Running head: HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 1

Household Profile: Urban Extreme Poverty

Baseline (CMS-1) Report for Phase-I

DSK-shiree Project

Shafayet Hossain

Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (DSK)

January 2014
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 2

PREFACE

Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (DSK) is implementing a project in the name of DSK-shiree project

targeting extreme poor slum dwellers in Dhaka city with the supports from Shiree (Economic

Empowerment Project) since 2009 funded by UKaid/ DFID (Department for International

Development). DSK-Shiree project entitled “Moving from Extreme Poverty through

Enhancing Economic Empowerment of extreme poor Households”

I am happy to see that DSK-Shiree Project is going to bring out Baseline Report, 2009-2012.

It is my greatest pleasure to acknowledge my heartiest thanks and indebtedness to my DSK-

shiree colleagues to conduct such an important study as baseline survey. Next, the project very

much needed the current information on extreme situation and related factors before moving

ahead.

The study was carried out extensively in the urban areas of the project. The report revealed

very interesting findings and raised critical issues for the project as well as for the experts in

the poverty reduction. It is hoped that this final survey report will not only be of great use to

the project but will also benefit any initiative in the field of poverty reduction especially urban

context. It tends to optimize DSK’s work in other related fields of development in the target

areas

Dr. Dibalok Singha

Executive Director

Dushtha Shasthya Kendra (DSK)

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

To develop a list of benchmarks of the socio-economic and other livelihood context in order to

understand slum perspective of Bangladesh for each project implementation area a base line

survey was conducted 2009 to 2011.

A compiled report of these two years is going to share with you all to have your insight, views

for its improvement. Although there were a some survived conducted on slums of Dhaka cities

by Government as well as NGOs but explicitly studies on the Karail and Kamrangirchar two

big slums on Dhaka cities had been done for the first time. .

We are grateful to all field officers of the project for their spontaneous participation for

providing invaluable information during data collection, without which it would not have been

possible to complete the study. This work would have been impossible without the dedicated

and sincere efforts of all our young Field Officers. We also want to thank project staff including

Monitoring Officers, Managers MIS Officers who have contributed in many ways to complete

the survey successfully.

We are indebted and heartfelt gratitude to the study respondents who give their time and

provided valuable information for the study. This is a part of the study conducted under DSK-

Shiree Project supported by DFID and Shiree as a preliminary assessment of the situation of

Kamrangirchar and Karail of Dhaka city. Without their patience and cooperation, it would have

been impossible to fill up questionnaires which took at least 40 minutes to complete.

There is a scope to further study in large socio-economic and livelihood aspects. Hope this

report will provide you an insight on different aspects of livelihood of the urban slum of Karail

and Kamrangirchar.

ACRONYMS
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 4

100-DEGP - 100-Day Employment Generation Program

ANC - Antenatal Care

BHHs - Beneficiary Households

CBO - Community Based Organization

DFID - Department for International Development

DSK - Dushtha Shasthya Kendra

EDBM - Entrepreneurship Development and Business Management

GoB - Government of Bangladesh

HH - Household

HHH - Household Head

HIES - Household Income and Expenditure Survey

KA - Karail

KC - Kamrangirchar

MDGs - Millennium Development Goals

MFI - Micro Finance Institute

NGO - Non Government Organization

OMS - Open Market Sale

PHC - Primary Health Care

PNC - Post-Natal Care

SD - Standard Deviation

VGD - Vulnerable Group Development

VGF - Vulnerable Group Feeding

WatSan - Water and Sanitation

WB - World Bank

TABLE OF CONTENTS
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 5

Preface ………………………………………………….. 2

Acknowledgement ………………………………………………….. 3

Acronyms ………………………………………………….. 4

List of tables ………………………………………………….. 6

List of figures ………………………………………………….. 7

1. Executive summary ………………………………………………….. 8

2. Introduction ………………………………………………….. 12

3. Methodology ………………………………………………….. 24

4. Results ………………………………………………….. 28

4.1 Selection criteria ………………………………………………….. 28

4.2 Socio-demographic characteristics………………………………………………….. 30

4.3 Housing, water, sanitation and utilities……………………………………………… 34

4.4 Households assets ………………………………………………….. 36

4.5 Household income ………………………………………………….. 37

4.6 Household expenditure ………………………………………………….. 40

4.7 Food intake status ………………………………………………….. 42

4.8 Gender ………………………………………………….. 44

5. Recommendation ………………………………………………….. 47

References ………………………………………………….. 52
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 6

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Number of households and household members by unit office ……………… 28

Table 2 Household selection criteria ………………………………………………….. 29

Table 3 Basic socio-demographic characteristics by unit and by year………………….. 32

Table 4 Occupation of household heads …………………………………………….. 33

Table 5 A Home ownership status by year…………………………………………….. 34

Table 5 B Housing condition by year…….…………………………………………… 34

Table 6 Sources of water by year ………………………………………………….. 35

Table 7 Source of electricity ………………………………………………….. 36

Table 8 A Household monthly income by occupation………………………………….. 37

Table 8 B Household monthly income status by head………………………………….. 38

Table 8 C Mean household income by earner……………………….…………………….. 39

Table 9 A Household expenditure ………………………………………………….. 40

Table 9 B Mean expenditure (Taka) ………………………………………………….. 41

Table 9 C Mean household expenditure by item ………………………………………….. 41

Table 10 Household daily food intake status…………….……………………………….. 42

Table 11 Sources of animal protein …………………….……………………………….. 44

Table 12 A Ownership of assets by women of the household ………………………….... 45

Table 12 B Frequency of mobility of women ………………………………………….. 46

Table 12 C Women decision making level …………………………………………….. 46

Table 12 D Level of violence against women ………………………………………….. 47

Table 13 Recommended graduation criteria for urban extreme poor ………………….. 48

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Age structure of the household members …..………………………………….. 31

Figure 2 Age group of the household members …..………………………………….. 32

Figure 3 Type of latrine ………………………………………………….. 36

Figure 4 A Food intake status ………………………………………………….. 43

Figure 4 B Overall meals per day …………………………………………………. 44

Figure 5 Women income and control …………………..……………………………….. 45

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 8

1. EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Selection criteria: Urban extreme poor households were selected on the basis of two

essential criteria i) No MFI linkage and ii) Household monthly income ceiling 3,000 Taka for

the project year-1 and 4,500 Taka for the project year-2 & 3 with some supplementary

criteria. Among the selected households 5.6% found income disabled, 28.4% were unskilled

day laborer, 3.9% were aged women beggar, 27.3 found female domestic helper and 3.2 were

evicted from other slum. A number of child labor (6.9%) contribute to the households, 6.1%

households reported that at least one member of the household suffering from chronic illness,

26.8% household head were widow/separated/divorced and 62.6% households depended on

only one earner.

