories 33 30 32
Mutton (Grams) 6 4 8 6
Calories 21 15 27 20
Chicken (Grams) 15.93 18.52 39.68 12.71 18.66
Calories 32 37 79 25 37
Eggs 5 5 4 5 5
Fish (Grams) 17.16 28.76 40.63 10.31 26.58
Calories 38 63 89 23 58
Vegetables (Grams) 88.64 79.79 90.56 69.24 82.21
Calories 53 48 54 42 49

56 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Sugar (Grams) 58.60 50.01 34.96 54.90 49.84
Calories 220 188 131 206 187
Honey 0.02 0.02 0.02
Sweets (Grams) 8.50 8.98 8.68
Calories 14 15 14
Beverages (Grams)
Calories
Wheat (Grams) 316.47 226.49 314.73 223.48 298.04
Calories 1041 745 787 735 886
Rice (Grams) 22.78 325.18 68.32 266.40 190.68
Calories 31 439 303 360 291
Maize (Grams) 0.00 4.76 50.79 31.43
Calories 0 16 171 106
Suji and Maida (Grams) 6.66 7.41 9.52 9.17 7.20
Calories 24 27 34 33 26
Pulses (grams) 14.03 11.74 30.02 13.86 16.67
Calories 47 40 101 47 56
Oils (Grams) 25.07 27.75 33.34 20.21 26.70
Calories 221 245 294 178 236
Tea and Coffee (Grams) 13.78 10.76 781.12 10.18 195.25
Calories 4 1
Jams 1 0 1
Biscuits 2 12 33 1 13
Fresh Fruits (Grams) 30.16 14.21 13.26 23.64 23.39
Calories 26 12 11 20 20
Dry Fruits
Sugarcane Juices (Grams) 8.93 8.93
Calories 4 4
Readymade meals 7 41 8 17
Cereals products
Per day per person Calories & Grams (24-100)
Total Calories per day per person 2,485 1,539 2,112 1,582 1,939
% of Calories from Grains 56 41 47 50 49
% Calories from Grains and oil 69 59 102 68 77
Daily per capita food expenditure Rs. 20.76 28.50 18.75 19.11 20.88
Milk (Grams) 172 183 148 151 160
Calories 183 195 157 161 170
Beef (Grams) 25 8 20 19
Calories 71 23 57 52
Mutton (Grams) 17 24 18
Calories 58 82 62
Chicken (Grams) 20.97 20.66 44.91 17.89 22.88
Calories 42 41 90 36 46
Eggs 6 5 4 5 5
Fish (Grams) 14.81 31.45 19.84 27.33
Calories 33 69 44 60
Vegetables (Grams) 111.30 81.05 124.59 84.60 100.00
Calories 67 49 75 51 60
Sugar (Grams) 73.30 67.06 71.89 72.85 71.75
Calories 275 251 270 273 269
Honey
Sweets (Grams) 18.25 6.55 13.57
Calories 30 11 23

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 57

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Beverages (Grams)
Calories
Wheat (Grams) 489.34 244.04 370.87 281.40 375.49
Calories 1610 803 790 926 1072
Rice (Grams) 34.47 362.92 152.37 203.92 180.56
Calories 47 490 698 275 366
Maize (Grams) 20.00 88.89 31.89 38.33
Calories 67 299 107 129
Suji and Maida (Grams) 11.69 19.17 10.09 4.76 11.96
Calories 42 69 36 17 43
Pulses (grams) 14.57 16.07 46.91 19.65 23.88
Calories 49 54 159 66 81
Oils (Grams) 32.55 37.95 54.29 24.67 37.41
Calories 287 335 308 218 277
Tea and Coffee (Grams) 11.12 19.14 3812.29 17.72 1171.81
Calories 19 6
Jams 1 0 1
Biscuits 2 12 18 2 10
Fresh Fruits (Grams) 31.34 41.22 32.14 284.58 104.02
Calories 27 35 27 242 88
Dry Fruits
Sugarcane Juices (Grams)
Calories
Readymade meals 18 18
Cereals products

3.1.10. Use of Services and Facilities

For this section, the respondents were asked to report their opinions about the use of services and
facilities available in their vicinity. The questions included: a) How many times do you use this service
usually; b) Any particular reason for not using/once in a while; c) To which extent you are satisfied of this
service; and d) What type of change you found in the service during the last 12 months. There seems to
be a weak link between sampled households and the services and facilities provided by the state. This link
is weak at all levels – local, district, provincial and federal. The main reason for the sampled households
for not using state services and facilities is unsuitability or distance.

Health Related Services and Facilities: Table 29 reports the frequency of using health related services
and facilities. The non-use among health related services and facilities is highest for the District Health
department (83.1%), closely followed by the family planning unit (75.5%), vaccinator (46.3%) and BHU
(47.9%). The least non-use is for the LHW (37.6%). The households using the health related services
and facilities seem to be satisfied with them. However at the same time they have not found any change
in these services over the last 12 months except for LHW – 20.7% thinks termed LHW services better
than before. On the other hand, 29.2 and 14% households observed that the services and facilities
provided by the district health department and BHU respectively have worsened over the last 12 months.
Households using the BHU services and facilities ‘once in a while’ expressed more dissatisfaction than
those households using them ‘often’ and ‘always’. The two main reasons for not using the services and
facilities are distance and unsuitability/inapplicability. This level of satisfaction holds for both categories
of households with PSC 0-23 and PSC 24-100 for LHWs, BHUs, family planning unit, vaccinator and
district health department.

58 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 29: Health related Services and Facilities

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
LHW
Frequency of use N 602 204 525 268 1,599
% 37.6 12.8 32.8 16.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 2.3 9.0 0.3 11.6
Satisfied % NA 18.2 43.6 26.6 88.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.2 8.3 0.1 9.6
facility Like before % NA 13.7 38.2 17.2 69.1
Better than before % NA 5.2 5.8 9.6 20.7
Don’t know % NA 0.3 0.3 NA 0.6
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 33.9 18.5 NA NA 52.4
once in a while Very costly % 2.4 2.1 NA NA 4.5
Does not suit/NA % 12.8 1.1 NA NA 13.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.9 0.6 NA NA 1.5
No enough facility % 23.7 2.4 NA NA 26.1
Other % 1.1 0.6 NA NA 1.7
Basic Health Unit
Frequency of use N 766 175 601 57 1,599
% 47.9 10.9 37.6 3.6 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.7 14.3 1.3 19.3
Satisfied % NA 17.3 57.9 5.5 80.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.8 12.1 0.1 14.0
facility Like before % NA 17.6 51.3 6.2 75.2
Better than before % NA 1.2 8.6 0.4 10.2
Don’t know % NA 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.6
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 28.6 9.8 NA NA 38.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 2.1 NA NA 2.7
Does not suit/NA % 35.4 4.6 NA NA 40.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.6 0.3 NA NA 1.0
No enough facility % 15.6 1.5 NA NA 17.1
Other % 0.6 0.3 NA NA 1.0
Family Planning Unit
Frequency of use N 1,207 171 217 4 1,599
% 75.5 10.7 13.6 0.3 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % - 6.4 4.1 - 10.5
Satisfied % - 37.2 51.3 1.0 89.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % - 9.9 1.5 - 11.5
facility Like before % - 29.8 49.5 1.0 80.4
Better than before % - 1.8 4.3 - 6.1
Don’t know % - 2.0 - - 2.0
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 26.3 3.9 - - 30.3
once in a while Very costly % 0.3 1.7 - - 2.0
Does not suit/NA % 49.7 6.1 - - 55.8
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.1 - - 0.4
No enough facility % 9.9 0.4 - - 10.3
Other % 1.2 0.1 - - 1.3
Vaccinator
Frequency of use N 741 124 555 179 1,599
% 46.3 7.8 34.7 11.2 100.0

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 59

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.4 5.0 NA 8.4
Satisfied % NA 11.1 59.7 20.9 91.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.0 1.3 NA 2.3
facility Like before % NA 12.2 57.6 13.9 83.7
Better than before % NA 0.5 5.6 7.0 13.1
Don’t know % NA 0.7 0.2 NA 0.9
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.8 4.4 NA NA 39.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.7 2.9 NA NA 3.6
Does not suit/NA % 41.4 4.0 NA NA 45.4
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 4.3 2.0 NA NA 6.2
Other % 4.3 1.0 NA NA 5.3
District Health Dept.
Frequency of use N 1,328 122 148 1 1,599
% 83.1 7.6 9.3 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 5.9 24.4 0.4 30.6
Satisfied % NA 39.1 30.3 NA 69.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 5.5 23.6 NA 29.2
facility Like before % NA 37.3 28.8 NA 66.1
Better than before % NA 1.5 2.2 NA 3.7
Don’t know % NA 0.7 NA 0.4 1.1
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.0 4.6 NA NA 38.6
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.5 NA NA 1.9
Does not suit/NA % 46.6 1.6 NA NA 48.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 0.1 NA NA 0.4
No enough facility % 9.5 0.5 NA NA 10.0
Other % 0.7 0.1 NA NA 0.8
Households With PSC 0-23
LHW
Frequency of use N 431 133 385 166 1,115
% 38.7 11.9 34.5 14.9 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 2.8 11.0 0.1 13.9
Satisfied % NA 16.7 45.3 24.1 86.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.3 10.1 NA 11.4
facility Like before % NA 13.2 39.6 14.0 66.8
Better than before % NA 4.5 6.3 10.2 21.1
Don’t know % NA 0.4 0.3 NA 0.7
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.6 16.5 NA NA 51.1
once in a while Very costly % 2.5 2.3 NA NA 4.8
Does not suit/NA % 12.6 0.9 NA NA 13.5
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.7 NA NA 0.9
No enough facility % 25.5 2.5 NA NA 28.0
Other % 1.1 0.7 NA NA 1.8
Basic Health Unit
Frequency of use N 525 128 424 38 1,115
% 47.1 11.5 38.0 3.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 4.1 15.3 1.5 20.8
Satisfied % NA 17.6 56.6 4.9 79.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.9 13.9 0.2 15.9
facility Like before % NA 18.5 48.6 5.9 73.1
Better than before % NA 1.0 9.3 0.2 10.5
Don’t know % NA 0.3 NA 0.2 0.5

60 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 28.9 10.7 NA NA 39.7
once in a while Very costly % 0.8 1.8 NA NA 2.6
Does not suit/NA % 34.3 4.4 NA NA 38.7
Lack of tools/staff % 0.6 0.3 NA NA 0.9
No enough facility % 15.2 2.0 NA NA 17.2
Other % 0.6 0.3 NA NA 0.9
Family Planning Unit
Frequency of use N 864 107 141 3 1,115
% 77.5 9.6 12.6 0.3 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % - 6.4 4.4 - 10.8
Satisfied % - 36.3 51.8 1.2 89.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % - 10.8 1.2 - 12.0
facility Like before % - 28.3 50.2 1.2 79.7
Better than before % - 1.2 4.8 - 6.0
Don’t know % - 2.4 - - 2.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 27.3 3.1 - - 30.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.3 - - 1.8
Does not suit/NA % 50.2 6.1 - - 56.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.1 - - 0.3
No enough facility % 9.8 0.3 - - 10.1
Other % 1.1 0.1 - - 1.2
Vaccinator
Frequency of use N 519 85 389 122 1,115
% 46.5 7.6 34.9 10.9 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 4.0 5.4 NA 9.4
Satisfied % NA 10.2 59.9 20.5 90.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.0 1.3 NA 2.3
facility Like before % NA 11.9 58.9 12.6 83.4
Better than before % NA 0.5 4.7 7.9 13.1
Don’t know % NA 0.8 0.3 NA 1.2
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 36.1 3.6 NA NA 39.7
once in a while Very costly % 0.8 2.6 NA NA 3.5
Does not suit/NA % 40.4 4.3 NA NA 44.7
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 4.6 2.3 NA NA 7.0
Other % 3.6 1.2 NA NA 4.8
District Health Dept.
Frequency of use N 911 85 118 1 1115
% 81.7 7.6 10.6 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 4.9 26.5 0.5 31.9
Satisfied % NA 36.8 31.4 NA 68.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 4.9 26.0 NA 30.9
facility Like before % NA 34.3 29.4 NA 63.7
Better than before % NA 2.0 2.5 NA 4.4
Don’t know % NA 0.5 NA 0.5 1.0
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.8 4.7 NA NA 39.6
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.1 NA NA 1.5
Does not suit/NA % 45.6 2.0 NA NA 47.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 9.7 0.5 NA NA 10.2
Other % 0.6 0.2 NA NA 0.8

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 61

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Households With PSC 24-100
LHW
Frequency of use N 171 71 140 102 484
% 35.3 14.7 28.9 21.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 1.3 4.8 0.6 6.7
Satisfied % NA 21.4 39.9 31.9 93.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.0 4.5 0.3 5.8
facility Like before % NA 15.0 35.1 24.0 74.1
Better than before % NA 6.7 4.8 8.3 19.8
Don’t know % NA NA 0.3 NA 0.3
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.2 23.1 NA NA 55.4
once in a while Very costly % 2.1 1.7 NA NA 3.7
Does not suit/NA % 13.2 1.7 NA NA 14.9
Lack of tools/staff % 2.5 0.4 NA NA 2.9
No enough facility % 19.4 2.1 NA NA 21.5
Other % 1.2 0.4 NA NA 1.7
Basic Health Unit
Frequency of use N 241 47 177 19 484
% 49.8 9.7 36.6 3.9 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 2.9 11.9 0.8 15.6
Satisfied % NA 16.5 60.9 7.0 84.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.6 7.8 NA 9.5
facility Like before % NA 15.6 57.6 7.0 80.2
Better than before % NA 1.6 7.0 0.8 9.5
Don’t know % NA 0.4 0.4 NA 0.8
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 27.8 7.6 NA NA 35.4
once in a while Very costly % NA 2.8 NA NA 2.8
Does not suit/NA % 37.8 4.9 NA NA 42.7
Lack of tools/staff % 0.7 0.3 NA NA 1.0
No enough facility % 16.7 0.3 NA NA 17.0
Other % 0.7 0.3 NA NA 1.0
Family Planning Unit
Frequency of use N 343 64 76 1 484
% 70.9 13.2 15.7 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % - 6.4 3.5 - 9.9
Satisfied % - 39.0 50.4 0.7 90.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % - 8.5 2.1 - 10.6
facility Like before % - 32.6 48.2 0.7 81.6
Better than before % - 2.8 3.5 - 6.4
Don’t know % - 1.4 - - 1.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 24.1 5.9 - - 30.0
once in a while Very costly % - 2.5 - - 2.5
Does not suit/NA % 48.6 6.1 - - 54.8
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.2 - - 0.5
No enough facility % 10.1 0.7 - - 10.8
Other % 1.2 0.2 - - 1.5
Vaccinator
Frequency of use N 222 39 166 57 484
% 45.9 8.1 34.3 11.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 1.9 4.2 NA 6.1
Satisfied % NA 13.0 59.2 21.8 93.9

62 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.1 1.1 NA 2.3
facility Like before % NA 13.0 54.6 16.8 84.4
Better than before % NA 0.4 7.6 5.0 13.0
Don’t know % NA 0.4 NA NA 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 31.8 6.1 NA NA 37.9
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 3.4 NA NA 3.8
Does not suit/NA % 43.7 3.4 NA NA 47.1
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 3.4 1.1 NA NA 4.6
Other % 5.7 0.8 NA NA 6.5
District Health Dept.
Frequency of use N 417 37 30 0 484
% 86.2 7.6 6.2 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 9.0 17.9 NA 26.9
Satisfied % NA 46.3 26.9 NA 73.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 7.5 16.4 NA 23.9
facility Like before % NA 46.3 26.9 NA 73.1
Better than before % NA NA 1.5 NA 1.5
Don’t know % NA 1.5 NA NA 1.5
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.2 4.4 NA NA 36.6
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 2.4 NA NA 2.9
Does not suit/NA % 48.9 0.7 NA NA 49.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.4 0.2 NA NA 0.7
No enough facility % 9.0 0.4 NA NA 9.5
Other % 0.9 NA NA NA 0.9

More households with PSC 0-23 cited distance (far away) as main reason for not using or using once the
services and facilities than households with PSC 24-100. A half of the households (50.4%) in overall
term maintain that LHW did not visit them or visited only once because of long distance. This reason has
been cited most in the case of district health department. Lack of facility as reason has also been cited
most for LHW by 26.1% households – slightly more by households with PSC 0-23 than PSC 24-100. The
main reason for not using or using the BHU service once in a while is unsuitability/inapplicability for 40%
households, followed by 38.4% households maintaining BHUs were far away as 1% complained about
lack of staff at BHUs.