Socio-demographic characteristics: A total of 10,396 household profiles completed from

2009 to 2011. The profile covered 40,398 household members (46.38% male and 53.62%

female). The mean age of the household members was 22.8 years, mean age of female

headed household members was significantly older by 1.8 years, on average than male

headed household members. Average household size was 3.9, significantly lower than the

Census 2011 (4.3 for Dhaka urban; t=-27.33, p<0.001) and female headed households also

significantly smaller by, on average 1.1 (t=38.26, p<0.001), (table 3). Almost all the male heads

(98.9%) were married but female heads were only 37.8% married, 33.9% widowed and

28.0% divorced/deserted/separated. Regarding all the household members 57.8% unmarried,

41.9% married among the male members but 46.5% found unmarried, 39.5% married, 7.8%

widow, 6.2% divorced/deserted/separated among the female members.

Literacy rate of household members aged 7 years and over were only 60.2% (58.0% male,

62.1% female) compared with 70.38% for urban (HIES, 2010). Only 2.2% members had

SSC or higher level educational qualification and 13.7% had class five or higher.

Occupational status of household head revealed that 8.8% head (8.1% male, 10.3% female) did not
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 9

work anyway. Rickshaw pullers (28.6%) were the major occupational group of the head of the

household (44.3% among the male) followed by 14.0% domestic helper (39.6% among the female).

The other occupations of the household head were manual labor (14.6%), student (8.1%), petty trade

(5.7%), begging (5.2%).

Housing, water, sanitation and utilities: Almost all the households 96.1% resided in the

rented single room. Housing condition of 100 (1.0%) households were worst condition as many

of them constructed themselves with polythene shade on the government khas land and some

were single old aged mainly beggar resided very low rented dilapidated housing. The mean

area of the house was 76.48 square feet but female headed household lived in smaller

dwellings compared with male headed households 71.8 square feet and 79.0 square feet

respectively.

Majority of the selected households (58.4%) collected water from legal or illegal supply

sources and (31.4%) from tube-well, all others from different sources such as open sources,

pond/river, rainwater, purchase from others, deep tube wells etc. The scarcity of safe water is

a major issue for the urban slum.

Only 29.1% household used water sealed latrine and 48.5% used ring slab mainly owned by

landlord. Only 7.4% household used community latrine, provided by different NGOs,

maintained by local community, 1.6% household use open place for defecation and 11.7%

use unhygienic hanging latrine adjacent to their residence.

Household assets: Only 18 (0.17%) households owned rickshaw/van and 16 (0.15%)

households owned sewing machine, a negligible percentage of household owned the working

equipment. A total of 2.93% households owned television, 7.85% households owned mobile

phone and 68.58% households owned fan.

Household income: Rickshaw/ van pulling was the main source of cash income, 32.47%

households earn on an average 2,580 Taka per month. Other main source of cash income

were domestic helper (30.82%, average 1,385 Taka per month), unskilled daily labor
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 10

(28.52%, average 2,270 Taka per month). Fitra/zakat was the main source of in-kind income

followed by domestic worker. Monthly total mean household income (cash and in-kind) was

2,743 Taka per household compared with 11,480 Taka nationally (HIES-2010) and mean per

capita income per day was only 26.4 Taka. Total mean cash income was 2,699 Taka per

household per month and mean in-kind income was 21.21 Taka.

There was significant variation between units with the greatest mean household income per

month by Karail-2 was 3,337 Taka followed by Kamrangirchar-3 was 2,753 Taka with the

lowest income in Kamrangirchar-1 was 2,393 Taka only.

Household expenditure: Forty one types of expenditure were considered for household

expenditure assessment. Mean 1,064 Taka were spent 98.20% household per month to

purchase the staple food item rice followed by 94.53% household Taka 867 for house rent.

Household total mean expenditure was 3,335 Taka per month compared with 11,200 Taka

nationally (HIES, 2010). There was significant variation between units with the greatest mean

household expenditure per month by Karail-2 was 4,122 Taka followed by Karail-1 was

3,386 Taka with the lowest expenditure in Kamrangirchar-1 was 3,018 Taka only. Household

spent more money on food items 58.17% of total income on an average 1,968 Taka per

month, 25.63% for house rent.

Food intake status: Food intake status revealed that 30.09% households depended on one

meal per day on an average 2.98 months in a year, 38.47% household managed two meals per

day on an average 7.39 months, 15.75% reported that they were avail three meal per day with

some difficulty on an average 2.99 months and 15.68% household managed three meals in a

day without any difficulty on an average 3.23 months in a year.

Fish, in the fresh or dry form was the main source of animal protein, 95.1% household

consumed fish on an average 5.28 days per month. Only 16.5% household consumed meat,

76.9% household consumed egg, 12.4% household consumed milk on an average 1.24 days,
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 11

2.61 days, 1.88 days per month respectively. Considering all the above food items, 96.5%

household consumed at least one source of animal protein with mean 7.74 days per month.

Gender: Among the urban extreme poor only 0.59% household women owned any land or

home herself, 0.08% had productive asset, 0.10% household women had livestock, 0.37%

had poultry and 0.14% women had sewing machine. Only 15.99% household women owned

other household asset, 48.27% owned jewelery and 2.05% had other asset but only 2.05% had

cash savings.

Women mobility: Women had to frequently move to shopping, hospital, relatives’ house,

social function, work place. Only 0.51% household women reported that they never went for

shopping, 3.19% never went to hospital any way. Majority of the household women (56.13%)

had to go for shopping frequently.

Women decision making: Women were actively participated in the decision making process

at the household level. Only 3.47% household women reported that they had no decision

making power for daily household activity, 54.62% had moderate and 41.86 had high

decision. For the selling/purchasing, having child, schooling and marriage of the children the

household women had moderate or high decision.

Violence against women: High occurrence of violence against women by the husband

1.67%, relatives of the husband 0.56%, employer 0.29% and others 0.06% including physical

and other torture. Moderate violence was occurring by husband reported 45.33% and seldom

violence was occurring by husband reported 43.61% of the household women. Women faced

violence at residence by husband and relatives of husband and workplace by employer

(especially for the domestic workers).

 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 12

2. INTRODUCTION

The last five years saw unprecedented global wealth creation; yet, the number of

people living in chronic poverty—extreme poverty that persists for a long time—has

increased. Between 320 and 443 million people are now trapped in chronic poverty, which

many times is also transmitted inter-generationally to their children. The Millennium

Development Goals target to halve global poverty by 2015 fails to account for the many who

will remain trapped in poverty for some duration of time. The MDGs can only be achieved if

chronic poverty is effectively tackled, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and

if the target is extended to 2025 to enable national governments and international

organizations to make the necessary political commitments and resource allocations and

implement necessary policies (Harper et al).

The Different Aspects of Urban Poverty

o Inadequate income (and thus inadequate consumption of necessities including food and,

often, safe and sufficient water; often problems of indebtedness, with debt repayments

significantly reducing income available for necessities).

o Inadequate, unstable or risky asset base (non-material and material including educational

attainment and housing) for individuals, households or communities.

o Inadequate shelter (typically poor quality, overcrowded and insecure).

o Inadequate provision of “public” infrastructure (piped water, sanitation, drainage, roads,

footpaths, etc.) which increases the health burden and often the work burden.

o Inadequate provision of basic services such as day care/schools/vocational training, health

care, emergency services, public transport, communications, law enforcement.

o Limited or no safety net to ensure basic consumption can be maintained when income falls;

also to ensure access to shelter and health care when these can no longer be paid for.
 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 13

o Inadequate protection of poorer groups’ rights through the operation of the law: including

laws and regulations regarding civil and political rights, occupational health and safety,

pollution control, environmental health, protection from violence and other crimes, protection

from discrimination and exploitation.

o Poorer groups’ voicelessness and powerlessness within political systems and bureaucratic

structures, leading to little or no possibility of receiving entitlements; of organizing, making

demands and getting a fair response; and of receiving support for developing their own

initiatives. Also, no means of ensuring accountability from aid agencies, NGOs, public

agencies and private utilities and being able to participate in the definition and

implementation of their urban poverty programs. (Satterthwaite)

A significant shock has been the steep rise in food prices, including the main staple,

rice, which has revealed the risk posed by global price volatility for a net food-importing

country like Bangladesh.

The economic transformation is closely related to rapid GDP growth and the

urbanization process in recent times – manifested in rising returns to human and physical

assets, rising labor productivity and wages, the shift from low return agricultural labor to

nonfarm employment and growth in export industries. Increasing flow of remittances has

been another key factor contributing to poverty reduction

With an estimated 56 million people in poverty in 2005 in Bangladesh and disparities in

incomes and human capabilities across income and occupational groups, gender, and regions

Bangladesh is on track to achieve the MDG of halving poverty from the 1990

level. If GDP were to continue growing at the same average rate as between 2000 and 2005

(5.3 percent per year), Bangladesh would meet the MDG target of halving poverty and

extreme poverty rates between 1990 and 2015. However, since these projections depend on

estimates of elasticity extrapolated from historical data, they are imperfect guides for the
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 14

future, and the actual poverty impact of growth would depend on how distributional changes

evolve over time. Realizing these projections would also depend on the country being able to

sustain its recent trends in reducing fertility and population growth. Severe shocks, like the

recent rise in food prices, could also erode some of the gains from economic growth and slow

the pace of poverty reduction. The frequency of such shocks, how long they last and how

rapidly the economy bounces back from them will therefore influence the future pace of

poverty reduction.

The poor in Bangladesh have several distinct characteristics. The likelihood of

poverty is higher when a household has a larger number of dependents, has low levels of

education, or when the household is headed by a female whose husband does not send

remittances. A household whose head is engaged in daily wage work is significantly more

likely to be poor compared to all others. For rural households, ownership of agricultural land

raises household per capita consumption progressively with land size. Urban households are

likely to be better-off if the head is engaged in nonfarm self-employment or if they own some

form of business (WB-2008).

Two metropolitan cities have emerged as the main centers of economic activity of

the country – Dhaka with a population of 10 million and to a lesser extent, Chittagong, the

main port city, with a population of 3.4 million. Dhaka alone accounts for 80 percent of the

country’s Ready Made Garments output and half of manufacturing sector employment. A large

increase in formal sector employment between 2003 and 2006 in the greater Dhaka region,

relative to the rest of the country, suggests that agglomeration has increased in recent years1.

However, even as concentration has increased in the greater Dhaka region, there is a growing

trend of dispersion within this region – from the core of the city to outlying areas of Dhaka city,

particularly to the north and west.

1From Economic Census (2003, 2006)

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 15

In keeping with its progress in reducing income poverty, Bangladesh has seen

rapid gains in a number of key education and health outcomes. The country is well on the

way to achieving its MDGs for outcomes like infant and child mortality and has already met

the MDG of gender parity in primary and secondary schooling. 2 Nevertheless, a number of

obstacles remain in achieving access to education and health services for the poor, as

inequalities in opportunities and outcomes persist across different wealth and income groups,

gender, and regions. As seen earlier, education improves nonfarm employment opportunities,

increases earnings of workers, and enhances the mobility of the poor from lagging regions.

Poor health contributes to a vicious cycle of poverty, malnutrition and higher morbidity, which

often leads to families remaining poor across generations. Most importantly, better education

and health are critical objectives in themselves, with interrelated effects on other development

outcomes.

A survey conducted by the World Bank in July 2008 found that a significant majority

of households have had to respond to the price shock by cutting back on their food intake,

consuming lower quality food, or reducing spending on non-food items. According to the

HIES, the share of rice in a household budget averages around 24 percent for an average

Bangladeshi household and significantly higher for the extreme poor. Since nominal wages

are slow to adjust and more than 80 percent of households are net buyers of rice, increases in

rice prices are likely to have a significant adverse impact on real incomes. Assuming a uniform

5 percent wage increase for all, a 3 percent real income loss for the average household is

estimated, which translates to a roughly 3 percentage point increase in the poverty rate.

The magnitude of the impact implies that the food price shock is likely to have

negated some (but not all) of the reduction in poverty achieved between 2005 and 2008 due

2World Bank (2007c) “To the MDGs and Beyond: Accountability and Institutional Innovation in Bangladesh
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 16

to strong and stable economic growth.3 More important than the aggregate poverty impact of

the price shock is its role in worsening the income or consumption distribution. The adverse

impact is much higher for households that were already poor than for those who were better-

off, and for vulnerable groups like daily wage workers and subsistence farmers compared to

others. Those likely to benefit are farmers with more than 1.5 acres of land, who constitute less

than a quarter of all households.

Among household-specific sources of shock, health shocks, especially among

income earners, are particularly important contributors to poverty. Households with

lower endowments (in terms of education, land ownership or asset ownership) and households

with poorer demographic attributes are likely to be more vulnerable to certain types of shocks.

Sudden illnesses lead to poverty due to lack of earnings and expensive medical treatment.

Moreover, economic shocks such as the recent rise in food prices makes poor households

switch to cheaper, less nutritious food items and contributes to malnutrition and ill health.