A little more than half of the households (55.8%) termed the facilities and services provided by family
planning unit as not suited or not applicable to them – again slightly more by households with PSC 0-23
than PSC 24-100. Overall households in both the categories did not deem health services and facilities
of BHU as costly.

Education Related Services and Facilities: Table 30 provides data on frequency of use of education related
services and facilities. The sampled households seldom come in contact with the District Education
department as 92.9% do not use its services. Additionally half of them also do not use the services
and facilities of schools. However those using the services of the department and schools expressed
satisfaction with them. Satisfaction level with schools is slightly higher in households with PSC 0-23 than
in households with PSC 24-100. More households (17.5%) with PSC 24-100 have found improvement
in the schools’ services and facilities than households (15.9%) with PSC 0-23. Similarly less households
(76%) with PSC 24-100 found no change in district education department than households (81.3%) with

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 63

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

PSC 0-23. Similarly most of them also did not find much change in the services of the district department
and schools. In fact 17.1% of the sampled households in the four districts maintained services of schools
have worsened – more by households (18.9%) with PSC 0-23 than households (13.2%) with PSC 24-100.
The two main reasons for not using the services and facilities of the district department and schools are
unsuitability/inapplicability and distance. For nearly half of the households (41.3%) the main reason for
not using services/facilities of schools was unsuitability/not applicable. Nearly one-third of households
(33.4%) were not using or using only once in a while educational facilities because of long distance. Lack
of facility is also a reason for 15.3% households for not using the education services and facilities. This
reason has been cited by more households (17.1%) with PSC 0-23 than households (10.5%) with PSC
24-100 for not using educational facilities.

Table 30: Education related Service and Facilities

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
School
Frequency of use N 796 102 513 188 1,599
% 49.8 6.4 32.1 11.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.5 15.4 5.0 23.9
Satisfied % NA 9.2 48.4 18.4 76.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 2.6 13.0 1.5 17.1
facility Like before % NA 8.7 40.2 17.2 66.1
Better than before % NA 1.2 10.6 4.6 16.4
Don’t know % NA 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 30.1 3.3 NA NA 33.4
once in a while Very costly % 2.1 3.5 NA NA 5.6
Does not suit/NA % 38.1 3.2 NA NA 41.3
Lack of tools/staff % 1.2 0.3 NA NA 1.6
No enough facility % 14.5 0.8 NA NA 15.3
Other % 2.7 0.2 NA NA 2.9
District Education Dept.
Frequency of use N 1,485 79 34 1 1,599
% 92.9 4.9 2.1 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 14.0 6.1 NA 20.2
Satisfied % NA 55.3 23.7 0.9 79.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 10.5 3.5 NA 14.0
facility Like before % NA 55.3 22.8 0.9 78.9
Better than before % NA 2.6 3.5 NA 6.1
Don’t know % NA 0.9 NA NA 0.9
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 36.9 1.9 NA NA 38.7
once in a while Very costly % 1.0 1.4 NA NA 2.4
Does not suit/NA % 45.0 1.2 NA NA 46.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 11.1 0.5 NA NA 11.6
Other % 0.9 0.1 NA NA 1.0
Households With PSC 0-23
School
Frequency of use N 569 73 364 109 1,115
% 51.0 6.5 32.6 9.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 4.4 16.3 4.2 24.9
Satisfied % NA 9.0 50.4 15.8 75.1

64 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 2.9 15.2 0.7 18.9
facility Like before % NA 9.2 41.2 14.5 64.8
Better than before % NA 1.1 10.3 4.6 15.9
Don’t know % NA 0.2 NA 0.2 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 30.1 3.3 NA NA 33.3
once in a while Very costly % 2.5 3.4 NA NA 5.9
Does not suit/NA % 36.3 3.1 NA NA 39.4
Lack of tools/staff % 1.2 0.3 NA NA 1.6
No enough facility % 16.0 1.1 NA NA 17.1
Other % 2.5 0.2 NA NA 2.6
District Education Dept.
Frequency of use N 1,051 48 16 0 1,115
% 94.3 4.3 1.4 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 17.2 1.6 NA 18.8
Satisfied % NA 57.8 23.4 NA 81.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 9.4 1.6 NA 10.9
facility Like before % NA 60.9 20.3 NA 81.3
Better than before % NA 3.1 3.1 NA 6.3
Don’t know % NA 1.6 NA NA 1.6
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 38.6 1.5 NA NA 40.1
once in a while Very costly % 1.1 1.2 NA NA 2.3
Does not suit/NA % 43.5 1.1 NA NA 44.6
Lack of tools/staff % NA 0.1 NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 11.5 0.5 NA NA 11.9
Other % 1.0 NA NA NA 1.0
Households With PSC 24-100
School
Frequency of use N 227 29 149 79 484
% 46.9 6.0 30.8 16.3 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 1.6 13.6 6.6 21.8
Satisfied % NA 9.7 44.4 24.1 78.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.9 8.2 3.1 13.2
facility Like before % NA 7.8 38.1 23.0 68.9
Better than before % NA 1.6 11.3 4.7 17.5
Don’t know % NA NA 0.4 NA 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 30.1 3.5 NA NA 33.6
once in a while Very costly % 1.2 3.5 NA NA 4.7
Does not suit/NA % 42.6 3.5 NA NA 46.1
Lack of tools/staff % 1.2 0.4 NA NA 1.6
No enough facility % 10.5 NA NA NA 10.5
Other % 3.1 0.4 NA NA 3.5
District Education Dept.
Frequency of use N 434 31 18 1 484
% 89.7 6.4 3.7 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 10.0 12.0 NA 22.0
Satisfied % NA 52.0 24.0 2.0 78.0
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 12.0 6.0 NA 18.0
facility Like before % NA 48.0 26.0 2.0 76.0
Better than before % NA 2.0 4.0 NA 6.0
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 65

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.9 2.6 NA NA 35.5
once in a while Very costly % 0.9 1.9 NA NA 2.8
Does not suit/NA % 48.6 1.3 NA NA 49.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 10.1 0.6 NA NA 10.8
Other % 0.6 0.2 NA NA 0.9

Agriculture Related Services and Facilities: Table 31 reports data on frequency of use of agriculture and
veterinary clinic services and facilities. As most of the sampled households do not own land or livestock,
78% and 83% are not using the services and facilities of agriculture and veterinary in the four districts.
Households using these services are satisfied with them. Households (81.3% and 78.3%) using the
services and facilities of agriculture and veterinary are satisfied with them. However 20.2% of the sampled
households termed agriculture services worse. Similarly a large number of them also found no change in
the quality of these services and facilities. Nearly two thirds of them – 65.9% and substantial proportion
at 83.8% - have found the services and facilities of agriculture and veterinary departments same as
before. The main reasons for not using these services are unsuitability/inapplicability and distance.

Table 31: Agriculture related Service and Facilities

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
Agriculture
Frequency of use N 1,247 90 211 51 1,599
% 78.0 5.6 13.2 3.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 4.0 12.5 2.3 18.8
Satisfied % NA 21.6 47.4 12.2 81.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 4.0 15.3 0.9 20.2
facility Like before % NA 19.3 33.2 13.4 65.9
Better than before % NA 1.7 11.4 0.3 13.4
Don’t know % NA 0.6 NA NA 0.6
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.6 2.3 NA NA 34.9
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 2.1 NA NA 2.7
Does not suit/NA % 47.9 2.0 NA NA 49.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.1 NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 11.4 0.2 NA NA 11.7
Other % 0.5 NA NA NA 0.5
Veterinary Clinic
Frequency of use N 1,327 84 176 12 1,599
% 83.0 5.3 11.0 0.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 1.5 19.9 0.4 21.7
Satisfied % NA 29.4 44.9 4.0 78.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 2.2 5.1 0.4 7.7
facility Like before % NA 26.1 54.0 3.7 83.8
Better than before % NA 2.2 5.5 0.4 8.1
Don’t know % NA 0.4 NA NA 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 33.1 2.9 NA NA 36.0
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.8 NA NA 2.3
Does not suit/NA % 48.2 1.0 NA NA 49.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1

66 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
No enough facility % 11.1 0.1 NA NA 11.1
Other % 1.1 0.1 NA NA 1.3
Households With PSC 0-23
Agriculture
Frequency of use N 848 65 175 27 1,115
% 76.1 5.8 15.7 2.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.4 13.1 2.2 18.7
Satisfied % NA 21.0 52.4 7.9 81.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 3.0 16.1 1.1 20.2
facility Like before % NA 18.7 36.3 9.0 64.0
Better than before % NA 1.9 13.1 NA 15.0
Don’t know % NA 0.7 NA NA 0.7
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.7 2.5 NA NA 35.3
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 2.0 NA NA 2.5
Does not suit/NA % 46.8 2.2 NA NA 49.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 12.5 0.3 NA NA 12.8
Other % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
Veterinary Clinic
Frequency of use N 920 57 130 8 1,115
% 82.5 5.1 11.7 0.7 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 2.1 21.0 0.5 23.6
Satisfied % NA 27.2 45.6 3.6 76.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 3.1 6.2 0.5 9.7
facility Like before % NA 24.1 55.9 3.1 83.1
Better than before % NA 1.5 4.6 0.5 6.7
Don’t know % NA 0.5 NA NA 0.5
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.0 2.8 NA NA 36.7
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.5 NA NA 2.0
Does not suit/NA % 47.1 1.2 NA NA 48.3
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 11.7 0.1 NA NA 11.8
Other % 0.9 0.2 NA NA 1.1
Households With PSC 24-100
Agriculture
Frequency of use N 399 25 36 24 484
% 82.4 5.2 7.4 5.0 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 5.9 10.6 2.4 18.8
Satisfied % NA 23.5 31.8 25.9 81.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 7.1 12.9 NA 20.0
facility Like before % NA 21.2 23.5 27.1 71.8
Better than before % NA 1.2 5.9 1.2 8.2
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.3 1.9 NA NA 34.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.7 2.4 NA NA 3.1
Does not suit/NA % 50.2 1.7 NA NA 51.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.5 NA NA NA 0.5
No enough facility % 9.2 NA NA NA 9.2
Other % 1.2 NA NA NA 1.2
Veterinary Clinic
Frequency of use N 407 27 46 4 484
% 84.1 5.6 9.5 0.8 100.0

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 67

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA NA 16.9 NA 16.9
Satisfied % NA 35.1 42.9 5.2 83.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA NA 2.6 NA 2.6
facility Like before % NA 31.2 49.4 5.2 85.7
Better than before % NA 3.9 7.8 NA 11.7
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 31.1 3.2 NA NA 34.3
once in a while Very costly % 0.2 2.5 NA NA 2.8
Does not suit/NA % 50.7 0.5 NA NA 51.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.5 NA NA NA 0.5
No enough facility % 9.7 NA NA NA 9.7
Other % 1.6 NA NA NA 1.6

For nearly half of the sampled households (49.9%) unsuitability/inapplicability is the main reason for not
using or using agricultural services once in a while. The long distance to the services and facilities of the
two departments is the second main reason for 34.9% and 36% households for not using them at all or
using then once in a while.

Similarly 11% households are not using the services and facilities of the two departments because of
lack (not enough facility) of them. This absence has been felt more by households with PSC 24-100 than
households with PSC 0-23. Households (2.5%) using the agriculture services for once in a while found
them very costly – more in households with PSC 24-100 than in households with PSC 0-23.

Services and Facilities of Law Departments: Table 32 provides data on frequency of using services and
facilities related to departments related to enforcing the rule of law. There is lesser interaction with
the formal rule of law institutions – police and court. Majority of the sampled households – 92.5% and
96.9% - are not using the services of police and court respectively. Of the households using the services
of police, 43.3% are also not satisfied, maintaining that these police services have worsened over the
last 12 months. There is lesser satisfaction with the police’s services and facilities than with the courts’.
Households (56.7%) have shown satisfaction with police department than 85.7% who are satisfied
with courts. Dissatisfaction with police is higher in 43.3% households with PSC 24-100 than 42.2%
households with PSC 0-23.

Table 32: Service and Facilities of Law Departments

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
Police
Frequency of use N 1,479 71 46 3 1,599
% 92.5 4.4 2.9 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 15.0 27.5 0.8 43.3
Satisfied % NA 44.2 10.8 1.7 56.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 17.5 25.0 NA 42.5
facility Like before % NA 39.2 13.3 1.7 54.2
Better than before % NA 1.7 NA 0.8 2.5
Don’t know % NA 0.8 NA NA 0.8

68 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 27.5 1.9 NA NA 29.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.3 NA NA 1.7
Does not suit/NA % 55.3 1.4 NA NA 56.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 10.8 NA NA NA 10.8
Other % 1.3 NA NA NA 1.3
Court
Frequency of use N 1,550 38 11 0 1,599
% 96.9 2.4 0.7 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 12.2 2.0 NA 14.3
Satisfied % NA 65.3 20.4 NA 85.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 12.2 2.0 NA 14.3
facility Like before % NA 55.1 16.3 NA 71.4
Better than before % NA 6.1 4.1 NA 10.2
Don’t know % NA 4.1 NA NA 4.1
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.0 0.4 NA NA 32.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 0.9 NA NA 1.4
Does not suit/NA % 50.7 0.9 NA NA 51.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 14.1 0.1 NA NA 14.2
Other % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
Households With PSC 0-23
Police
Frequency of use N 1,025 49 39 2 1,115
% 91.9 4.4 3.5 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 11.1 33.3 1.1 45.6
Satisfied % NA 43.3 10.0 1.1 54.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 14.4 27.8 NA 42.2
facility Like before % NA 36.7 15.6 1.1 53.3
Better than before % NA 2.2 NA 1.1 3.3
Don’t know % NA 1.1 NA NA 1.1
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 28.0 2.0 NA NA 30.1
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.2 NA NA 1.7
Does not suit/NA % 54.6 1.3 NA NA 55.9
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 11.1 NA NA NA 11.1
Other % 1.3 NA NA NA 1.3
Court
Frequency of use N 1,088 20 7 0 1,115
% 97.6 1.8 0.6 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 11.1 3.7 NA 14.8
Satisfied % NA 63.0 22.2 NA 85.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 11.1 3.7 NA 14.8
facility Like before % NA 51.9 18.5 NA 70.4
Better than before % NA 7.4 3.7 NA 11.1
Don’t know % NA 3.7 NA NA 3.7
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.9 0.4 NA NA 33.3
once in a while Very costly % 0.7 0.6 NA NA 1.4
Does not suit/NA % 49.7 0.6 NA NA 50.4
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 14.5 0.2 NA NA 14.7
Other % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 69

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Households With PSC 24-100
Police
Frequency of use N 454 22 7 1 484
% 93.8 4.5 1.4 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 26.7 10.0 NA 36.7
Satisfied % NA 46.7 13.3 3.3 63.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 26.7 16.7 NA 43.3
facility Like before % NA 46.7 6.7 3.3 56.7
Better than before % NA NA NA NA NA
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 26.3 1.5 NA NA 27.7
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.5 NA NA 1.9
Does not suit/NA % 56.9 1.5 NA NA 58.4
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.2 NA NA 0.4
No enough facility % 10.3 NA NA NA 10.3
Other % 1.3 NA NA NA 1.3
Court
Frequency of use N 462 18 4 0 484
% 95.5 3.7 0.8 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 13.6 NA NA 13.6
Satisfied % NA 68.2 18.2 NA 86.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 13.6 NA NA 13.6
facility Like before % NA 59.1 13.6 NA 72.7
Better than before % NA 4.5 4.5 NA 9.1
Don’t know % NA 4.5 NA NA 4.5
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 29.8 0.6 NA NA 30.4
once in a while Very costly % NA 1.7 NA NA 1.7
Does not suit/NA % 52.9 1.5 NA NA 54.4
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 13.1 NA NA NA 13.1
Other % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2

The reasons for not using or using for once the services and facilities provided by police are unsuitability/
inapplicability (56.6%), long distance (29.4%), and not enough facility (10.8%). In the same order
households are not using or using for once the services and facilities provided by court due to unsuitability/
inapplicability (51.6%), long distance (32.4%), and not enough facility (14.2%). Households (1.7%)
using police services once in while found them very costly. More households (54.4%) with PSC 24-100
than in households (50.4%) with PSC 0-23 reported unsuitability/inapplicability as factor for not using
services of court.