Given the high incidence of shocks and the large vulnerable population, safety net

programs have an important role to play. Such programs transfer resources directly as a

source of income for the extreme poor; they mitigate the risk of households falling further into

poverty as a result of a shock and have the potential to enhance human capital gains when

linked to education and health programs. The government has raised safety net expenditures

steadily since the mid-1990s,funding a wide spectrum of programs – a mix of conditional and

unconditional cash and food transfers, subsidies, and targeted assistance to specific groups. A

dominant share of resources is spent on unconditional programs, out of which in-kind (food)

transfers constitute the largest part. A small share of in-kind transfer programs provide food

3Given that GDP grew at around 6 percent annually during 2005-2008, the poverty rate would have been expected to decline
by around 5 percentage points between 2005 and 2008 (using the elasticity of poverty reduction to growth estimated in
chapter 1 of this report) as a normal response to GDP growth. But with the impact of the food price shock (equivalent to 3
percentage point increase in poverty rate) factored in, the poverty rate would have declined by roughly 2 percentage points
over the same period.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 17

fortified with essential nutrients. One of the major programs used to respond to the recent food

price crisis was distribution of subsidized coarse rice rations in government markets.

Evidence suggests that safety net programs are still inadequate to address the vast

needs of the poor. Only about 13 percent of households (including 23 percent of the poorest

10 percent) benefit from at least one safety net program. The benefit amounts are small – for

example, the food benefit from VGF is just 21 percent of the lower poverty line. Targeting

errors compound the problem of low coverage among the poor; for example, the poorest

divisions have much lower proportion of population covered by safety nets than do better-off

areas such as Sylhet. A lack of safety net coverage in urban areas is a critical gap in the system.

Moreover, multiple implementing agencies undertake programs in a largely uncoordinated

manner, thereby limiting the ability to make strategic choices with budgetary resources (World

Bank, 2008).

Internal migration is not a major variable explaining urban poverty. Controlling

migration is not a valid policy response to urban poverty. Studies of internal migration in

many countries reveal that migrants are not necessarily among the poorest members of their

original or receiving communities. Moreover, migration to cities from rural areas accounts for

less than half of urban growth. In many countries, most urban growth is a result of two

factors: natural population increases within cities, and the incorporation of formerly rural

areas at the urban periphery. There are no simple relationships between migration and

poverty. Policies that aim to restrict internal migration hurt the poor and the overall labor

market and are usually ineffective (de Haan 1999 and 2000).

Problems encountered through past experiences and situation analysis. A. The

livelihood framework suggests that poverty is not only a product of material deprivation but

of a set of interlocking factors, including physical weakness, social isolation, vulnerability

and powerlessness. As defined by Prof. Rehman Sobhan, extreme poor households are
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 18

excluded and denied access to productive assets as well as human resources, remain insecure,

disempowered and without a real stake in the society where they live. This invites

vulnerability and tension not to civic peace and sustainability of democratic institutions.

B. The DSK’s experience of implementing different development projects in urban

and rural areas have provided an understanding of the multidimensionality of poverty. In

connection with the above DSK came to a conclusion that income increase combined with

access to basic services is necessary to support households in extreme poverty.

C. The project’s core philosophy reveals that the extreme poor households face

extreme poverty and vulnerability due to limited means of access to economic and basic

social services in complex urban settings, the bargaining power of these households is further

diminished due to inaccessibility to employment, capacity building, assets, water supply and

sanitation. The DSK, believes that it is imperative to provide capacity building training,

health, water, sanitation and employment support to pull these households out of extreme

poverty.

D. The project aims to address the multiple causes of extreme poverty in Dhaka city,

by enhancing the capabilities of the extreme urban poor to cope with urban life, through their

household economic strategy integrated with access to basic services in reference to the

livelihood framework.

E. Often slums are located on private and government land, being heavily congested

without access to basic services. The extreme poor households are often congested in these

urban slums. There is standing court order not to evict slums without rehabilitation, however

the expected government response thus far has been to evict with no guarantee of

rehabilitation.

F. The project targets two slum areas in Dhaka city: Kamrangirchar and Karail.

Kamrangirchar is a low income area where the residents were rehabilitated in late seventies.
 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 19

Karail on the other hand consists of a population of twenty thousand households and is

located on government land. Because of immense size of this settlement, it is a politically

sensitive area; the government has not taken any measure for eviction thus far.

G. The project will address critical problems and needs of the extreme urban poor

households. The following problems/needs will be addressed in the project to achieve

‘graduation from extreme poverty’ and ‘sustain the graduation status’. The problems are the

following:

 Lack of productive assets (physical, technological, social, financial and human)

 Lack of organized participatory efforts and group coherence of extreme poor households

 Lack of empowerment of extreme poor women (both practical and strategic)

 Lack of GoB’s safety net support provisions for the extreme urban poor.

 Lack of any protective and risk reduction measures for extreme poor households

 Lack of a minimum supportive system (health, safe water and sanitation,) for extreme poor

households

 Lack of awareness and entitlements of extreme poor households

The number of urban poor in an ‘absolute’ sense has increased over the years due to rapid

urbanization and the poor have adapted through different strategies in their households to

overcome their household poverty. The urban poor adopt informal livelihood strategies

through their household to survive in the city as they have limited access to the existing urban

economic and social systems.

Urban poor households migrate to escape extreme rural poverty triggered by certain push

factors like frequent floods, cyclones, storms, river erosion, lack of employment

opportunities, land grabbing, natural increase of urban working class having no connection

with land in rural areas, human conflicts and lack of ability to cope with rural power

structures. The “employment opportunity and scope” in large urban areas such as the capital
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 20

Dhaka pulls these households to urban centers. They move specially to Dhaka with an

expectation to get food, shelter and employment. However they face uncertainty such as the

fear of frequent evictions, internal displacement, pressures from slum power structure

(mastan), harassment from law enforcing agencies and others. These uncertainties nullify

their gain in livelihoods like income, savings, shelter, education and others. The urban poor

also suffer in relation to disasters like fire explosion, road accidents, flood, water logging,

heavy rainfall, etc. These disasters pose a huge stress on household livelihood assets of urban

poor particularly the wellbeing of income, food, water, sanitation and health. Vulnerability

among urban poor is due to increase because of soaring price of essential commodities in the

market. Government major safety nets and welfare schemes and policies are rural based. The

VGD, VGF, 100-DEGP, elderly and widow scheme are not quite in favor of the urban poor.

These urban poor mostly fall outside of the support system due to policy impediments of

GoB. (DSK Project Memorandum)

The project will facilitate the urban extreme poor households, especially the women

and the socially marginalized through household and community based approaches which

would encourage economic empowerment; so that they can help each other and be organized

in enhancing their economic, social and political capabilities to be able to graduate from

extreme poverty.

The project will transfer productive assets (physical, technological, financial, social

and human) to the extreme poor households and enhance their capabilities in claiming their

rights. The deliberate efforts will be aimed achieving the graduation of the extreme poor

households in 24 months. DSK will assist the extreme poor in overcoming the constraints by

building capacities and systems which would push for the right strategies, monitoring poverty

and for evaluating the impacts of programs. The graduation process that DSK conceptualized

is as follows:
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 21

DSK project model and graduation pathway

During three years (2009-2012), total 10000 Households of urban slum under Dhaka City

Corporation will be benefited by this project. This project will contribute to Government’s

initiative to achieve Millennium Development Goal (MDG) Target 1 & 2.

Goal of the project:

 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 22

To contribute the GoB’s efforts in achieving PRS goal and MDG target 1 & 2 on income

poverty and hunger by 2015.

Purpose:

10,000 households in urban slums of Dhaka city have lifted themselves out of extreme

poverty by 2012

Outputs:

1. Extreme poor women are supported through accumulation of physical and financial capital

2. Organized and collective effort enhanced amongst extreme poor HHs through formation and

strengthening of 100 CBOs

3. Increased access to water, sanitation and health services

4. Enhanced technical and business capabilities of 10000 extreme poor households

Activities:

Output 1

 Conduct beneficiaries’ analysis for asset transfer

 Procurement and transfer of assets

 Savings collection and deposit

 Disbursement of start up capital

 Recovery of start up capital

 Formation of community fund

 Community fund management committee’s establishment, regular meetings, procurement

development etc.

Output 2

 Formation of CBOs with the target family members.

 Facilitate regular meeting of CBOs

 Train CBO leadership in management

 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 23

 Organize cross visit among the CBOs and other best practices.

 Training of CBO members in social inclusion, gender rights, basic human rights

 Observe different days like international women’s day

Output 3

 Establish and operate satellite health clinics

 ANC and PNC

 TT immunization

 Attended delivery

 Immunization session for children

 Conduct courtyard/community meetings for health and hygiene awareness

 Establish referral mechanism

 Adolescent health care

 Install water points and sanitary latrines

 Formation of water point and sanitation management committees, develop action plan,

monthly meetings, decision making etc.

Output 4

 Conduct training need assessment

 Develop training manuals and materials

 Conduct training on occupational skills

 Training in management and accounting skills to manage HH and CBO enterprises.

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 24

3. METHODOLOGY

DSK understands that development agencies in most cases ignores hard to reach people, like

urban extreme poor, beggars, rickshaw pullers, push cart drivers, domestic helper, vegetable

vendors, who are unable to even make three meals a day. Who are living in urban slums and

squatters, in pavements and survive on the sale of daily labor. They are beyond the scope of

any safety net support available in the country. No single intervention is appropriate to

eradicate extreme poverty for the neglected urban slum. DSK’s implementation strategy is

the integrated approach to lift them from extreme poverty through:

 Peoples participation &awareness

 Freedom of choose /ownership

 Capable and creative economic agent

 Savings

 Support during shocks and crisis

 Reduction of burden of diseases &income retention

 Peoples negotiation

 Learning

 Facilitate minimum level of CITIZENSHIP (better governance i.e. accountability by

state, civil society and market)

3.1 Process of household selection

DSK is working with the bottom 10% of extreme poor in urban slum out of 24% total

extreme poor in country. Within two areas Karail and Kamrangirchar, DSK started work

maintaining following process aligning with its defined 12 criteria for selecting the

Beneficiary Households.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 25

3.1.1 Transect walk

DSK staff started transect walk for locating the concentration of extreme poor in the said

project area. As they come from different regions of Bangladesh and they are involved with

different types of income generating activities though it is very hard to identify the person

who lives in under poverty line.

3.1.2 Rapport building

As a second step of the process DSK started for building rapport with the community people,

social leader, other NGOs, service providing agencies, local government institutions and

representatives, landlords and poor community as well. They tried to get a glimpse about the

people, their socioeconomic status, and timing to get them at home, problems of the poor

community, cultural practices, and services available etc.

3.1.3 Social mapping

In both working areas of DSK conducted social mapping considering the number of extreme

poor people living within the slum. Doing social map DSK wanted to see the other resources

(road, bazaar, school, health centers, samity office etc.) in that community and exact location

of household of poor people. Finally they prepared an initial list based on the social mapping

findings for poor people. And within the lists they segregated landlord and tenant to be

focused on extreme poor.

3.1.4 Wealth ranking

After getting the initial list of extreme poor HHs (tenants) then DSK arranged another sitting

with those people for identifying the extreme poor. The three categories of economic status

(rich, poor & extreme poor) they fit and arranged people by name considering their practical

situation one by one and prepare another list of extreme poor.

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 26

3.1.5 Physical verification

After finishing the wealth ranking DSK started door to door visit for physical verification to

assess the real situation of each and every HHs who is listed. During this physical verification

a detail interview has been conducted with the respective HH member available at home

aligning with the set 12 criterion of DSK for beneficiary selection. Through this step validity

of information was also checked of which got from the community people during wealth

ranking. And it is also happened that some BHHs have to drop due to its authenticity.

3.1.6 Cross checking

There was a cross checking method have been also used for having ascertain about the BHHs

through the discussion with neighbors, close relatives of the HHs and others. Through this

process validity of information has been ensured.

3.1.7 Verification by shiree

After the DSK level checking the list of primary selected HHs provided for further

verification by shiree. After verification by shiree the households treated as selected

households. Once when the households selected, DSK started to organize the households as

group mode, facilitate courtyard session, collect savings amounts, provide Primary Health

Care (PHC) services. Simultaneously DSK provided Basic Training, Entrepreneurship

Development and Business Management (EDBM) Training. DSK also started to complete

household profile, process for the beneficiary assessment for asset transfer, provide asset and

start-up capital, provide stipend for the pregnant and breast feeding mother, old age and

disable persons.

3.1.8 Field data collection

DSK field officers are primarily responsible to collect household profile data direct from the

respective selected households using the data collection tool developed by shiree with
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 27

negotiation with DSK. At first all the field staff and field level management staff was

oriented on the data collection tools and techniques, field practiced and started to collect data.

3.1.9 Data quality control

DSK M&E/MIS team with the help of management staff physically verify, cross check and

correct the completed one and then process for data entry by customized Oracle software.

Data validity and reliability also checked during the data entry procedure: check data

inconsistency, duplication and initiated to correct for both data collection and or entry level

error. Finally cleaned data produced to provide to shiree and analysis at DSK level. Oracle,

MS Access, Excel and SPSS software used to data processing and analysis.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 28

4. RESULTS

DSK collected household profile from all the selected household, a total of 10,396 household

profiles completed during 3 years, these profiles also treated as baseline information of the

urban extreme poverty. The profile covered 40,398 household members (53.62% female), the

sex ratio was 86.5 very low compared with the national figure100.3 (BBS).