Services and Facilities by the Private Sector: Table 33 reports data on frequency of use of banking and
bus services and facilities provided by the private sector. Most of the sampled households (89.4%) are
not using the services of bank. However of the households using banking services, 84.7% are satisfied.
Households using the banking services, 20.6% termed it better than before. The perception about
improvement in banking services is lower in 14.9% households with PSC 24-100 than 24.3% households
with PSC 0-23.

The use of private transport service – bus – is high as 82.2% households use it. However 63.6% of the
sampled households are satisfied with the bus service. For almost one-fourth of households (28.9%) the

70 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

services and facilities provided by the private transport sector have worsened over the last 12 months.
Overall 24.5% sampled households using the bus service often maintained its quality has worsened over
the last one year. The dissatisfaction with the bus service is slightly lower in 36.4% households with PSC
0-23 than in 36.6% households with PSC 24-100.

Table 33: Service and Facilities Private Sector

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
Bank
Frequency of use N 1,429 59 96 15 1,599
% 89.4 3.7 6.0 0.9 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 9.4 5.9 NA 15.3
Satisfied % NA 25.3 50.6 8.8 84.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 9.4 7.1 0.6 17.1
facility Like before % NA 23.5 34.7 4.1 62.4
Better than before % NA 1.8 14.7 4.1 20.6
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.5 1.9 NA NA 34.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.3 1.1 NA NA 1.3
Does not suit/NA % 48.5 0.9 NA NA 49.5
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 13.7 0.1 NA NA 13.8
Other % 0.9 NA NA NA 0.9
Bus
Frequency of use N 282 245 829 243 1,599
% 17.6 15.3 51.8 15.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.6 27.0 5.9 36.4
Satisfied % NA 15.0 36.0 12.5 63.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.9 24.5 3.4 28.9
facility Like before % NA 16.6 32.1 14.1 62.9
Better than before % NA 1.1 6.1 0.8 8.0
Don’t know % NA NA 0.2 0.1 0.3
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 26.2 23.3 NA NA 49.5
once in a while Very costly % 1.3 11.0 NA NA 12.3
Does not suit/NA % 12.7 7.8 NA NA 20.5
Lack of tools/staff % 0.8 0.8 NA NA 1.5
No enough facility % 11.8 2.8 NA NA 14.6
Other % 0.8 0.8 NA NA 1.5
Households With PSC 0-23
Bank
Frequency of use N 1,012 37 57 9 1,115
% 90.8 3.3 5.1 0.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 10.7 4.9 NA 15.5
Satisfied % NA 25.2 50.5 8.7 84.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 9.7 4.9 1.0 15.5
facility Like before % NA 24.3 34.0 1.9 60.2
Better than before % NA 1.9 16.5 5.8 24.3
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 71

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.3 1.7 NA NA 36.0
once in a while Very costly % 0.3 1.0 NA NA 1.3
Does not suit/NA % 46.5 0.7 NA NA 47.2
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 14.2 0.1 NA NA 14.3
Other % 1.1 NA NA NA 1.1
Bus
Frequency of use N 191 180 601 143 1,115
% 17.1 16.1 53.9 12.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 3.9 27.1 5.4 36.4
Satisfied % NA 15.6 38.0 10.1 63.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 1.1 24.8 3.0 28.9
facility Like before % NA 17.4 33.9 11.7 63.0
Better than before % NA 1.0 6.1 0.6 7.7
Don’t know % NA NA 0.3 0.1 0.4
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 25.6 26.1 NA NA 51.8
once in a while Very costly % 1.1 11.1 NA NA 12.1
Does not suit/NA % 11.6 7.3 NA NA 18.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.5 0.3 NA NA 0.8
No enough facility % 12.1 3.0 NA NA 15.1
Other % 0.5 0.8 NA NA 1.3
Households With PSC 24-100
Bank
Frequency of use N 417 22 39 6 484
% 86.2 4.5 8.1 1.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 7.5 7.5 NA 14.9
Satisfied % NA 25.4 50.7 9.0 85.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 9.0 10.4 NA 19.4
facility Like before % NA 22.4 35.8 7.5 65.7
Better than before % NA 1.5 11.9 1.5 14.9
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 28.2 2.3 NA NA 30.5
once in a while Very costly % 0.2 1.1 NA NA 1.4
Does not suit/NA % 53.3 1.6 NA NA 54.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 12.5 NA NA NA 12.5
Other % 0.5 NA NA NA 0.5
Bus
Frequency of use N 91 65 228 100 484
% 18.8 13.4 47.1 20.7 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 2.8 26.7 7.1 36.6
Satisfied % NA 13.7 31.3 18.3 63.4
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.5 23.9 4.3 28.8
facility Like before % NA 14.8 28.0 19.8 62.6
Better than before % NA 1.3 6.1 1.3 8.7
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 27.6 16.7 NA NA 44.2
once in a while Very costly % 1.9 10.9 NA NA 12.8
Does not suit/NA % 15.4 9.0 NA NA 24.4
Lack of tools/staff % 1.3 1.9 NA NA 3.2
No enough facility % 10.9 2.6 NA NA 13.5
Other % 1.3 0.6 NA NA 1.9

72 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The main reasons for households for not using or using once in a while the banking services are unsuitability/
inapplicability (49.5%), long distance (34.4%), and lack of banks (13.8%). Similarly the main reasons for
households for not using or using bus service once in a while are unsuitability/inapplicability (20.5%),
long distance (49.5%), unavailability of buses (14.6%), and being very costly (12.3%).

Services and Facilities by Local Government: Table 34 reports data on use of services and facilities
provided by the Local Government. These include roads, drinking water, local magistrate, and other local
government services.

The non-use is high for the services of local government, UC office, and local magistrate, showing
disconnect of the sampled households with the state at the local level. Sampled households – 92.8%,
91.5% and 89.2% - are not using the services of the local government, local magistrate and UC office.
The use of roads and drinking obviously is high. But almost half of households (48.8%) are not satisfied
with roads’ condition. Dissatisfaction with the condition of roads is slightly higher in 44.1% households
with PSC 0-23 than 38.2% households with PSC 24-100. Similarly almost one-third households (31.2%)
are not satisfied with the service of drinking water. Overall 42.4% households maintain roads’ condition
have worsened over the last 12 months – slightly more households with PSC 0-23 than households
PSC 24-100. With regards to drinking water, 29.2% households termed it worst over the last one year.
Households (26%) which use water service always thought it has deteriorated. However at the same time
10.6% households said the drinking water service is better than before.

Table 34: Service and Facilities by Local Government

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
Road
Frequency of use N 159 48 691 701 1,599
% 9.9 3.0 43.2 43.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 0.2 24.2 24.4 48.8
Satisfied % NA 3.1 23.8 24.3 51.2
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.3 22.4 19.7 42.4
facility Like before % NA 2.9 21.3 24.2 48.4
Better than before % NA 0.1 4.3 4.8 9.2
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 46.9 8.2 NA NA 55.1
once in a while Very costly % 1.0 9.2 NA NA 10.1
Does not suit/NA % 22.7 4.3 NA NA 27.1
Lack of tools/staff % NA 1.0 NA NA 1.0
No enough facility % 5.3 0.5 NA NA 5.8
Other % 1.0 NA NA NA 1.0
Drinking Water
Frequency of use N 171 61 352 1,015 1,599
% 10.7 3.8 22.0 63.5 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 0.4 5.5 25.3 31.2
Satisfied % NA 3.9 19.1 45.8 68.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.5 2.7 26.0 29.2
facility Like before % NA 3.1 16.9 40.1 60.1
Better than before % NA 0.7 4.9 5.0 10.6
Don’t know % NA NA 0.1 0.1 0.1

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 73

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 50.0 3.9 NA NA 53.9
once in a while Very costly % 1.7 6.0 NA NA 7.8
Does not suit/NA % 9.9 12.9 NA NA 22.8
Lack of tools/staff % NA 0.4 NA NA 0.4
No enough facility % 11.6 2.6 NA NA 14.2
Other % 0.4 0.4 NA NA 0.9
UC Office
Frequency of use N 1,426 98 69 6 1,599
% 89.2 6.1 4.3 0.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 8.1 14.5 NA 22.5
Satisfied % NA 48.6 25.4 3.5 77.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 6.4 9.2 0.6 16.2
facility Like before % NA 46.2 27.2 2.9 76.3
Better than before % NA 2.9 3.5 NA 6.4
Don’t know % NA 1.2 NA NA 1.2
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 36.4 2.8 NA NA 39.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.6 NA NA 2.0
Does not suit/NA % 41.6 1.6 NA NA 43.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 0.1 NA NA 0.4
No enough facility % 12.9 0.2 NA NA 13.1
Other % 1.8 0.2 NA NA 2.0
Local Magistrate
Frequency of use N 1,463 82 53 1 1,599
% 91.5 5.1 3.3 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 8.8 7.4 NA 16.2
Satisfied % NA 51.5 31.6 0.7 83.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 11.0 6.6 NA 17.6
facility Like before % NA 46.3 30.9 0.7 77.9
Better than before % NA 2.9 1.5 NA 4.4
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.3 1.2 NA NA 35.5
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.4 NA NA 1.9
Does not suit/NA % 47.3 2.3 NA NA 49.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 12.1 0.3 NA NA 12.4
Other % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
Local Govt
Frequency of use N 1,484 78 35 2 1,599
% 92.8 4.9 2.2 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 11.3 NA 0.9 12.2
Satisfied % NA 56.5 30.4 0.9 87.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 15.7 1.7 0.9 18.3
facility Like before % NA 48.7 23.5 0.9 73.0
Better than before % NA 3.5 4.3 NA 7.8
Don’t know % NA NA 0.9 NA 0.9
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 38.7 1.7 NA NA 40.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.3 NA NA 1.8
Does not suit/NA % 44.5 1.8 NA NA 46.3
Lack of tools/staff % 0.4 NA NA NA 0.4
No enough facility % 10.2 0.1 NA NA 10.4
Other % 0.7 0.1 NA NA 0.8

74 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Households With PSC 0-23
Road
Frequency of use N 107 29 513 466 1,115
% 9.6 2.6 46.0 41.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 0.3 26.0 24.1 50.4
Satisfied % NA 2.6 24.9 22.1 49.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.3 23.9 19.9 44.1
facility Like before % NA 2.4 23.5 21.8 47.7
Better than before % NA 0.2 3.5 4.5 8.1
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 50.7 7.4 NA NA 58.1
once in a while Very costly % 1.5 8.1 NA NA 9.6
Does not suit/NA % 21.3 3.7 NA NA 25.0
Lack of tools/staff % NA 1.5 NA NA 1.5
No enough facility % 4.4 0.7 NA NA 5.1
Other % 0.7 NA NA NA 0.7
Drinking Water
Frequency of use N 121 39 268 687 1,115
% 10.9 3.5 24.0 61.6 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 0.4 6.7 26.0 33.1
Satisfied % NA 3.5 20.2 43.2 66.9
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.5 3.5 27.3 31.3
facility Like before % NA 2.8 18.8 37.3 59.0
Better than before % NA 0.6 4.6 4.5 9.8
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 50.6 3.1 NA NA 53.8
once in a while Very costly % 1.3 5.0 NA NA 6.3
Does not suit/NA % 10.0 13.8 NA NA 23.8
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 13.1 2.5 NA NA 15.6
Other % 0.6 NA NA NA 0.6
UC Office
Frequency of use N 1,008 56 47 4 1,115
% 90.4 5.0 4.2 0.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 6.5 15.0 NA 21.5
Satisfied % NA 45.8 29.0 3.7 78.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 5.6 5.6 NA 11.2
facility Like before % NA 42.1 34.6 3.7 80.4
Better than before % NA 3.7 3.7 NA 7.5
Don’t know % NA 0.9 NA NA 0.9
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 37.2 2.3 NA NA 39.5
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.3 NA NA 1.7
Does not suit/NA % 40.9 1.4 NA NA 42.3
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 14.5 0.1 NA NA 14.6
Other % 1.5 0.2 NA NA 1.7
Local Magistrate
Frequency of use N 1,023 56 35 1 1,115
% 91.7 5.0 3.1 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 7.6 6.5 NA 14.1
Satisfied % NA 53.3 31.5 1.1 85.9

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 75

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 9.8 5.4 NA 15.2
facility Like before % NA 47.8 32.6 1.1 81.5
Better than before % NA 3.3 NA NA 3.3
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 35.1 1.3 NA NA 36.4
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 1.3 NA NA 1.9
Does not suit/NA % 46.4 2.2 NA NA 48.7
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 12.3 0.3 NA NA 12.6
Other % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
Local Govt
Frequency of use N 1,036 53 24 2 1,115
% 92.9 4.8 2.2 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 10.1 NA 1.3 11.4
Satisfied % NA 57.0 30.4 1.3 88.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 13.9 1.3 1.3 16.5
facility Like before % NA 51.9 25.3 1.3 78.5
Better than before % NA 1.3 2.5 NA 3.8
Don’t know % NA NA 1.3 NA 1.3
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 40.2 1.7 NA NA 41.9
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.0 NA NA 1.5
Does not suit/NA % 43.1 1.9 NA NA 45.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 10.6 0.2 NA NA 10.7
Other % 0.6 0.1 NA NA 0.7
Households With PSC 24-100
Road
Frequency of use N 52 19 178 235 484
% 10.7 3.9 36.8 48.6 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA NA 20.1 25.0 45.1
Satisfied % NA 4.4 21.1 29.4 54.9
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.2 18.8 19.2 38.2
facility Like before % NA 4.2 16.2 29.6 50.0
Better than before % NA NA 6.3 5.6 11.8
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 39.4 9.9 NA NA 49.3
once in a while Very costly % NA 11.3 NA NA 11.3
Does not suit/NA % 25.4 5.6 NA NA 31.0
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 7.0 NA NA NA 7.0
Other % 1.4 NA NA NA 1.4
Drinking Water
Frequency of use N 50 22 84 328 484
% 10.3 4.5 17.4 67.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 0.5 2.8 23.7 27.0
Satisfied % NA 4.6 16.6 51.8 73.0
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 0.5 0.9 23.0 24.4
facility Like before % NA 3.7 12.7 46.3 62.7
Better than before % NA 0.9 5.5 6.0 12.4
Don’t know % NA NA 0.2 0.2 0.5

76 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 48.6 5.6 NA NA 54.2
once in a while Very costly % 2.8 8.3 NA NA 11.1
Does not suit/NA % 9.7 11.1 NA NA 20.8
Lack of tools/staff % NA 1.4 NA NA 1.4
No enough facility % 8.3 2.8 NA NA 11.1
Other % NA 1.4 NA NA 1.4
UC Office
Frequency of use N 418 42 22 2 484
% 86.4 8.7 4.5 0.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 10.6 13.6 NA 24.2
Satisfied % NA 53.0 19.7 3.0 75.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 7.6 15.2 1.5 24.2
facility Like before % NA 53.0 15.2 1.5 69.7
Better than before % NA 1.5 3.0 NA 4.5
Don’t know % NA 1.5 NA NA 1.5
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.6 4.1 NA NA 38.7
once in a while Very costly % 0.7 2.2 NA NA 2.8
Does not suit/NA % 43.3 2.0 NA NA 45.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.4 0.2 NA NA 0.7
No enough facility % 9.3 0.4 NA NA 9.8
Other % 2.6 0.2 NA NA 2.8
Local Magistrate
Frequency of use N 440 26 18 0 484
% 90.9 5.4 3.7 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 11.4 9.1 NA 20.5
Satisfied % NA 47.7 31.8 NA 79.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 13.6 9.1 NA 22.7
facility Like before % NA 43.2 27.3 NA 70.5
Better than before % NA 2.3 4.5 NA 6.8
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 32.4 1.1 NA NA 33.5
once in a while Very costly % 0.4 1.5 NA NA 1.9
Does not suit/NA % 49.4 2.6 NA NA 51.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 11.6 0.4 NA NA 12.0
Other % 0.4 NA NA NA 0.4
Local Govt
Frequency of use N 448 25 11 0 484
% 92.6 5.2 2.3 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 13.9 NA NA 13.9
Satisfied % NA 55.6 30.6 NA 86.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 19.4 2.8 NA 22.2
facility
Like before % NA 41.7 19.4 NA 61.1
Better than before % NA 8.3 8.3 NA 16.7
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 35.1 1.9 NA NA 37.0
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 1.9 NA NA 2.5
Does not suit/NA % 47.8 1.5 NA NA 49.3
Lack of tools/staff % 0.8 NA NA NA 0.8
No enough facility % 9.5 NA NA NA 9.5
Other % 0.8 NA NA NA 0.8

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 77

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Households which have never used or used the services of local government once in a while termed
unsuitability/inapplicability as the main reason. The other reasons included distance, very costly and lack
of facility. The main reason for 53.9% households for not using or using once in a while drinking water
service is distance (far away), closely followed by unsuitability/inapplicability for 22.8% households and
lack of drinking water facility for 14.2% households. The main reason for non-use or low use for the
services of UC office is unsuitability/inapplicability for 43.2% households, followed by 39.2% households
which termed distance as the main reason. Unsuitability/inapplicability is also the main reason for not
using or using once in a while the services of local magistrate and local government for 48.6% and 46.3%
households.

Services and Facilities by Provincial & Federal Government: Table 35 provides data on services and
facilities provided by provincial and federal governments’ departments. The non-use of the provincial
and federal level services by the sampled households is also high as in the case of local government
and rule of law services. Except for the services of NADRA, 95.2%, 91.7, and 76.5% of the sampled
households are not using the services of Pakistan Railways, post office, and electricity and gas. Only
33.6% households are not using the services of NADRA. Households using the services and facilities of
Pakistan Railways, post office, NADRA have expressed high satisfaction with them – 89.6%, 86.4% and
65.7% respectively. However, only 64.3% households are satisfied with services of gas and electricity.
Though most of the households have not witnessed any change in the services and facilities provided by
federal institutions, 12.7% households termed NADRA services and facilities better than before. At the
same time 29.9% households felt that NADRA services have worsened over the last 12 months. However
one-third households (21.9%) termed gas and electricity services worse over the last 12 months.

Table 35: Service and Facilities by Provincial & Federal Government

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
All Households
Railway
Frequency of use N 1,522 45 30 2 1,599
% 95.2 2.8 1.9 0.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 7.8 1.3 1.3 10.4
Satisfied % NA 50.6 37.7 1.3 89.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 11.7 3.9 1.3 16.9
facility Like before % NA 44.2 33.8 1.3 79.2
Better than before % NA 2.6 1.3 NA 3.9
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 33.3 0.5 NA NA 33.8
once in a while Very costly % 8.2 1.2 NA NA 9.4
Does not suit/NA % 40.9 1.1 NA NA 42.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.3 NA NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 14.0 0.1 NA NA 14.1
Other % 0.4 NA NA NA 0.4
Post Office
Frequency of use N 1,467 108 21 3 1,599
% 91.7 6.8 1.3 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 11.4 1.5 0.8 13.6
Satisfied % NA 70.5 14.4 1.5 86.4

78 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 7.6 0.8 NA 8.3
facility Like before % NA 68.2 12.9 0.8 81.8
Better than before % NA 5.3 2.3 0.8 8.3
Don’t know % NA 0.8 NA 0.8 1.5
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 36.6 3.6 NA NA 40.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 1.5 NA NA 2.2
Does not suit/NA % 46.5 1.6 NA NA 48.1
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 8.6 0.1 NA NA 8.8
Other % 0.6 0.1 NA NA 0.6
NADRA Office
Frequency of use N 537 548 481 33 1,599
% 33.6 34.3 30.1 2.1 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 15.6 18.5 0.1 34.3
Satisfied % NA 36.0 26.7 3.0 65.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 7.3 22.5 0.2 29.9
facility Like before % NA 41.1 14.7 0.8 56.6
Better than before % NA 2.8 8.1 1.8 12.7
Don’t know % NA 0.5 NA 0.3 0.8
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 18.6 40.6 NA NA 59.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 2.7 NA NA 3.1
Does not suit/NA % 23.1 6.4 NA NA 29.5
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 6.9 0.6 NA NA 7.6
Other % 0.3 0.2 NA NA 0.5
Electricity & Gas Dept.
Frequency of use N 1,224 225 139 11 1,599
% 76.5 14.1 8.7 0.7 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 24.8 9.6 1.3 35.7
Satisfied % NA 35.2 27.5 1.6 64.3
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 12.8 9.1 NA 21.9
facility Like before % NA 43.2 24.3 2.7 70.1
Better than before % NA 4.0 3.7 0.3 8.0
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 27.9 11.2 NA NA 39.1
once in a while Very costly % 0.3 1.7 NA NA 2.1
Does not suit/NA % 44.8 1.7 NA NA 46.5
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 11.0 0.4 NA NA 11.5
Other % 0.3 0.3 NA NA 0.6
Households With PSC 0-23
Railway
Frequency of use N 1,067 30 18 0 1,115
% 95.7 2.7 1.6 - 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 8.3 2.1 NA 10.4
Satisfied % NA 54.2 35.4 NA 89.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 8.3 4.2 NA 12.5
facility Like before % NA 52.1 33.3 NA 85.4
Better than before % NA 2.1 NA NA 2.1
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 79

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.4 0.5 NA NA 34.8
once in a while Very costly % 9.4 1.1 NA NA 10.5
Does not suit/NA % 38.9 1.1 NA NA 40.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 14.3 0.1 NA NA 14.4
Other % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
Post Office
Frequency of use N 1,027 71 15 2 1,115
% 92.1 6.4 1.3 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 9.1 2.3 1.1 12.5
Satisfied % NA 71.6 14.8 1.1 87.5
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 4.5 1.1 NA 5.7
facility Like before % NA 68.2 14.8 NA 83.0
Better than before % NA 6.8 1.1 1.1 9.1
Don’t know % NA 1.1 NA 1.1 2.3
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 37.6 3.6 NA NA 41.2
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 1.2 NA NA 1.8
Does not suit/NA % 45.8 1.5 NA NA 47.4
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 9.2 0.2 NA NA 9.4
Other % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
NADRA Office
Frequency of use N 373 372 345 25 1,115
% 33.5 33.4 30.9 2.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 14.3 17.8 0.1 32.2
Satisfied % NA 35.8 28.7 3.2 67.8
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 6.7 23.3 0.3 30.3
facility Like before % NA 40.2 15.0 0.8 55.9
Better than before % NA 2.7 8.2 2.2 13.1
Don’t know % NA 0.5 NA 0.1 0.7
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 19.2 41.6 NA NA 60.8
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.9 NA NA 2.4
Does not suit/NA % 22.3 5.9 NA NA 28.2
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 0.1 NA NA 0.3
No enough facility % 7.7 0.3 NA NA 7.9
Other % 0.3 0.1 NA NA 0.4
Electricity & Gas Dept.
Frequency of use N 886 138 82 9 1,115
% 79.5 12.4 7.4 0.8 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 27.9 8.7 1.7 38.4
Satisfied % NA 32.3 27.1 2.2 61.6
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 12.2 6.1 NA 18.3
facility Like before % NA 44.5 25.8 3.5 73.8
Better than before % NA 3.5 3.9 0.4 7.9
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 29.0 10.0 NA NA 39.0
once in a while Very costly % 0.5 1.2 NA NA 1.7
Does not suit/NA % 44.4 1.5 NA NA 45.9
Lack of tools/staff % 0.1 NA NA NA 0.1
No enough facility % 12.3 0.5 NA NA 12.8
Other % 0.2 0.4 NA NA 0.6

80 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Households With PSC 24-100
Railway
Frequency of use N 455 15 12 2 484
% 94.0 3.1 2.5 0.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 6.9 NA 3.4 10.3
Satisfied % NA 44.8 41.4 3.4 89.7
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 17.2 3.4 3.4 24.1
facility Like before % NA 31.0 34.5 3.4 69.0
Better than before % NA 3.4 3.4 NA 6.9
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 30.9 0.6 NA NA 31.5
once in a while Very costly % 5.3 1.5 NA NA 6.8
Does not suit/NA % 45.5 1.1 NA NA 46.6
Lack of tools/staff % 0.6 NA NA NA 0.6
No enough facility % 13.4 NA NA NA 13.4
Other % 1.1 NA NA NA 1.1
Post Office
Frequency of use N 440 37 6 1 484
% 90.9 7.6 1.2 0.2 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 15.9 NA NA 15.9
Satisfied % NA 68.2 13.6 2.3 84.1
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 13.6 NA NA 13.6
facility Like before % NA 68.2 9.1 2.3 79.5
Better than before % NA 2.3 4.5 NA 6.8
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 34.4 3.6 NA NA 37.9
once in a while Very costly % 0.6 2.3 NA NA 2.9
Does not suit/NA % 48.0 1.7 NA NA 49.7
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 NA NA NA 0.2
No enough facility % 7.3 NA NA NA 7.3
Other % 1.7 0.2 NA NA 1.9
NADRA Office
Frequency of use N 164 176 136 8 484
% 33.9 36.4 28.1 1.7 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 18.8 20.3 NA 39.1
Satisfied % NA 36.3 22.2 2.5 60.9
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 8.4 20.6 NA 29.1
facility Like before % NA 43.1 14.1 0.9 58.1
Better than before % NA 3.1 7.8 0.9 11.9
Don’t know % NA 0.3 NA 0.6 0.9
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 17.4 38.2 NA NA 55.6
once in a while Very costly % 0.3 4.4 NA NA 4.7
Does not suit/NA % 25.0 7.4 NA NA 32.4
Lack of tools/staff % NA NA NA NA NA
No enough facility % 5.3 1.5 NA NA 6.8
Other % 0.3 0.3 NA NA 0.6
Electricity & Gas Dept.
Frequency of use N 338 87 57 2 484
% 69.8 18.0 11.8 0.4 100.0
Satisfaction Level Not Satisfied % NA 19.9 11.0 0.7 31.5
Satisfied % NA 39.7 28.1 0.7 68.5

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 81

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Once in
Not at all Often Always Total
a while
Change in quality of service and Worst % NA 13.7 13.7 NA 27.4
facility Like before % NA 41.1 21.9 1.4 64.4
Better than before % NA 4.8 3.4 NA 8.2
Don’t know % NA NA NA NA NA
Reason for not using/ or using Far away % 25.2 14.1 NA NA 39.3
once in a while Very costly % NA 3.1 NA NA 3.1
Does not suit/NA % 45.6 2.4 NA NA 48.0
Lack of tools/staff % 0.2 0.5 NA NA 0.7
No enough facility % 8.0 0.2 NA NA 8.2
Other % 0.5 0.2 NA NA 0.7

The main reasons for not using or using once federal services and facilities are unsuitability/inapplicability,
long distance and unavailability of facility. More than one third of the households (39.1%) not using or
using services of gas and electricity once in a while reported unsuitability/inapplicability as the main
reason. This is also the case for households (33.8%) when it comes to using the services of Pakistan
Railways.

3.1.11. Perception of Problems

Households were asked to report problems in terms of level of seriousness in areas such as education,
healthcare, drainage, street pavement, job, savings, low income (poverty), water supply, transport, fuel
supply, access to credit, social cohesion, and organization. The problems have been ranked “serious” and
“very serious” in Table 36.

The provision of electricity or rather lack of has been termed as the most serious problem by 60% of
households, followed by lack of healthcare (58%), income (poverty) (56.4%), drainage (57.9%), jobs
(56.3%), street pavement (57.1%) education (55%), and lack of savings (49%). The other most serious
issues for the sampled households are lack of water supply (49.2%), transport (45.7%), fuel supply
(43.3%), access to credit (36.6%) and organization (37.6%). While lack of savings turned out to be a
relatively important issue, access to credit, social cohesion, and organization appear to be less important
issues. All these issues are directly and indirectly linked to the state. We have seen that the sampled
households’ access to and interaction with the state at the local, district, provincial levels is weak.

The lack of education and healthcare is a more serious problem for households with PSC (0-23) than
households with PSC (24-100). However lack of electricity and jobs is slightly more serious problem for
households with PSC (24-100) than households with PSC (0-23).

Among districts 69.1% of households in TAY reported lack of education as a serious problem, followed by
61.8% in TMK. The lack of healthcare has been felt most by 74.4 households in TAY closely followed by
about 60% households in Sujawal and TMK. Similarly 57.5% households in TMK reported water shortage
as very serious problem, followed by 56.2% households in Sujawal. Lack of electricity was reported as
very serious problem by 68.1% households in TAY, followed by 66% in TMK. Households in TMK (64.4%)
and TAY (60.3%) also felt that lack of income is a serious problem. Again the unavailability of jobs has
been felt most by 65.8% households in TMK and 63.8% in TAY. The issue of not saving has been pointed
out as most serious by 61.1% households in TAY.

82 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Table 36: Ranking of Problems

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

All Households
Education Serious Problem 36.8 35.3 27.9 10.5 27.6
Very Serious Problem 34.1 55.0 69.1 61.8 55.0
Health Care Serious Problem 36.8 34.8 24.6 11.3 26.9
Very Serious Problem 36.1 60.9 74.4 60.8 58.0
Water Supply Serious Problem 20.6 30.8 24.4 12.3 22.0
Very Serious Problem 30.1 56.2 53.0 57.5 49.2
Drainage Serious Problem 35.6 44.0 28.1 6.3 28.5
Very Serious Problem 47.6 51.7 65.8 66.5 57.9
Street Pavement Serious Problem 33.8 40.8 37.2 9.3 30.3
Very Serious Problem 55.9 53.5 57.8 61.3 57.1
Transport Serious Problem 39.6 37.8 36.7 25.8 35.0
Very Serious Problem 33.8 53.7 53.0 42.3 45.7
Fuel Supply Serious Problem 31.1 40.3 34.4 26.3 33.0
Very Serious Problem 32.8 44.3 53.5 42.8 43.3
Electricity Serious Problem 31.3 25.6 31.2 8.5 24.1
Very Serious Problem 46.4 59.7 68.1 66.3 60.1
Income (Poverty) Serious Problem 39.8 45.5 34.7 8.5 32.1
Very Serious Problem 48.6 52.2 60.3 64.5 56.4
Job/Employment Serious Problem 38.8 46.5 32.4 7.5 31.3
Very Serious Problem 44.1 51.7 63.8 65.8 56.3
Savings Serious Problem 25.6 50.5 33.4 20.0 32.4
Very Serious Problem 35.6 46.5 61.1 52.8 49.0
Access to Credit Serious Problem 16.8 60.2 31.2 34.5 35.7
Very Serious Problem 27.8 34.3 58.3 26.3 36.6
Social Cohesion Serious Problem 15.8 16.9 24.4 31.0 22.0
Very Serious Problem 23.8 22.6 25.1 23.0 23.6
Organisation Serious Problem 18.3 44.3 19.1 33.3 28.8
Very Serious Problem 25.6 36.3 52.5 36.0 37.6
Households with PSC 0-23
Education Serious Problem 40.3 33.8 26.3 9.3 28.3
Very Serious Problem 34.0 56.0 72.2 64.0 55.8
Health Care Serious Problem 37.8 34.8 22.0 9.3 27.0
Very Serious Problem 37.2 61.5 77.6 63.6 59.4
Water Supply Serious Problem 20.8 31.1 26.3 11.3 23.0
Very Serious Problem 29.5 56.6 54.5 58.3 49.5
Drainage Serious Problem 35.1 43.1 26.7 4.5 28.7
Very Serious Problem 47.6 52.9 67.1 68.8 58.3
Street Pavement Serious Problem 35.1 40.6 36.5 9.3 31.3
Very Serious Problem 55.9 54.2 58.8 61.5 57.3
Transport Serious Problem 41.3 37.2 36.1 25.9 35.5
Very Serious Problem 33.7 54.8 54.5 41.7 46.4
Fuel Supply Serious Problem 33.0 39.4 35.3 25.9 33.8
Very Serious Problem 32.6 45.8 54.1 44.1 43.9
Electricity Serious Problem 29.9 24.0 31.4 10.1 24.1
Very Serious Problem 45.5 61.5 67.8 64.8 59.6
Income (Poverty) Serious Problem 40.6 46.5 35.7 7.7 33.9
Very Serious Problem 49.7 51.7 61.2 65.6 56.4
Job/Employment Serious Problem 39.2 48.3 31.4 8.5 33.3
Very Serious Problem 43.4 50.8 64.7 65.2 55.2
Savings Serious Problem 29.9 50.8 30.2 18.6 33.5
Very Serious Problem 34.7 47.1 63.5 54.3 49.2