Table 1 Number of households and household members by unit office

Number of households Number of Female

members beneficiary
Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Male Female %
Karail-1 904 1092 - 3326 4045 87.2
Kamrangirchar-1 898 1153 - 3614 4348 85.7
Kamrangirchar-2 - 1014 1140 4060 4551 97.0
Kamrangirchar-3 - 993 1083 3882 4522 98.0
Karail-2 - 1025 1094 3853 4197 93.8
Total 1802 5277 3317 18735 21663 92.4

4.1 Extreme poor household selection criteria

All the household finally selected on the basis of two essential criteria namely i) No MFI

linkage and ii) Household monthly income ceiling is 3,000 Taka for the project year-1 and

4,500 Taka for the project year-2 & 3 with some other supplementary criteria.

Only two households (1 household from year-2 and another from year-3) found the MFI

linkage as considered with the exception of consumption loans for food and medical

emergencies. Some of the selected households (0.5% of year-1, 2.2% for year-2 and 0.7% for

year-3) found exceed the essential income criteria. The main reason is the time gap between

household selection and profile data collection. When the household identified, DSK and

shiree cross-checked and verified on the basis of selection criteria. The selected household

must be satisfied the essential criteria and at least 50% of the supplementary criteria. After

the verification and final selection the household income may change (increase or decrease),

any household member may lose or obtain any job or change the previous one. Whether the
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 29

household income remain same or increase in a limited scale or decrease, DSK continue to

work with all the selected and verified households.

Among the selected households 96.7% occupied single living room, 5.6% found

income disabled, 28.4% were unskilled day laborer, 3.9% were aged women beggar, 27.3%

found female domestic helper and 3.2% were evicted from other slum. A number of child

labor (6.9%) contribute to the households, 6.1% households reported that at least one member

of the household suffering from chronic illness, 26.8% household head were widow/

separated/ divorced and 62.6% households depended on only one earner (table 2).

Table 2 Household selection criteria (%)

Criteria Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 All

No MFI linkage 100 100 100 100
Only one room for living 99.1 95.4 97.4 96.7
Illiterate adult member 63.8 - - 63.8
Inability to earn 6.6 5.2 5.5 5.6
Unskilled day labor 25.6 31.2 25.4 28.4
Aged women beggar 6.0 4.2 2.3 3.9
Push cart driver 1.2 7.0 16.8 9.2
Female domestic helper 28.9 25.2 29.7 27.3
Barber (road side) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Cobbler (road side) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Faced eviction 5.9 3.6 0.9 3.2
Child labor - 8.0 5.0 6.9
Chronic illness (6 months or more) 12.3 - - 12.3
Two pieces of clothing 94.4 - - 94.4
Female (widow, separated, divorced) 45.2 21.1 11.7 26.8
headed household
Income ceiling 3000 taka 99.5 0.0 0.0 99.5
Only one earner 65.8 60.0 65.0 62.6
House rent ceiling 1000 taka 95.5 - - 95.5
Disable beggar 2.2 1.8 1.4 1.8
Income ceiling 4500 taka - 97.8 99.3 98.4
House rent ceiling 1500 taka - 89.4 95.2 91.6
House rent ceiling 1800 taka - 14.0 10.9 12.8
Head did not complete primary education - 84.0 89.2 86.0
Two pieces of clothing (own purchase) - 87.3 94.2 89.9
Chronic illness (3 months or more) - 7.5 3.8 6.1
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 30

4.2 Socio-demographic characteristics

The age structure revealed that 1376 individuals were old aged-over 60 years-may eligible for

old aged stipend, 996 were under one children, 5,082 were 1 to under 5 year old children,

13686 were children between 5 and 15 years of age and 19,253were adult aged 16 to 60

years. The percentage of under 1 children, children 1 to <5 years old, children between 6 and

15 years of age, adult and old age were 2.5%,12.6%, 33.9%,47.7% and 3.4%respectively.

The mean age of the household members was 22.8 years, mean age of female headed

household members were significantly older by 1.8 years, on average than male headed

household members (t=9.07, p<0.001).

Average household size was 3.9, significantly lower than the Census 2011 (4.3 for Dhaka

urban; t=-27.33, p<0.001) and female headed households also significantly smaller by, on

average 1.1 (t=38.26, p<0.001). (table 3)

Household with under-five year-old children made up 47.1% of the household but

only 30.0% of female headed household had an under-five children compared with 56.4% in

male headed households (χ2 = 903.05, p<0.001).

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 31

Comparatively more female members found than the male members at the age

category of 15-24 and 25-34 years, on the other hand more male members found at the

children age group 5-15 years of age. Among the male 2.4% members were very old aged 65

years or more, that was 1.7% among the female members. Children age group (5-14 yrs.) is

densely concentrated age group regardless the sex i.e., 34.2% among the male and 27.9%

among the female members (figure 1).

Age structure of household head revealed that 36.8% heads were 31 years to 40 years

age group (39.7% among the male head and 31.4% among the female heads). Only 0.8%

heads were 20 years or below age group, on the other hand 7.6% household were 61 years or

above age group (figure 2).

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 32

Figure 2 Age group of the household heads

45
39.7
40 36.8
35 31.4
Percentage

30 26.7
22.7 24.1
25 20.9 19.9
19.3
20
15 12.9
9.8 10.9
10 8.1 6.6 7.6

5
0.4 1.5 0.8
0
Lowest thru 20 21 to 30 years 31 to 40 years 41 to 50 years 51 to 60 years 61and above
Male Female Both

Almost all the male heads (98.9%) were married but female heads were only 37.8%

married, 33.9% widowed and 28.0% divorced/deserted/separated. Regarding all the

household members 57.8% were unmarried and 41.9% married among the male members but

46.5% found unmarried, 39.5% married, 7.8% widow and 6.2% were

divorced/deserted/separated among the female household members.

Table 3 Basic socio-demographic characteristics of urban extreme poverty by unit office

Unit N Female Mean age of all Household size Literacy status Disability
headed members by head by head of of head of (%)
house of house (years) house household (%)
% Male Female Male Female Male Female
Karail-1 1996 38.6 21.8 24.5 4.2 2.8 62.8 68.4 6.0
Kamrangirchar-1 2051 45.1 23.1 24.0 4.5 3.2 65.2 61.1 8.0
Kamrangirchar-2 2154 32.7 22.3 23.5 4.4 3.2 67.0 67.1 6.8
Kamrangirchar-3 2076 39.0 22.0 24.2 4.4 3.4 67.7 59.2 9.1
Karail-2 2119 22.4 22.2 24.6 4.0 3.1 72.8 69.2 6.7
Total 10396 35.4 22.3 24.1 4.3 3.2 67.5 64.4 7.3

Literacy rate of household members aged 7 years and over were only 60.2% (58.0%

male, 62.1% female) compared with 70.38% for urban (HIES, 2010). Only 2.2% members

had SSC or higher level educational qualification and 13.7% had class five or higher.