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 83

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Access to Credit Serious Problem 19.1 60.9 34.5 33.2 37.9
Very Serious Problem 27.1 35.7 58.4 26.3 36.6
Social Cohesion Serious Problem 16.0 18.2 23.9 29.6 21.4
Very Serious Problem 24.0 23.7 28.2 23.9 24.8
Organisation Serious Problem 18.8 41.2 17.6 34.8 28.6
Very Serious Problem 25.0 38.5 55.3 35.2 38.1
Households with PSC 24-100
Education Serious Problem 27.9 41.6 30.8 12.4 26.0
Very Serious Problem 34.2 50.6 63.6 58.2 53.1
Health Care Serious Problem 34.2 35.1 29.4 14.4 26.7
Very Serious Problem 33.3 58.4 68.5 56.2 55.0
Water Supply Serious Problem 19.8 29.9 21.0 13.7 19.8
Very Serious Problem 31.5 54.5 50.3 56.2 48.6
Drainage Serious Problem 36.9 48.1 30.8 9.2 28.1
Very Serious Problem 47.7 46.8 63.6 62.7 57.0
Street Pavement Serious Problem 30.6 41.6 38.5 9.2 27.9
Very Serious Problem 55.9 50.6 55.9 60.8 56.6
Transport Serious Problem 35.1 40.3 37.8 25.5 33.7
Very Serious Problem 34.2 49.4 50.3 43.1 44.2
Fuel Supply Serious Problem 26.1 44.2 32.9 26.8 31.2
Very Serious Problem 33.3 37.7 52.4 40.5 41.9
Electricity Serious Problem 35.1 32.5 30.8 5.9 24.2
Very Serious Problem 48.6 51.9 68.5 68.6 61.4
Income (Poverty) Serious Problem 37.8 41.6 32.9 9.8 28.1
Very Serious Problem 45.9 54.5 58.7 62.7 56.4
Job/Employment Serious Problem 37.8 39.0 34.3 5.9 26.9
Very Serious Problem 45.9 55.8 62.2 66.7 58.9
Savings Serious Problem 14.4 49.4 39.2 22.2 29.8
Very Serious Problem 37.8 44.2 56.6 50.3 48.3
Access to Credit Serious Problem 10.8 57.1 25.2 36.6 30.6
Very Serious Problem 29.7 28.6 58.0 26.1 36.8
Social Cohesion Serious Problem 15.3 11.7 25.2 33.3 23.3
Very Serious Problem 23.4 18.2 19.6 21.6 20.9
Organisation Serious Problem 17.1 57.1 21.7 30.7 29.1
Very Serious Problem 27.0 27.3 47.6 37.3 36.4

3.2. Analysis of Poverty

To assess the poverty level in the sampled households of the four districts, the baseline survey was
designed to collect information on consumption expenditure at household level, which has been used to
determine poverty level. Though income of a household clearly reflects its social and economic status,
income components are often under reported. In most poverty assessments in developing countries
including Pakistan, household’s current consumption expenditure is preferred to income as an indicator
of living standards. Thus, current consumption expenditure is used as a proxy for the measurement of
poverty in the sampled households.

3.2.1. Official poverty line for Rural Sindh

In many developing countries including Pakistan, poverty is defined in terms of attaining minimum
calorie intake for human need required for physical functioning and daily activities. The Government of

84 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Pakistan notified25 average calorie intake of 2,350 calories per person per day. This baseline survey uses
the official poverty line announced in April 2016 by the Planning Commission of Pakistan as the basic
reference for measuring absolute poverty in the four districts. The current national official poverty line
in terms of minimum calorie intake of 2,350 calories per person per day is estimated26 at PKR 3,030 per
adult equivalent per month in 2013-14 prices. This new official poverty line is based on Cost of Basic
Needs (CBN) approach, which first obtains a food poverty line by taking the average spending on food
of households in the reference group. The CBN subsequently takes into account non-food expenditures
(clothing, shelter, education, etc.). The food poverty line is finally scaled up to reflect the total expenditure
of households to obtain the CBN poverty line which can be regularly updated for inflation using the
Consumer Price Index (CPI), allowing governments to track poverty over time. According to this method,
29.5 % of the country’s population was below the poverty line in 2013-14.

This baseline report adjusts the new official national poverty line of PKR 3,030 per adult equivalent to
accommodate regional price differences. In this way poverty line for rural Sindh comes to PKR 2,848 per
adult equivalent per month in accordance with 2013-14 prices. This poverty line has then been adjusted
upward by the inflation rate of CPI from 2013-14 onwards to derive rural Sindh poverty line in 2016
prices, which comes to PKR 3,183 consumption expenditure per adult equivalent per month.

This report uses this adjusted official poverty line of PKR 3,183 consumption expenditure per adult
equivalent per month to segregate the survey population above or below the poverty line in the project
districts.

3.2.2. Poverty, Incidence, Intensity and Severity

To estimate absolute poverty in the four districts, different sections of the baseline survey were designed
to collect information on income and consumption expenditure at the household level. While the income
of a household clearly reflects its social and economic status, income components are often under
reported. Therefore, current consumption expenditure on all nondurables is used as a proxy for income
for measuring poverty in this report.

To compute poverty headcount, this baseline report follows the official method of measurement of poverty27
and then computes the adult equivalent scale for each household to take an account of economies of
scale in household consumption as follows:

• A multiplication factor of “1” for each adult, and

• A multiplication factor of “0.8” for children aged 0-18.

Table 37 reports absolute poverty headcount based on the new official poverty line inflation adjusted for
rural Sindh in the four districts. The overall poverty incidence has been estimated at 75.9% in the four
districts, which is substantially higher than 35.6% in 2013-14 estimated at the national level in rural areas
of Pakistan28. Out of 1,600 households, 1,214 households are poor in the sample. One of the reasons for

25 See Economic Survey, 2015-16, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad

26 Ibid
27 See Government of Pakistan (2016), Economic Survey, 2015-16, Finance Division, Islamabad.
28 Ideally, it should be o compared with rural Sindh but Planning Commission do notpublishe the poverty statistics at province
level. Independent studies reported 5.8 percetage points higher poverty incidence in rural Sind (45%) compared torural areas at
national level (39.2%) in 2001-02. See Talat, Anwar (2006),Trends in Absolute Poverty and Governance in Pakistan: 1998-99 and
2004-05, The Pakistan Development Review, 45: 4 (Winter 2006) pp. 777–793, PIDE, Islamabad

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 85

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

the high poverty incidence among the sample households in these districts is the 20% oversampling of
the poorest households in order to identify the poorest of the poor for programme intervention.

However, overall average conceals differences across districts. The highest poverty level is observed in
TMK (89.3%), followed by Matiari (80.7%), Sujawal (75.4%), and TAY (58.3%) (See Table 37).

Table 37: Poverty Headcount (%) based on Consumption Poverty Line

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Poor 80.7 75.4 58.3 89.3 75.9
Non Poor 19.3 24.6 41.7 10.8 24.1

Figure 13: Poverty Headcount based on New Official Poverty Line

89.3
80.7
75.4 75.9

58.3

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Table 38 reports the intensity of poverty reflected by poverty gap measure (P1) and severity of poverty
captured by FGT P2 measure based on new official poverty line in the four districts. The intensity of
poverty reflected by poverty gap measures the average shortfall in the consumption of the poor from
the poverty line. The overall intensity of poverty reflected by P1 is 34% in the four districts. The highest
poverty gap ratio is in TMK (46.9%), followed by Matiari (39.3%), Sujawal (29.6%), and TAY (20.2%).
FGT P2 measure captures the severity of poverty by measuring the degree of inequality among the poor.
The overall severity of poverty captured by FGT P2 measure was 18% in the four districts. The highest
degree of inequality among the poor households as suggested by the severity of poverty measure is in
TMK (27.5%) followed by Matiari (22%), Sujawal (13.8%), and TAY (8.6%).

Table 38: Poverty Intensity and Severity (%)

Matiari Sujawal TAY TMK Total

Poverty Gap Index 39.3 29.6 20.2 46.9 34.0
Poverty Severity Index 22.0 13.8 8.6 27.5 18.0

86 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

4. CONCLUSION
This baseline survey provides key social, economic and demographic data which will be used as a
benchmark for monitoring and assessing the impact of the SUCCESS programme on the standard of living
of the programme participants in the four programme districts during the next five years. The results of
the baseline survey allow for the following conclusions:

• The data on demographic composition shows a high overall dependency ratio at 79.1% with a
higher dependency ratio among households classified as poor with PSC 0-23 (88.6%) compared
households classified as non-poor with PSC 24-100 (58.1%).
• The overall male-to-female ratio at 113 is higher than the national ratio 109. Most of the sampled
population (86.3%) works (81.7% males and 91.4% females). It is important to highlight that
domestic work inside the house has been taken as work. Mainly the adult population works as
unskilled labour – more men (63.1%) than women (26.4%) in the four districts. There are slightly
more men skilled workers (3.9%) than women (1.8%);
• Adult literacy rate is alarmingly low at 16.3%. Although gross primary enrolment ratio is 55.1%,
the gross middle and matric level enrolment ratios are alarmingly low at 7.7% and 0.2%
respectively. The main problems of the poor households in schooling of children include: shortage
of books, substandard education, and unavailability of latrine and water. A majority of sampled
households do not send their children to school because of poverty.
• Almost 66.7% of the sampled population perceives themselves to be in good health. This
perception was lowest in Sujawal (50.5%) and highest in Matiari (85.8%). The main problems for
the poor households in visiting a health facility include: long wait, unavailability of medicines and
absence of doctor. The worrisome factor is the presence of 10.8% children with no vaccination
among households with PSC 0-23. The no vaccination of children is the highest in Sujawal with
20.1%.
• The stunting and wasting appears to be widespread in the sampled households in the four
districts: 14.9% children under 5 are severely wasted and 26.6% moderately wasted and 39.1%
are severely stunted and 53.4% moderately stunted. Wasting scores are slightly higher among
female (26.9%) than male (26.4%) children in four districts.
• The surveyed population portrays a low quality of life as the poor households with PSC 0-23
largely live (80.1%) in katcha (clay) housing structures. The living space is congested with
average household size of 6.6 persons as majority of the sampled population (95.9%) lives in
two-room houses. A large sampled population uses hand pump for water. The survey finding that
a significant number of households do not have drainage facility (50.7%) and another 39% have
open drains calls attention to initiate projects for improving village sanitation conditions. Nearly
half of sampled households (46.8%) do not have an electricity connection A majority of sampled
households get electricity 1-8 hours daily. A vast majority of sample households use wood as
main source of fuel.
• There seems to be a weak link between sampled households and the services and facilities provided
by the state. This link is weak at all levels – local, district, provincial and federal. The non-use is
highest for the local government, followed by rule of law institutions – police and court – along
with the departments of health and education. A majority of the sampled households do not use
the services provided by BHU, family planning unit, vaccinator, veterinary clinic, agriculture, police,
railway, post office, UC office, local magistrate, local government, electricity and gas department
points out to the unsuitability/inapplicability, long distance and insufficiency of these services.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 87

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Nevertheless, majority of households using these services expressed satisfaction. Except for one
or two services/facilities, most of the households using them did not notice any change. The
services provided by police seem to be worsening for the sampled households. The survey finding
that a majority of the households have serious problems and constraints in education, health
care, drainage, street pavement, job, savings, and poverty suggests that collabourative efforts
are required to address these constraints.
• The poor households with PSC 0-23 derive most of their income from unskilled labour (58.6%),
followed by crops (8.5%), livestock (4.6%), skilled labour (6.2%), government/private jobs
(5.2%), business/trade (3.3%), and BISP (3.2%).
• Income distribution in the four districts is highly skewed. In overall sample, the top 20%
households receive bulk of the income share at 47.5% whereas the bottom 20% households
get only 4.8% of the total income, while the remaining middle 60% households get 47.7%. Gini
Coefficient based on income at 0.46 is relatively high compared with Gini coefficient based on
household consumption at 0.28 reflecting a highly unequal distribution of household income
relative to household consumption.
• Landlessness of the sampled households is markedly high (96.9%). About 12.5% households were
indebted from different sources. A majority of households (56.6%) households were indebted to
friend and relatives followed by shopkeepers (25.8%), banks (10%), and other sources (mostly
landlords) (7.5%). The poor households with PSC 0-23 mostly used loans for farm input, land,
businesses, and healthcare.
• All poverty measures including the poverty incidence, intensity and severity reflect an exceptionally
high level of deprivation in the four districts. Poverty level (75.9%) is extremely higher than
estimated by the government at national level (35.6%) in rural areas of the country. The intensity
of poverty reflected by P1 is 34% indicating a high poverty gap in the four districts. The severity
of poverty captured by FGT P2 measure is 18% showing a high degree of inequality among the
poor in the four districts.

88 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Annexures

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 89

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Annex I: District Short Profiles

Matiari

Matiari became a district in 2005. Its estimated population was 834,660 in 201429. Before becoming a
district, it was a taluka of Hyderabad. Spread over 1,458 sq. kms, the district has three talukas, 19 union
councils and 123 mouzas.30 The average household size is 5.7 as most of the population (85%) lives in
rural areas.31

The National Highway (N5) connects Matiari with Hyderabad and then onwards with Karachi.32 Most of the
households in the district have one room (50%) or two to four rooms (48%).33 Nearly 93% households
have electricity but only 53% have a television.34 At least one member in 79% households has a cell
phone but only 3.5% have internet connection.35

Though agriculture is the main source of employment, the district suffers from chronic poverty. Only
14% households own agriculture land and 56% have farm animals/livestock.36 According to UNDP’s
Multidimensional Poverty in Pakistan report, the incidence of poverty in the district is between 60%-69%.
The main kharif crops are maize, rice, sugarcane, cotton, while wheat and barley are main rabi crops.37

The district has 857 secondary, 19 middle, two elementary, 45 secondary, and three higher secondary
public schools.38 The literacy rate (ten years and above) in the district is 61%39 and primary enrolment
rate is 49% (male 54%, female 44%).40

Matiari has three public hospitals along with 21 BHUs, four RHCs and three MCHCs.41 The district has one
doctor, one nurse and one hospital bed for a population of 3,859, 56,692, and 3,350 respectively.42 The
rates of underweight, stunting and wasting prevalence among children under five years of age are 52%,
55%, and 16% respectively.43 A total of 44% children aged 12-23 months have been immunised in the
district.44

The main sources of drinking water for 71% households in the district are hand pumps (71%), followed
by motor pumps (23%)45. Most of the households (45%) have non-flush latrines, while 32% have flush
latrines and 23% households do not have latrine46.

29 Pakistan Emergency Situational Analysis. (2014). District Matiari, USAID

30 Ibid
31 Ibid
32 Ibid
33 PSLM 2014-15
34 MICS 2014
35 Ibid
36 Ibid
37 Matiari, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
38 District Education Profile 2013-14, SINDH Education Management Information System (SEMIS), Reform Support Unit
39 PSLM 2014-15
40 Report on the Status of Millennium Development Goals, Sindh. (2012). UNDP/Government of Sindh
41 Health Profile of Sindh, Bureau of Statistics, Government of Sindh
42 Ibid
43 MICS 2014
44 PSLM 2014-15
45 PSLM 2014-15
46 Ibid

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 91

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

The district is represented in the national and provincial legislatures with one National Assembly and two
provincial assembly seats.47 Out of 300,487 registered voters in the district, registered female voters
number 143,225 (48%).48

Sujawal

Sujawal became district in 2013. Earlier it was part of Thatta district. Spread over 7,335 km, the district
has four talukas, 37 union councils, 388 revenue villages.49 Sujawal’s estimated population is 800,000
predominantly living in rural areas (91%).50

Only 60% households in Sujawal have electricity with 27% owning a television.51 At least one member of
76% households has a cell phone but only two percent households have internet connection.52 Most of
the households in the district comprise of one room (63%) while 36% have two to four rooms.53

Nearly one third of households (30%) own agriculture land while 48% have farm animals/livestock54.
Sugarcane, rice and wheat are main crops.55

The district has 1,588 primary, 28 middle, 20 secondary and seven higher secondary public schools.56
The literacy rate (ten years and above) in Sujawal is 66% (male 77%, female 55%).57 More than half of
the population (58%) has completed primary or higher level education.58

Sujawal has three public and four private hospitals along with 29 BHUs, two RHCs, and two MCHCs.59 The
rates of underweight, stunting and wasting (moderate and severe) among children under five years of age
are 52%, 56%, and 20% respectively.60 Registering birth is not common in Sujawal as 96% children are
without birth certificates.61

Hand pumps are the main source of drinking water for 49% of the population.62 Half of the households
(49%) have non flush latrines while 35% households do not have a latrine.63

Tando Allahyar

Tando Allahyar was declared a district in 2005 as previously it was part of Hyderabad district.64 It has a
population of 684,810, most of which (70%) lives in rural areas.65 Most of the households (95%) have
47 Pakistan Emergency Situational Analysis. (2014). District Matiari, USAID
48 Ibid
49 Sujawal, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
50 Ibid
51 MICS 2014
52 Ibid
53 PSLM 2014-15
54 MICS 2014
55 Sujawal, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
56 District Education Profile 2013-14, SINDH Education Management Information System (SEMIS), Reform Support Unit
57 PSLM 2014-15
58 Ibid
59 Health Profile of Sindh, Bureau of Statistics, Government of Sindh
60 MICS 2014
61 Ibid
62 PSLM 2014-15
63 Ibid
64 Tando Allahyar, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
65 Ibid

92 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

electricity but only 55% own a television.66 At least one member of the 80% households owns a cell
phone while three percent households have internet connection.67

Spread over 1,496 kilometers, the district has three talukas, 25 union councils, and 79 revenue villages68.
Most of the dwellings in the district have one (51%) or two to four rooms (49%).69

A little less than one-fifth of the households (18%) have agriculture land while 54% have farm animals/
livestock.70 The main kharif crops are maize, rice, sugarcane, cotton and bajra and the main rabi crops are
wheat, barley, gram and barseen.71

Tando Allahyar has one public and six private hospitals along with 14 BHUs, three RHCs and five
MCHCs.72 The district has one doctor, one nurse and one bed for a population of 4,085, 51,538 and 2018
respectively.73 The rates of prevalence for underweight, stunting and wasting in children under five years
of age are 60%, 59%, and 22% respectively.74 Nearly two-third of children (62%) aged between 12-23
months have been immunised.75

The district has 742 primary, 51 middle, one elementary, 32 secondary and five higher secondary public
schools.76 Literacy rate (ten years and above) is 60% (male 67%, female 52%).77 A little more than half
of the population (54%) has completed primary or higher level education.78

The main source of drinking water for 70% households is hand pumps.79 Most of the households (61%)
have non flush latrines while 35% have flush latrines.80 Majority of the non-flush latrines (75%) are in
rural areas.81

In 2013 out of total 286,956 registered voters in the district, 152,049 were male and 134,907 female
registered voters.82 Tando Allahyar shares a National Assembly constituency with Matiari while the district
has two seats in the Sindh Assembly.83

Tando Muhammad Khan

Tando Muhammad Khan became a district in 2005.84 It is bordered by Hyderabad and Tando Allahyar
districts to the north, Badin to the south and east and Thatta to the west.85 Spread over 1,831 sq. kms,

66 MICS 2014
67 Ibid
68 Tando Allahyar, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
69 PSLM 2014-15
70 Tando Allahyar, Brief District Profile, Sindh Union Council Community Economic Strengthening Support Programme
71 Ibid
72 Health Profile of Sindh, Bureau of Statistics, Government of Sindh
73 Ibid
74 MICS 2014
75 PSLM 2014-15
76 Ibid
77 PSLM 2014-15
78 Ibid
79 Ibid
80 PSLM 2014-15
81 Ibid
82 Election Commission of Pakistan
83 Provincial Assembly of Sindh, [Link]
84 Pakistan Emergency Situational Analysis. (2014). District Tando Muhammad Khan, USAID
85 Ibid

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme 93

National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

the estimated population of the district in 2014 was 917,917, with 73% of the population living in rural
areas.86

The district has three talukas, 16 union councils and 161 mouzas.87 A majority of households (76%)
have electricity while 36% households have a television.88 In 70% households at least one member has
a cell phone and only one percent households have internet connection.89 Most of the households (59%)
comprise of just one room while 40% households have two to four rooms.90

Tando Muhammad Khan is an agro based district with wheat, rice, sugarcane and cotton as the main
cash crops.91 The district has sugar, rice and flour mills and it is also the second largest manufacturer of
Ajrak.92 Only 19% households own agriculture land, while 41% have farm animals/livestock.93

The district has 950 primary, 17 middle, 12 elementary, 36 secondary, and two higher secondary public
schools.94 The literacy rate for ten years and above in the district is 65%.95 More than half of the population
(58%) has completed primary or higher level education.96

Tando Muhammad Khan has one public and three private hospitals along with 15 BHUs, three RHCs, and
one MCHC.97 The district has one doctor, one nurse and one bed for a population of 5,008, 90,143 and
3,219 respectively.98 The rates for underweight, stunting and wasting prevalence (moderate and severe)
among children under five years of age are 59%, 59%, and 22% respectively.99

The main source of drinking water for 82% households is hand pumps.100 38% households have flush and
54% non-flush latrines while eight percent do not have a latrine inside the household.101 Majority of the
non-flush latrines (64%) are in rural areas.102

In 2013 the district had 230,554 registered voters (male 126,715, female 103, 839).103 The district
shares three National Assembly constituencies with Hyderabad and Badin (NA-222, NA-224, NA-225).
The district has two seats in the Sindh Assembly.104

86 Ibid
87 Ibid
88 MICS 2014
89 Ibid
90 PSLM 2014-15
91 Pakistan Emergency Situational Analysis. (2014). District Tando Muhammad Khan, USAID
92 Ibid
93 MICS 2014
94 District Education Profile 2013-14, SINDH Education Management Information System (SEMIS), Reform Support Unit
95 PSLM 2014-15
96 Ibid
97 Health Profile of Sindh, Bureau of Statistics, Government of Sindh
98 Ibid
99 MICS 2014
100 Ibid
101 PSLM 2014-15
102 Ibid
103 Election Commission of Pakistan
104 Provincial Assembly of Sindh, [Link]

94 Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 Annex II: Survey Questionnaire
Consent Form
My name is [name of enumerator] and I am representing Rural Support Programmes Network. We are conducting a survey about socio-economic
conditions of households and their access to public services [e.g.: drinking water, education, health facilities] in your area. The information we
collect will help the National Rural Support Programme better understand the current socio-economic conditions of households and how access
to public services affects the economic situation of households living in Sindh. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in this survey.
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

However, the results of this survey will help the [name of RSP], government and other development organisation to develop programmes and
policies for socio-economic empowerment of women and poor in Sindh.

Your household has been randomly selected for the survey, like many other households in this area. We will be asking questions about your
household members, age, education, health, income and assets. We think that the whole discussion will not pose any risk to you and your
household members. The interview usually takes about 45 minutes. Your answers will remain confidential and will be used anonymously in the
survey report. The survey results will not mention any names of you or your household members. Your views are important and will help to improve
the work and knowledge of National Rural Support Programmes and other organisations working for the development of Sindh.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

We understand that sometimes some people choose not to participate in the survey for many reasons. You are free to choose whether or not to
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

participate in this survey. If you do choose to participate, you are free to withdraw from the survey at any time. If you choose not to participate or
you choose to withdraw, your decision will not adversely affect your position in community or relationship with National Rural Support Programmes
working in your area.

Authorization
I have understood the consent form and decided that I will voluntarily participate in the study described above. Its general purposes, the
procedures, and possible risks and benefits have been explained to me.

The consent taken from (Name): Signature (if literate): Date:

The consent taken by (Name, if illiterate): Date:

Consent verified by (Name):_________________________________ Signature: ___________________________ Date: _____________

Note: If the respondent is not literate the enumerator will take verbal consent and the Field Supervisor verifies that a verbal consent was obtained,

95
by signing this document. How signing will occur in case of electronically tablet.
 A. Household Identification

96
1 Name of the Interviewer *[select from drop down]
2 Name of the Supervisor *[select from drop down]
3 RSP *[select from drop down]
4 District *[select from drop down]
5 Tehsil/Taluka *[select from drop down]
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

6 Union Council *[select from drop down] – pre-feed from Sample

7 Revenue Village /Deh *[select from drop down]
8 Village (Settlement) *[select from drop down]
9 Sample Rank *[select from drop down]
10 Name of Household Head *Pre-feed from sampling
11 Household Address Open to write
12 Name of Respondent Open to write
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 B. Household Demography and Political Participation

[Read]

Next, I would like to talk with you about your household and household member. A household corresponds to a person or a group of persons
(either related or not) who habitually live in one house—whether it is fully or partially occupied, share expenditure and who cook in one cooking
pot. One household might be composed of one or more families. I would like to talk about all the household members that are currently present
or left for short period of time (less than 6 months).
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Number of household members (Please do not list guests or visitors):

Now please give the names of all members of your household. Start with head of the household.

IDC Names 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
of those [Name] sex? [Name’s] [Name’s] Relationship [Name’s] Age [Name’s] CNIC [Name’s] What was [Name’s] If Married, Disability
household Residential with the Household in complete (if =.> 18yrs) or Marital [name’s] age Marriage registration
members 1= Male Status? head? years and Birth Certificate, (if Status? at the time status? 1=Hearing
who usually 2= Female months? <18yrs)? Pre-feed of marriage 2=Speech

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

reside 1= Present 1=Head not to offer CNIC if 1= Unmarried in complete 1= Nikkah Nama available 3=Visual
together 2=Not 2=Son/daughter (Complete year age <18 2= Married years? 2=Nikkah Nama registered 4=Mental
and eat present 3=Brother/sister of age means 3= Divorced with UC/Registrar 5=Limb
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

together (temporarily) 4=Grandfather/mother 12 months. 1=Has Birth 4= Widow 3=None 6= Multiple

(Write 5=Son/daughter in law If year is not Certificate/CNIC 5= Separated disability
household 6=Father/mother in law compete, count 2=Applied for Birth 7=Polio
head’s name 7=Brother/sister in law previous year) Certificate/CNIC 8=Other
first) 8=Spouse 3=No Birth 9=None
9=Father/mother Certificate/CNIC
10=Grandchild
11=Nephew/niece
12=uncle/aunt
13=other relative
14 Not related
1
2
3

97
 C. Household Educational Status

98
IDC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Can [Name] Was [Name] What is the Is [name] In which class [name] In which type Is [name] facing any problems in What are the reasons for not going
write & read in ever admitted highest level studying in any is currently studying? of educational that institution? to school at present/never admitted
any language in any school of education institution at institution, in school?
with or educational completed? present? [name] is (Select two main reasons)
institution? studying? (Select maximum two main reasons)
1= Yes
2= No 1=Yes 0= < Class-I 1= Yes 0= < Class-I 1= Govt. 1= Satisfied 1= Minor/aged
3=Not applicable 2=No 1= Class-I 2= No 1= Class-I 2=Private 2= Shortage 2= Education Completed
if age <5 years (If no then go 2= Class-II If no then go to 2= Class-II 3= Madrasah of teachers 3= Education is costly
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

understanding? to Q#8 ) 3= Class-III Q. No. 8 3= Class-III 4= Other 3= Shortage 4= Far away 5=

4= Class-IV 4= Class-IV of books Household chores
5= Class-V 5= Class-V 4=Substandard 6= Helping in work
6= Class-VI 6= Class-VI education 7= Not useful
7= Class-VII 7= Class-VII 5= Far away 8=Ill/incapacitated
8= Class-VIII 8= Class-VIII 6= Education is 9= Marriage/pregnancy
9=Class-IX 9=Class-IX costly 10= Employment/Work
10= Class-X 10= Class-X 7=Latrine not available 11= Substandard school
11= FA/[Link]. 11= FA/[Link]. 8=other (specify) 12= Shortage of male/female
12= BA/[Link]. 12= BA/[Link]. teachers
13= Degree in 13= Degree in 13= Parents do not permit
Engineering Engineering 14= Child is not ready
14= MBBS 14= MBBS 15= Poverty
15= Degree in 15= Degree in 16= Other (please specify)
Computer Computer
16=Degree in 16=Degree in Agri
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Agriculture 17=MA/MSC
17=MA/MSC 18=[Link]/Ph.D
18=[Link]/ 19=Other
Ph.D
19=Other

Reason 1 Reason 2 Reason 1 Reason 2

1
2
3

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 D. Household Health

IDC 0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
What is the current Had [Name] been Was anyone Who did [Name] How many times Has [Name] faced any problem in Why [Name] did not seek medicines/
health status of ill or injured during consulted during consulted for [Name] received visiting the health facility? medical facilities during the last 12
[Name]? the last 12 months? the illness for treatment? such facilities (Select maximum two answers) months?
treatment? during the last (Select maximum two
1=Good Health 1= Yes 1= LHW/LHV 12 months as answers)
2=Fair Health 2= No (If no 1= Yes 2=Govt. Dispensary mentioned in Q3?
3=Bad Health then ask for next 2= No (Ask Q. 3= Govt. Basic Health 1= Satisfied 1= Not required
person) No. 6) Unit 2= Doctor not present 2= Costly treatment
(BHU) 3= Staff non-cooperative 3= Far away
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

4=Rural Health Centre 4= Lady staff not present 4= Unsatisfactory

5= Govt. Hospital 5= Lack of cleanliness 5= Doctor not present
(Taluka/District level) 6= Long wait 6= Staff non-cooperative
6= Private Clinic/ 7= Costly treatment 7= Lady staff not present
Hospital/chemist 8= Staff untrained 8= No cleanliness
7= Hakeem 9= Medicines not available 9= Long wait
8= Homoeopath 10= Unsuccessful Treatment 10= Staff untrained
9= One who performs 11= Other (specify) 11= Medicines not available
‘Dum’ (spiritualism) 12= Other
10= Other
1 Problem 1 Problem 2 Reason 1 Reason 2
2

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

E. Household Work Status and Non-farm Income

IDC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
What is the If [Name] not working, give primary For how many What is the primary work status of [Name]? What is the skill labour type? What is the Job/service type?
current work reason? weeks [Name] have
status of been looking for 1=Unskilled labour/mazdoor 1=Tailor 1=Armed forces
[Name]? 1= Student (ask Q 12) work? 2= Farm labour (cultivation/harvesting on 2= Mason 2= Health
2=Old/ minor (ask Q 12) contract/wages) 3= Metal work 3= Education
1= Working 3=Handicapped/incapable(ask Q 12) 3= Cultivation on partnership/share cropper 4= Carpenter 5=Plumber 4= Administration/revenue/
(Ask Q No. 4) 4= Pregnancy/ Temporary illness/ 4= Skilled labour (ask Q No. 5) 6=Electrician police
2= Not working injury (ask Q 12) 5= Business/ trade 7=Mechanic 5= Agriculture/fisheries/
(ask Q No. 2) 5= Retired(ask Q 12) 6= Self-cultivator/own farm 8=Driver livestock
6=Idle (not willing to work) (ask Q 7= Livestock only 9= Cook 6= Manufacturing
12) 8= Govt Job (ask Q No.6) 10=Mobile repair 7= Tourism
7= Looking for work (ask Q No3) 9=Private Job (ask Q No.6) 11= Handicraft 8=Development
8=Learning to work (ask Q 12) 10= Family helper without monetary 12=Beautician/barber 9=Religious Institution
9= Off season (ask Q 12) payment 13=others labour (specify) 10= Other services.
10=Calamity Stricken (ask Q 12) 11=Household chores/work
11=Other (ask Q 12) 12=Begging
13=Other
1 Code Other specify Code Other specify
2

99
 Household Work Status and Non-farm Income (continue)

100
IDC 7. 8. 9. 10. . 11. 12. 13.
Did [name] perform If [Name] worked, How much money How many months How much money did Did [Name] perform any How much money [Name]
any work for salary, then how many days [name] earned during [Name] worked during [Name] earn in the last 12 work during the last 12 earned in total during the last
profit or monetary s/he worked in the the last month? (in the last 12 months? months months for monetary 12 months? (In Rs.)
benefit during the last last month? Rs.) (Multiply Col 9 with Col10 benefit?
month? for filling up this Col) 1= Yes
1= Yes 2= No  Q-14
2= No  Q-12

1
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Household Work Status and Non-farm Income (continue)

ALL 10 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER - SECONDARY OCCUPATION AND INCOME Total Non-Farm
Income
IDC SECONDARY OCCUPATION SOURCES OF OTHER INCOME/BENEFITS
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
In addition What was the nature How much Have sold, How much How much money in cash, did [name] receive from the following sources
to the of work (Occupation) money in any income money was during the last 12 months (In Rupees)?
primary that [name] did? cash, did received obtained
occupation, 1= Daily wages labour [name] in kind for by selling
A. B. C. D. Bait E. BISP F. G. Other Add up for total of
did [name] 2= Skilled labour earn from wages and the “kind”
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Pension Rental Remittances -ul- mal Zakat (gifts, grant 11+13+16+18+19A

do any 3= Personal business these other salaries received
Income from family, to 19G
other work (non-agriculture) activities during the in wages
friends and
or hold 4= Self-cultivator/ during the last 12 & salaries
religious
other jobs own farm last 12 months? during the
institutions)
for pay, 5= Cultivation on months? Yes=1 last 12
profit or contract (Rs) No=2 → Q-19 months?
family gain 6= Cultivation on (Rs.)
during the partnership/share
last 12 cropper
months? 7= Family helper
Without charges
Yes=1 8= Employer/
No=2 → business
Q-19 9= Livestock only
10= Other

1
2
3

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 F. Household Farm Income
1. During the last 12 months did any of the HH members, alone or with the members of other HH, actively operate land for crop production (irrespective of
the size, location or ownership of the land, Haris will be included)? Yes = 1 → (G1 Agri.) No =2

F1. AGRICULTURE - LAND UTILISATION AND CROP HARVESTING

1. Do you own any agriculture land? Yes=1 No=2 ( →6 ) 2. How much land do you own? Acres
3. Had you rented out some of the owned land during last Rabbi & Kharif? Yes=1 No=2 ( →6) 4. How many acres do you rent out? Acres
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

5. What was the total net value of rent/share (in cash or in kind) received during the last Rabi & Kharif season? Rs.
6. Had you rented in any agriculture land on cash basis in the last Rabbi and Kharif season? Yes = 1, No=2 (→ 8)
7. How much money did you pay to your landlord in cash as a rent for that land during the last Rabbi and Kharif season? Rs
8. What was the value (Rs) of the agricultural land (include farm buildings and tube wells) during the last 12 months that was: (Cross the box if no amount mentioned)?
a-Sold b-Received gift, inheritence etc. c-Purchased d-Given away, lost etc.
9. Of this total under operation land (Acres), how much was
a- Owned b- Rented in c- On share crop basis d- Any other not previously reported
10. Total Acres of land in this farm? Acres (Code 9a+9b+9c+9d)
11. Of this total under operation land (Acres), how much was a- Irrigated cultivated land b- Barani (non-irrigated) cultivated land c- Uncultivated land such as forest/ wasteland/
homestead etc.