Overall 820 (2.0%) household members reported as disable but the disabled household head

were 7.3%.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 33

Occupational status of household head revealed that 8.8% head (8.1% male, 10.3% female)

did not work anyway. Rickshaw pullers (28.6%) were the major occupational group of the head of the

household (44.3% among the male) followed by 14.6% manual laborer (16.6% male and 10.8%

female). The other occupations of the household head were domestic helper (14%),petty trade (5.7%),

begging (5.2%), student (8.1%) etc. (table 4).

Table 4 Occupations of head and member of the household by sex (%)

Occupational Household head Household member

category (above 15 years)
Male Female Both Male Female Both
Does not work 8.1 10.3 8.8 15.7 28.9 23.4
Other laborer 16.6 10.8 14.6 24.6 8.6 15.3
Domestic helper 0.0 39.6 14.0 0.0 26.1 15.1
Rickshaw puller 44.3 0.0 28.6 37.6 0.0 15.8
Skilled laborer 1.0 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.3 0.6
Own agriculture 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Fishing 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Aquaculture 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Livestock 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
Industrial laborer 2.2 4.0 2.8 3.6 4.9 4.4
Petty trade 6.3 4.7 5.7 5.4 2.4 3.7
Business 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.0 0.8 1.3
Handicraft 0.3 1.0 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5
Service 2.2 1.1 1.8 2.4 0.7 1.4
Transport worker 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2
Begging 2.5 10.1 5.2 2.5 4.0 3.4
Scavenging 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1
Rag picker 0.5 3.8 1.7 0.5 2.2 1.5
House wife 0.0 3.9 1.4 0.0 18.1 10.5
Student 10.1 4.5 8.1 0.7 0.3 0.5
Migrant worker 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Others 3.0 3.5 3.1 2.9 1.8 2.3

Occupational category of all the household members (16 years and over) revealed that 23.4%

household members did not work (15.7% male, 28.9% female), 15.8% rickshaw puller, 15.3% manual

laborer, 15.1% domestic helper, 10.5% housewife, 4.4% industrial laborer, 3.7% household members

involved in petty trade, 3.4% involved in begging (table 4).

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 34

4.3 Housing, water, sanitation and utilities

Table 5 A Percentage of house ownership status by year

Types of ownership of house Implementation year

Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Total
Own 1.1 1.4 2.2 1.6
Rented 96.8 95.1 97.3 96.1
Parent 0.4 3.0 0.1 1.6
Parent in law 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Other non-family rent free 1.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Others 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.2

Almost all the households (96.1%) resided in the rented single room. There was no significant

difference between male headed and female headed households for the urban slum. Some beneficiary

(0.5% i.e., 48 HHs) also lived as dependent with non-first degree relatives or non-relatives with free

of cost.

Table 5 B Housing condition by year (%)

Housing Implementation year

condition Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Total
Good 0.9 2.0 0.7 1.4
Fair 55.2 58.2 62.2 58.9
Poor 42.8 38.2 36.6 38.5
Dilapidated 0.8 1.4 0.3 1.0
Hut 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

The overall housing condition was fair 58.9% and poor 38.5%, only 1.4% households

found in good condition comparatively high rented room. Housing condition of 100 (1%)

households were worst condition as many of them constructed themselves with polythene

shade on the government khas land and some were single old aged mainly beggar resided

very low rented dilapidated housing.

Total area of the house was measured in square feet. The mean area of the house was

76.48 square feet (SD=31.02) but female headed household lived in smaller dwelling houses
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 35

compared with male headed households 71.8 square feet and 79.0 square feet respectively

(F=129.40, p<0.001).

More than 95% households depended on supply water system from Karail area. In

Kamrangirchar area the majority households collected water from tube well. Overall

58.4%householdscollected water from legal or illegal supply sources and 31.7% from tube-

well, all others from different sources such as open sources, pond/river, rainwater, purchase

from others, deep tube wells etc. (table 6). The scarcity of safe water is a major issue for the

urban slum. Even slum dwellers have to pay up to Taka 5 per jar (15 liter) of water.

Table 6 Sources of water by units (%)

Sources of Karail-1 Kamrangir- Kamrangir- Kamrangir- Karail-2 All

water char-1 char-2 char-3
Supply 96.6 44.4 18.0 38.9% 95.4% 58.4%
Tubewell 0.2 43.1 49.7 59.9 3.4 31.4
Open well 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Pond / river 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1
Rainwater 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1
Purchased 3.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 0.9 1.0
Deep 0.0 11.9 31.6 0.0 0.0 9.0
tubewell
Others 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1

Almost 80% water source owned by landlord and a numbers of the households

collected water from community water points. A small portion of households collected water

from alternative sources i.e., private vendors and or polluted sources (pond/river, ditch).

Only 29.1% household used water sealed latrine and 48.5% used ring slab mainly

owned by landlord. Only 7.4% household used community latrine, provided by different

NGOs, maintained by local community. Still 1.6% household use open place for defecation

and 11.7% use unhygienic hanging latrine adjacent to their residence (figure 3).
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 36

A total 1801 numbers (17.6%) of household had no electricity connection; the

situation was worst for the Kamrangirchar-3 unit that was 62.3%. Overall72.2% household

connected with main source of electricity.

Table 7 Source of electricity by units (%)

Sources of Karail-1 Kamrangir Kamrangir Kamrangir Karail-2 Total

electricity char-1 char-2 char-3
No electricity 16.8 1.5 2.1 62.3 8.0 17.6
Main connection 81.6 97.8 96.8 36.0 47.2 72.2
Generator 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.2
Others 1.7 0.6 0.5 1.6 44.8 10.1

4.4 Household assets

Only 18 (0.17%) households owned rickshaw/van and16 (0.15%) households owned sewing

machine, a negligible percentage of household owned the working equipment. A total of

2.93% households owned television, 7.85% households owned mobile phone and 68.58%

households owned fan. Including all the assets average 16.39 assets owned per household.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 37