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

12. How much land was under cultivation during the last Rabbi and Kharif seasons? Acres (Code 11a+11b)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

13. NOTE: If any crop was harvested from the agricultural land during the last Rabi and Kharif seasons, complete the table given below otherwise write 0 in the column A.

Total Value
Primary Production By-Products of the Primary Production (Rs.)
Land devoted
L
(Acres)
Value of total Given to Kept by the Sold by the Value of Given to Kept by the Sold by the
Code Crop name If 0 (→next row) Harvested Production
Product Landlord Household Household total Prod. Landlord Household Household
(Kg=1 40 Kg =2)
(Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees) (Rupees)
Quantity
A Unit B D E F G H I J K L=F+G+J+K
C
14 Wheat
15 Cotton
16 Sugarcane
17 Rice
18 Maize
19 Pulses
20 Fruits
21 Vegetables

101
 22 Fodder

102
23 Any other
24 TOTAL

25. Did you rent out any agricultural equipment (Tube well, Tractor, Plough, Thresher, Harvester, Truck, etc.) during the last 12 months? Yes=1 No=2 ( Next Section)
26. What had you received if any agricultural equipment (Tube well, Tractor, Plough, Thresher, Harvester, Truck, etc.) rented out during the last 12 months? Rs
27. What was the value of any agricultural equipment (Tube well, Tractor, Plough, Thresher, Harvester, Truck, etc.) (If there is no amount write zero in that box)
a)-Sold b) -Received as gift/ inheritance etc. c)- Purchased d)-Given away/lost
or destroyed
28. Total Crop Income (Rs.) - (5+24L+26)
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

2. During the last 12 months did the HH keep any livestock poultry birds or fish farm?
Yes = 1 (For Household purpose only) Yes = 2 (For commercial purpose only)
Yes = 3 (For Household/Commercial purpose) No =4 → (H)

F2. LIVESTOCK

LIVE STOCK, POULTRY, FISH, FORESTRY, HONEY BEE ETC.

NOTE: If the HH had animals (Cattle, Buffalo, Camel, sheep, Goats, Poultry, Fish etc) during the last 1 year, NOTE: If any of the following items produced for home use/ sale during the last 12
complete the table given below. months.
Expected Expected Value of
Value of Owned animals Market Average No. of
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Value of the animals during Total

Code Animal Number of animals Presently During the last 12 Code Item Unit Price/ Quantity/ Months
the last 12 months Value
owned months unit Month produced
animals
A B C D E F G H
A B C D=A*B*C
(Owned) (shared) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)
1 Cow 2 Eggs Dozen
3 Buffalo 4 Milk/yogurt Kg
5 Camel 6 Butter/Ghee Kg
7 Sheep 8 Honey Kg
9 Goat 10 Forest Maund
Production
11 Horses 12 Fish catch Kg
13 Donkeys 14 Dung cakes Lump sum
15 Mules 16 Wool Kg
17 Others 18 All other lump sum
19 TOTAL 20
21 Total Income from Livestock Rs. (19 E+20 D)

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 G. Household Expenditure (Rs. in last 12 months)
1: “PAID AND CONSUMED” (Col. 1 & 2) shall cover goods and services actually consumed by the household and distinguished from total household purchases.
Goods and services received on credit and in barter transactions and actually consumed as well as goods and services, paid for in cash, should also be included.
Business related consumption of the household should be excluded.

2: “UNPAID AND CONSUMED” shall cover goods and services consumed which are received as wages and salaries in kind ( col. 3 & 4). Own produced goods and
services, which were consumed shall also be entered under UNPAID AND CONSUMED (col. 5 & 6). Business related consumption should be excluded. Received in
the form of gifts, assistance, inheritances or other sources should be entered in (Col. 7 or 8)
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PART-A Last 14 days Consumption Expenditure of the Household on food items.
Paid and Consumed Unpaid and Consumed Total Value
Receipt from
Did household members consume any of the following items during the last 14 days? Wages and assistance,
(Cross the None box if the item was not consumed and moved to next item) (Report value in Own Produced
Salaries gift, dowry, 2+4+6+8
Whole rupees) and consumed
In Kind Consumed inheritance
or other sources
ITEMS None Unit Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Value (Rs.)
Milk/Yogurt Kg 1
Beef Kg 2

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Mutton Kg 3
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Chicken Meat / Other poultry birds (ducks, quail, turkey etc.) Kg 4

Eggs No 5
Fish (fresh, frozen, dried)/ Prawns, Shrimps or Crabs ( fresh, frozen, canned ) Kg 6
Fresh Fruits Kg 7
Dry Fruits & Nuts (Raisin, Dates, Apricot (dried ), Other (Almond, Walnut, Gm 8
Chilgoza, Pistachio, Peanuts, Aniseed, Cashew, Coconut, Sesame seeds, etc. )
Vegetables (potato, Onion, Tomato other vegs) Kg 9
Salt Kg 10
Sugar Kg 11
Honey ( fresh or processed ) Gm 12
Barfi, Jaleebi, Halwa & other sweets Kg 13
Carbonated beverages Ltr 14
Sugarcane juices, Other fresh juices, Fruit juices (packed), Mineral water etc. Ltr 15
Readymade meals, snacks, tea, ice cream, drinks, Instant foods - Lump Sum LS 16
(LM)
TOTAL PART A 17
ANNUAL TOTAL PART- A (VALUE OF TOTAL PART A x 26) 18

103
 104
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PART-B MONTHLY CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD ON FOODS
Did household members consume any of the following items during the last 1 Month?
(Cross the None box if the item was not consumed and moved to next item)
ITEMS None Unit Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Qty Value (Rs.) Value (Rs.)
Wheat and Wheat flour Kg 19
Rice and rice flour Kg 20
Maize, Barley, Jawar and Millet (Whole and Flour ) Kg 21
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Suji, Maida, Besan Kg 22

Other cereals products (Vermicellies, Corn flakes, Noodles, Macronis, Gm 23
Spageite) etc.)
Pulses Kg 24
Edible Oils and Fats Kg 25
Tea and Coffee Green Tea Kg 26
Jams, Marmalades/ Tomato Ketchup/pulp/ Pudding, Jelly, Pickles, Chatni, LS 27
Vinegar, Yeast, Ice
Biscuits, bread, bun, nan other baked or fried products eg. Pakora somsa, LS 28
cake etc
Food and Grain milling/grinding charges LS 29
Total PART – B 30
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

ANNUAL TOTAL PART-B (VALUE OF TOTAL PART B X 12) 31

MONTHLY CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD ON NON-DURABLE GOODS AND

HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PART-C
SERVICES
Unpaid and Consumed
Paid and Consumed Total
(Report value in Whole rupees)

Did household members consume any of the following items during the last 1 month? Receipt from
(Cross the None box if the item was not consumed and moved to next item) Wages and assistance,
(Report value in Own Produced Value
Salaries gift, dowry,
Whole rupees) and consumed 2+Value
In Kind Consumed inheritance
or other sources 4+Value
8=9
Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value Qty Value
ITEMS None Unit Code
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FUEL AND LIGHTING (32+……..38) 32
Fire wood Kg 33
Kerosene oil Ltr 34
Dung cake (dry) Kg 35

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 Value 2 Value 4 Value 6 Value 8
Gas (pipe), (Gas (cylinder) 36
Electricity 37
Match box, Candles, Mantle etc. 38
Others 39
Personal Care and hygiene (Bath /Toilet soap, Shampoo, hair oil cream, Toothpaste & 40
powder, Brush, cosmetics eg nail polish etc). Hair cutting, beauty parlor etc
Household laundry Cleaning (Laundry soap, bleaching and other laundry articles, Washing 41
powder, Dishwashing articles etc. Household cleaning articles like cleaners, brooms, dusters,
sponges, cleaning wipers, mops polishes, waxes, buckets, etc.)
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Paper napkins, wax papers and other paper articles etc. 42

Tobacco and Chewing Products (Cigarettes and lighters, Pan etc) 43
Recreation (Tickets for cinemas, musical concerts, spectacular sports, Lottery tickets, 44
Rent of TV/VCR/Video cassettes, CD’s etc. Newspapers, magazines, novels, books (rented,
purchased, not for education))
Personal Transport and Travelling ( Not for commercial use) (45+….+48) 45
Petrol/ Diesel charges, lubricants & oils, punctures 46
Expenses on travelling by road (bus, taxi, rickshaw etc.) 47
Expenses on travelling by train 48

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Other travelling charges like tongas, camels, donkeys, ferries, bicycles, Garage rent etc. 49
Other Miscellaneous Household Expenses on Goods and Services (50+…+54) 50
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Wages & salaries paid to servants, gardeners, sweepers, chowkidar, aya, drivers, cleaners, 51
Guards
Telephone, cell phone internet etc. charges 52
Pocket money to children 53
Expenses on maintenance of pets, poultry and fish - for home use only 54
Other expenditures not elsewhere classified 55
Total PART – C (31+39+40+41+42+43+44+49) 56
ANNUAL TOTAL PART- C (VALUE OF TOTAL PART C x 12) 57

105
 106
YEARLY CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD ON NON-DURABLE GOODS AND
HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PART-D
SERVICES
Unpaid and Consumed
Paid and Consumed Total
(Report value in Whole rupees)
Did household members consume any of the following items during the last 12 months? Receipt from
(Cross the None box if the item was not consumed and moved to next item) Wages and assistance,
Items included under fortnightly / monthly expenditure should not be included in this part. (Report value in Own Produced
Salaries gift, dowry, 1+2+3+4
Whole rupees and consumed
In Kind Consumed inheritance =5
or other sources
ITEMS None Code Value 1 Value 2 Value 3 Value 4
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Apparel Textile, Footwear & Personal Effects (58+….+64) 58

Clothing (cloths, sweaters, socks and garments), Clothing material and
services (Tailoring, embroidery, alterations etc. charges, Clothing supplies 59
(threads, needles, pins, buttons, zipper, hangers etc.)
Footwear and repair charges 60
Personal effects and service and repair charges (62+…..64) 61
Brief cases, hand bags, watch straps, belts etc. (leather or plastic) 62
Imitation and Jewellery & ornaments ( bangles, necklaces and earings, tie
pins, cuff links, etc.) 63
Gloves, handkerchief, scarfs, hats, muffs, ties, etc.
Repair charges of personal effects (watches, clocks, glasses, etc. ) 64
Housing rent, repairs/maintenance etc 65
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Chinaware, Earthenware, Plastic ware etc. for daily use and other household
effects (Crockery & Cutlery for daily use, (ghara, sorahi etc.), Glassware,
66
Plasticware), Woodware and lacquer, (bulbs, tubes, switches, battery cells,
lamp shades etc.)
Health Care (Doctor consultations, medicines, hospitalization, ambulance,
67
Hakim, dai etc costs)
Educational and Professional Stationary Supplies expenditure (68+…71) 68
School/college fees and private tuition fees 69
Books and exercise note books / copies, stationary, pen, pencils, stapling
machine, pin etc. Other education expenses (bags, professional society 70
membership, transportation etc.)
Hostel expenses 71
Social and religious functions expenditures (travelling, events,
72
accommodation etc) (74+…..+77)
Marriages including (dowry, gifts etc, given (in cash/kind) 73
Death 74
Births 75
Pilgrimage to religious places (Haj, Ziarat, Mazars etc) 76

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 Other events 77
Transfers (Zakat, fitra etc, remittances paid, gifits paid, insurance etc) 78
Taxes & Fines and all other Miscellaneous expenditure 79
Total PART – D 80

HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE PART-E YEARLY CONSUMPTION EXPENDITURE OF THE HOUSEHOLD ON DURABLE GOODS AND SERVICES
Unpaid and Consumed
Paid and Consumed Total
Did household members consume any of the following items during the last 12 months? (Report value in Whole rupees)
(Cross the None box if the item was not consumed and moved to next item) Receipt from
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Expenditure in this part should cover the last 12 months preceding the date of enumeration. Wages and assistance,
Expenditure reported on Fortnightly, Monthly and Yearly durable goods and services should be (Report value in Own Produced
Salaries gift, dowry, 1+2+3+4
excluded from this part. Whole rupees) and consumed
In Kind Consumed inheritance =5
or other sources
ITEMS None Code Value 1 Value 2 Value 3 Value 4
Furniture, Fixture and Furnishing 81
Other Household Effects (83+…..+87) 82
Electric/ oil fans (table, pedestal, ceiling, exhaust), Air conditioners, Air
83
coolers, Refrigerators, Freezers etc.
Heater, Boiler, Geyser (electric, gas, oil), Table lamp 84
Sewing machine, knitting machine (electric / hand) 85

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Other(trunks, suitcase etc.), Wall / table clock, water pipes (rubber, nylon,
86
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

plastic), thermos bottle etc.

Service and repair charges of household effects, etc. mentioned above 87
Miscellaneous Expenditures (89+…..93) 88
Laundry/cleaning equipment (washer / dryer, vacuum cleaner, iron, iron
89
board, etc.)
Calculators, Personal Computers,mobiles, watch etc. 90
Radio and musical instruments (Tape recorder, Gramophone, TV, VCR, VCP,
91
Cassettes, Piano, Violin etc.)
Recreational equipment (Cameras, Projector, Shot gun, Angling kit, Bats,
92
Balls etc.)
Transport and travelling vehicles (Bicycle, Motorcycle, Scooter, Car, horses,
93
camels, tongas etc.)
TOTAL PART “ E “ 94

107
 H. Household Assets

108
PART 1: Selected Durable Assets Items Owned / Sold by The Household
NOTE: 1. Enter number of the following items if owned by the household during the last 12 months in Col. A and give the number of items presently owned by the household in Col. B.
2. Write the amount received (in cash or in kind), in Col. C, by selling the item during the last 12 months and fill the next columns accordingly.
No. of items owned In which year the present
What is the total How much money have
item was purchased or
Were/Are any of the following items owned by this HH present estimated you spent to buy this
If Sold (Give received ( if more than
during the last 12 months? If yes, → Col. A to G otherwise During the last 12 Market value of item (if more than one,
Presently Amount in Rs) one item than asked
cross none box. months all the possessed then ask about last
about the last bought item
items bought item)?
purchased or got)
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Item None Code A B C D E F

Refrigerator 1
Freezer 2
Air conditioner 3
Air cooler 4
Fan (Ceiling, Table, Pedestal, Exhaust) 5
Geyser (Gas, Electric) 6
Washing machine/dryer 7
Camera 8
Cooking stove 9
Cooking Range, Microwave oven 10
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Heater 11
Cart/Trolley 12
Bicycle 13
Rickshow 14
Motorcycle/scooter 15
Car / Vehicle 16
Tractor 17
TV 18
VCR, VCP, Receiver, De-coder 19
Radio / cassette player 20
Compact disk player 21
Vacuum cleaner 22
Sewing/Knitting Machine 23
Personal Computer/laptop 24
Mobile Phones (specify commonly used 25
network_______________________)
Other 26
TOTAL 27

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 PART - 3: FINANCIAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, LOANS, DEBT AND CREDITS
Q-4. If rented
Q-5. What was
out, what was Q-6. If you
Q-2. Is all or part the value of major
the total net wanted to sell
Q-1. Did any of the HH members own or had owned during the last 12 months of this property improvements,
Q-3. What was the value of the property rent received, [Name prop]
any of the following property? owned now? renovation and
during the last 12 months which was? in cash / how much do
Yes = 1 No = 2 ( If No for all,→ Next Part ) Yes = 1 No = 2 new construction
kind, during you expect to
made during the
the last 12 receive (Rs)?
last 12 months?
months?
Property Code Y/N Code Acres Sold Rec Pur Given
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Non-Agricultural Land 28
Residential Building(Completed / under construction) 29
Commercial Building(Completed./under construction) 30
TOTAL 31

PART - 3: FINANCIAL ASSETS AND LIABILITIES, LOANS, DEBT AND CREDITS

Cross the None box if amount (RS) is “0”. None Code Cross the None box if amount (RS) is “0”. None Code Rs.
What are the total net savings of your Household at present? 32 33

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

What were the net savings of your Household during the last 34 35
12 months?
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

How much profit did you receive from your all savings/ 36 37
deposits during the last 12 months?
How much did you withdraw from savings for consumption 38
expenditure during the last 12 months?
Cross the None box if amount (Rs) is “0”. None Code Rs.
How much loans are currently borrowed by the Household? 39
How much loan was borrowed in the last 12 months? (Note: If no then go to Q 49) 40
1. Currently Borrowed 2. Amount Borrowed last 3. Loan Repaid during 4. Interest paid during last 12
Source None Code
Amount (Rs) yr(Rs) last 12 months (Rs.) months (Rs)
Friends/relatives 41
Shopkeepers 42
Banks 43
NGOs 44
Community Organizations 45
Others 46

109
 How much amount of the loan was used for each of the None Code [Link] [Link] (Rs) [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link] [Link]

110
corresponding? (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) Input (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs)
47
[Link] [Link] [Link] Loans (Rs) [Link] 13. Other [Link] loan use (Rs)
Care (Rs) Function (e.g. Available Uses (Rs)
as Marriage) (Rs)
(Rs)

Cross the None box if amount (RS) is “0”. None Code Rs.
How much was loaned out in the last 12 months? (Note: If 48
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

not then go to Q 52)

How much was received back (including profits) during the 49
last 12 months?
How much profit was received on this loan during the last 12 50
months?
How much money was received from group insurance/ 51
benevolent by any member of this HH during the last 12
months?

I. BALANCE SHEET FOR INCOME AND EXPENDITURE

Non-Farm Expenditures
ID CODE Expenditure Items
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Income (Rs) (Rs.)

5. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON FOOD – SECTION G: PART- A (18-Col9)
6. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON FOOD – SECTION G: PART- B (31-Col9)
1. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD NONFARM INCOME (E-20: 1+….N) 7. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON NON-DURABLE GOODS/ SERVICES – SECTION G:
PART-C (57-Col9)
2. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD AGRI INCOME (F1-28) 8. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITRUE ON NON-DURABLE GOODS/ SERVICES – SECTION G:
PART-D (80-Col5)
3. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD LIVESTOCK INCOME (F2-21) 9. ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON DURABLE GOODS/ SERVICES – SECTION G: PART-E
(94-Col5)
4. TOTAL ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (1+2+3) 10. ANNUAL TOTAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE (5+6+7+8+9)
Validation Check
First level check: Ratio (4/10) Is the ratio > 0.85? Yes (Balance complete) No (Go to further balancing second level check)
11. Assets Sold (Sec H):=( 27 col C + 31Q3(sold)+ 31Q4) 12. Savings and loans taken (Sec H)=(35+36+38+40)
Second level check: Ratio (4+11+12)/10 Is the ratio > 0.85? Yes (Balance complete) No (Verify from the HH, why the expenditures are so
higher than income and make necessary corrections)

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 J. Household Facilities (availability and access)

1. What is the residential status at present? 1=Personal residence, 2= On rent, 3=On subsidized rent, 4=Without rent
2. How many rooms does your household occupy, include bed rooms and living rooms? (Do not count storage rooms, bath rooms, toilets, kitchen or rooms for business)
3. Which material is used to lay roof of this building? 1= RCC/RBC; 2=Wood/Bamboo; 3= Iron/Cement sheets; 4=Other
4. Which type of Structure the house has? Pucca=1; Katcha=2; P&K=3
5. What is the main source of drinking water for the Protected Well(include dug well)=6 Surface Water (river or stream or dam or lake or pond or
household? Unprotected well (include dug well)=7 canal or irrigation channel)=12
Piped Water piped into property =1 Protected Spring=8 Filtration Plan/Unit=13
Hand Pump in the dwelling =2 Rainwater collection =9 Tanker Truck=14
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Public tap / standpipe =3 Bottled water=10 Underground Water Tube well=15

Private Borehole (with motor pump)=4 Cart with small tank/drum=11 Piped into dwelling=16
Public Borehole (with motor pump)=5 Other=17

6. How many hours each day is water normally available in the tap? ( If less than one, put zero)
7. Who installed the water delivery system?
Govt., PHED, LG & RD, Municipality, District / Union council etc. =1 Community=2 household itself = 3 NGO, Private etc. =4 RSP=5 Don’t know = 6

8. Who look after this water delivery system?

Govt., PHED, LG & RD, Municipality, District / Union council etc. =1 Community=2 household itself = 3 NGO, Private etc. =4 RSP=5 None = 6
9. How much time is consumed on a round trip to fetch the drinking water? 1 – 15 Minutes = 1 16 – 30 Min. = 2 31 – 45 Min. = 3 46 – 60 Min. = 4 60+ Min. = 5

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

10. Do you normally pay for water used by your household? Yes =1 No =2 (→ Q - 12)
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

11. How much do you normally pay for one month water supply? Rs.
12. Are you willing to pay for an improved water supply system? Yes = 1 No =2 Don’t know =3
13. What type of toilet is used by your household?
Flush connected to public sewerage = 1 Flush connected to pit = 2 Flush connected to open drain = 3 Dry raised latrine = 4 Dry pit latrine = 5
No toilet in the household = 6 ( For codes 1 – 5 → Q- 15)
14. Where do the household members go for their necessities? Fields / open places = 1 Communal latrine = 2 Others = 3 (specify …………....……. )
15. Is your house connected with drainage / sewerage system? Yes, underground drains = 1 Yes, to covered drains = 2 Yes, to open drain = 3 No system = 4
16. How is the garbage collected from your household and neighborhood? Municipality = 1 Privately = 2 No formal system =3
17. How much do you pay (Rs.) per month for garbage collection from your HH and from the neighborhood? (Write 0 if nothing is being paid)
18. How many hours per day you have electricity? No connection=1 1-4 hours =2 >4-8 hours =3 >8-12 hours =4 >12-16=5 >16-20=6 >20-24=7
19. Do you use any alternative sources of energy/electricity? UPS=1 Generator=2 Solar panels=3 Biogas=4 None =5
20. What is the main source of fuel/energy? Gas=1; Wood =2; Kerosene oil=3; Saw dust=4; Other= 5 (Specify)
21. What is the main source of water for irrigation? River=1, Canal=2, Tube well=3 Barani =4; other =5 (Specify)

111
 112
How much time is spent in reaching to the nearest place of facility?

A. Time in minutes B. Normal mode of transport A. Time in minutes B. Normal mode of transport
0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ On foot Non- Mechanical 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ On foot Non- Mechanical
1 2 3 4 5 mechanical 1 2 3 4 5 Mechanical
1 2 3 1 2 3

22. Medical Store 23. Middle school Girls

24. Retail (Kiryana) store 25. High school Boys
26. Public transport 27. High School Girls
28. Primary school Boys 28, Health clinic/Hospital
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

29. Primary school Girls 30. Population Welfare Unit

31. Middle School Boys 32. Main Road

K. Access and use of services and facilities

Enter replies about everyone in the following, in the relevant box.

If it is 1 or 2 in A then ask B If it is 2, 3 or 4 in A then ask C&D
C D
A
B To which extent you What type of change you found
How many times do you use this
Services Any particular reason for not using/once in a while are satisfied of this in the service during the last 12
service usually
and service months
Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

Facilities Once Far Very Does Lack of No Better

Not at Not Worst Like Don’t
in a Often Always Away costly not tools/ enough Other N/A Satisfied than
all Satisfied before know
while suit staff Facility before
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 1 2 3 4
Lady Health Worker
Basic Health Unit
Family Planning Unit
Vaccinator
School
Veterinary Clinic
Agriculture (extension )
Police
Bank
Road
Drinking water
Bus
Railway
Post Office

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

 NADRA Office
Union council office
Local magistrate
Court
District Education Department
District Health Department
District Local Government Office
Electricity and Gas departments
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

L. Major Constraints/Problems (Perceptions)

Problems Response Problems Response Problems Response Problems Response Problems Response
[Link]: [Link] care: [Link] Supply: [Link]: [Link] Pavement:
[Link]: [Link] Supply: [Link]: [Link] (Poverty): 10. Jobs/Employment:
[Link]: 12Access to Credit: [Link] Cohesion: [Link]:

Rank each problem from 1 to 4, where 1=no problem; 2=slight problem; 3=serious problem; 4=very serious problem and 9= not sure.

M. Household Miscellaneous Information

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

1. In the last twelve months, has anybody talked to you, or have you heard any messages about hygiene (boiling your drinking water, washing hands before eating and after using
toilet etc. ) or about diseases you can catch from unclean water? Yes =1 No =2 (→ Q-3)
2. From whom did you hear about it? Lady health visitor = 1 Any other Govt. health worker = 2 Any other NGO / private health worker = 3 Media =4 School children = 5
Other family members = 6 Community Organisation =7 RSP Staff = 8 Other = 9
3. During the last 30 days has this household been visited by a village based family planning worker? Yes =1 No = 2
4. Is there any existing Community Organisation in your area? Yes =1 No = 2 (→ next section)
5. If yes is any one from your household member of that Community Organisation? Yes =1 No = 2 (→ next section)
6. If yes since when (DD/MM/YY)
7. Have you got any training as member in the CO? Yes=1 No=2
8. Savings in CO (Rs.)
9. Benefits of Community Organisation (Perceptions)

Benefits Response Benefits Response Benefits Response Benefits Response Benefits Response
[Link] Cohesion [Link] [Link] Infrastructure [Link] Empowerment [Link] Resolution
[Link] to loans [Link] to public services [Link] to technology [Link] to Market [Link] Natural Resources

Note: Rank each benefit from 0 to 3, where 0=no benefit (or not sure); 1=slight benefit; 2=significant benefit; and 3=very significant benefit.

113
 N. Overall Assessment (to be filled by the interviewer)

114
1 Result [Link] with selected household Completed with replacement
2 Behavior of the respondent [Link]-operative [Link] [Link]/hesitant [Link] serious/talkative

O. Nutrition [Stunting105 and Wasting106]

If the family has children of 5 years of age then complete the following table, if not then move to next section:
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

Code 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
Mother’s Name of Child Sex Date of Birth Age (Years) Weight (kg) Height (cm) Birth Delivery Breastfed Other
Name (1=Boy Certificate Conducted (1=Yes substances*
2=Girl) (1=Yes by* 2=No)
2=No)

*Codes:
Q17: Delivery conducted by: Dai/Traditional Birth Attendant (TBA)=1, Lady Health Visitor/Worker=2, Doctor=3, Nurses=4, Others=5 (also provide explanation if Others)
Q19: Has the child been given anyone of the following along with breast feeding? Ghutti=1, Goat Milk=2, Bottle Fed=3, Water=4, Others=5 (Please explain if Others)

P. Vaccination & Diarrhoea (for under 5 years children)

Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

22. Has the child been vaccinated including polio? Yes=1 No=2 (if no → , Q28)
23. Do you have Vaccination Card of your children with you? Yes=1 No=2
24. Did the child vaccinated/administered the following drops. ([Link], according to Card, 2. Yes, according to memory, 3. yes, during polio campaign, No =4 )
[Link] [Link] 1 [Link] 2 [Link] 3
[Link] ZERO DOZE [Link] 1 7.POLIO2 8.POLIO3
9. POLIO 4 [Link] 1 [Link] 2 [Link] 3
[Link] 1 [Link] 2 15. 16.
25. Where / who and on what date the most recent vaccination was given? Date:
Govt. Hospital /dispensary doctor = 01 Basic Health Unit = 02 Rural Health Centre = 03 MCHC= 04 NGO, Health worker = 05 Lady Health Worker= 06
Code:
Vaccination team/campaign = 07 Private Practitioner / facility = 08 Other = 09 Don’t know = 10
26. How many days after birth, did the child get first injection of BCG? If Don’t know = 9

105 Stunting - Moderate and severe - below minus two standard deviations from median height for age of reference population [[Link]
html]
106 Wasting - Moderate and severe - below minus two standard deviations from median weight for height of reference population [[Link]

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

[Link]].
 27. Did the child suffer from any of the following disease in spite of vaccination? Can use maximum of three options. Option1:
Polio =1 Whooping Cough =2 Measles =3 Tetanus =4 Tuberculosis (TB) =5 Diphtheria =6 No =7 (maximum of three option code can be used)
Option2:
Option3:
28. How far did you travel (round trip) to get your child vaccinated? 0 - 2 Km = 1 >2- 5 Km = 2 > 5-10 Km = 3 >10-20 Km= 4 >20 Km = 5 Don’t Know=9
29. How much did you pay for it (including transport)? if nothing Write zero → Next Child
30. Why was the child not vaccinated? Cannot afford it = 1 No team has visited = 2 Facility too far away = 3 Don’t know about vaccination=4 Child will get sick = 5 No
female staff = 6 No answer= 7 Unnecessary= 8 Other= 9
31. Did the child face diarrhoea during the last 30 days? Yes=1 No=2 (If no, then ask from the next child)
32. Did you consult anyone for the treatment of diarrhoea? Yes=1 No=2 (If no, then ask Q. No. 23)
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP)

33. Who was the person you consulted first of all?

Private Dispensary/Hospital=1 Government Hospital=2 RHC/BHU=3 LHW=4 Nurse/LHV=5 Chemist/Pharmacy=6 Hakeem, Homoeopath, Waid =7 Other=8
34. Did you give Nimkol (ORS) to him/her? Yes, readymade =1 Yes, Prepared at home=2 No=3

Q. Overall Assessment (to be filled by the interviewer)

1 Result [Link] with selected household [Link] with replacement □

2 Behaviour of the respondent [Link]-operative [Link] [Link]/hesitant [Link] serious/talkative □

Socio Economic Baseline Survey under SUCCESS Programme

Sindh Union Council and Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS) Programme

115
SUCCESS Programme is based on the Rural Support
Programmes’ (RSPs) social mobilisation approach
to Community-Driven Development (CDD). Social
Mobilisation centers around the belief that poor people
have an innate potential to help themselves; that they can
better manage their limited resources if they organise
and are provided technical and financial support. The
RSPs under the SUCCESS Programme provide social
guidance, as well as technical and financial assistance
to the rural poor in Sindh.

SUCCESS is a six-year long (2015-2021) programme

funded by the European Union (EU) and implemented by
Rural Support Programmes Network (RSPN), National
Rural Support Programme (NRSP), Sindh Rural Support
Organisation (SRSO) and Thardeep Rural Development
Programme (TRDP) in eight districts of Sindh, namely:
Kambar Shahdadkot, Larkana, Dadu, Jamshoro, Matiari,
Sujawal, Tando Allahyar and Tando Muhammad Khan.

“This publication was produced with the financial support

of the European Union under the Sindh Union Council and
Community Economic Strengthening Support (SUCCESS)
Programme. Its contents are the sole responsibility of
National Rural Support Programme (NRSP) and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.”
NRSP Programme Implementation Unit (PIU)
House No. 96, Defense Housing Society, Phase II, Hyderabad, Pakistan.
More information about European Union is available on: Tel: 92-22-2720170, Web: [Link]
Web: [Link] NRSP - Head Office: 7th Floor, UBL Building, Jinnah Avenue, Blue Area, Islamabad,
Twitter: @EUPakistan Pakistan. Tel: +92 (51) 2822319, 2822324, Fax: +92 (51) 2822779
Facebook: European-Union-in-Pakistan Email: info@[Link], Web: [Link]