4.5 Household income

Table 8 A Household monthly income by occupation

Income source Cash income In-kind income Both income Overall
% Mean % Mean % Mean mean
Agricultural daily labor 0.14 2014 0.00 0 0.14 2014 2.91
Other daily labor 28.49 2268 0.25 500 28.52 2270 647.47
Domestic worker 30.73 1329 4.45 419 30.82 1385 426.99
Rickshaw/van/boat/bullock/pushcart 32.43 2578 0.24 701 32.47 2580 837.71
Skilled labour 1.51 2332 0.01 1000 1.51 2338 35.31
Own agricultural produce 0.03 763 0.00 0 0.03 763 0.22
Fishing / Aquaculture 0.08 2557 0.00 0 0.08 2557 1.97
Livestock / Poultry / Ducks 0.07 1279 0.01 13 0.08 1120 0.86
Industrial / Garment labour 8.71 1881 0.08 215 8.71 1883 163.89
Petty trade (specify) 7.33 2317 0.07 1193 7.36 2319 170.65
Other trade / business 3.52 2103 0.03 676 3.53 2103 74.24
Cottage industry / handicraft 1.02 1118 0.00 0 1.02 1118 11.40
Service / job 3.35 2192 0.05 181 3.35 2194 73.46
Transport worker (bus & truck) 0.38 2337 0.00 0 0.38 2337 8.77
Begging 6.40 1280 1.59 713 6.65 1402 93.19
Rag picking / scavenging 3.09 1552 0.19 568 3.23 1517 49.01
Motorized van (Nosiman) 0.05 1536 0.01 400 0.05 1616 0.78
Fuel sales 0.13 845 0.40 269 0.49 437 2.15
Child labour 2.96 1015 0.05 659 3.00 1012 30.38
100 day cash for work 0.01 1200 0.00 0 0.01 1200 0.00
Foreign remittance 0.04 815 0.07 64 0.11 337 0.12
Donation from relatives 4.07 256 4.83 116 7.78 206 0.36
Fetra / Zakat 6.70 62 14.17 40 17.33 57 16.03
Government allowance 0.21 163 0.03 35 0.23 153 9.89
Training allowance from GoB / NGO 0.04 290 0.01 33 0.05 238 0.35
shiree supported NGO relief 0.00 0 0.01 33 0.01 33 0.11
Other NGO relief 0.00 0 0.02 25 0.02 25 0.00
Loan taken in last one year 1.78 249 0.06 261 1.84 249 0.00
Other (specify) 3.68 1498 0.50 370 3.98 1432 4.58
Residual crop collection 0.05 782 0.05 153 0.08 584 57.03
Local remittance 0.02 958 0.00 0 0.02 958 0.45
Seasonal pavement trade 0.09 1287 0.00 0 0.09 1287 0.18
Total income 98.99 2699 21.21 237 99.23 2743 2722

Both cash income and in-kind income were considered for household income

assessment. Rickshaw/ van pulling was the main source of income, 32.47% households

earned on an average 2,580 Taka per month. Other main sources of income were domestic
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 38

work (30.82%, average 1,385 Taka per month), unskilled daily labor (28.52%, average 2,270

Taka per month). Fitra/zakat was the main source of in-kind income (14.17% household with

on an average 40 Taka per household per month) followed by domestic worker (4.49%

household, average 419 Taka per month).

Overall 98.99% households had cash income (99.37% male headed and 98.29%

female headed) and 21.21% household had in-kind income(15.05% male headed and 32.45%

female headed) thus only 1.01% households reported no cash income but 78.79% households

had no in-kind income.

Household total (both cash and in-kind) monthly income was 2,743 Taka (SD=958)

compared with 11480 Taka nationally (HIES-2010) and mean per capita income per day was

only 26.4 Taka (SD=12.7). Mean income of male headed household significantly higher than

the female headed households which were 3,033 Taka and 2210 Taka respectively (t=45.72,

p<0.001) but on the contrary, mean per capita income of male headed household significantly

lower than the female head (t=-6.83, p<0.001), main reason is that family size of male head

significantly greater than female head (table 3, table 8 B).

Table 8 B Household monthly income status by sex of household head and by units

Sex of Karail-1 Kamrangir Kamrangir Kamrangir Karail-2 Total

head of char-1 char-2 char-3
house Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Male 2764 2693 2926 3017 3476 3009
Cash income Female 1847 1953 2159 2178 2772 2127
Both 2417 2361 2676 2690 3319 2699
Male 191 277 231 136 250 186
In-kind income Female 298 256 241 239 665 280
Both 252 262 236 184 445 237
Male 2819 2708 2936 3056 3483 3033
Household total Female 2019 2005 2189 2277 2829 2210
income
Both 2515 2393 2692 2753 3337 2743
Male 721 661 715 749 963 774
Per capita Female 849 728 809 778 1103 828
income
Both 770 691 746 760 994 793
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 39

There was significant difference of monthly household total income by numbers of

earner of the household. Income was significantly higher of those household whose earner

were more than one from those household whose earner was single person (F=406.08,

p<0.001) that was 3076 Taka and 2,551 Taka respectively. Household income also

significantly differs by number of adults in the household (table 8 C).

Table 8 C Household mean income by year and by number of adultand earner

Implementation Number of adult member Number of earner Total

year One Two More than two One earner More than one
Year-1 1585 2227 2542 1877 2335 2042
Year-2 1842 2854 3111 2502 3123 2733
Year-3 2254 3205 3407 2991 3384 3133
Total 1843 2886 3148 2551 3076 2743

There was significant variation between units (F=338.86, p<0.001) with the greatest mean

household income per month by Karail-2 was 3,337 Taka followed by Kamrangirchar-3 was

2,753 Taka with the lowest income in Kamrangirchar-1 was 2,393 Taka only. Among the

individual units Kamrangirchar-2 and Kamrangirchar-3 evidenced no significance difference,

but all others units were significance difference observed in monthly income (table 8 B).

Significant income heterogeneity evidenced by the project implementation years. In year-1

monthly mean household income was 2,042 Taka, it was 2,733 Taka and 3133 Taka in year-2

and year-3 respectively (table 8 C).

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 40

4.6 Household expenditure

Table 9 A Household monthly expenditure

Item % Mean Overall mean

Rice 98.20 1064 1044.81
Paddy 0.38 118 0.44
Wheat/atta 39.19 59 23.07
Potato 97.08 124 120.45
Pulses/dal 90.32 77 69.41
Fish 94.80 137 129.80
Meat 52.39 48 24.95
Egg 77.40 44 34.28
Milk 26.14 28 7.44
Green vegetables 95.20 120 114.47
Other vegetables 70.67 132 93.60
Fruit 44.58 26 11.79
Sugar 46.22 19 8.55
Salt 96.71 21 19.97
Spices 92.97 82 76.29
Cooking oil 96.55 104 100.86
Other food items 30.50 69 21.00
Kerosene/candles/fuel wood 82.67 221 182.34
Soap 94.37 39 36.73
Other toiletries 30.63 26 7.95
Education 12.66 111 14.02
Transport costs 28.84 71 20.40
Healthcare 79.96 106 84.61
Clothing or footwear 72.33 78 56.10
House rent 94.53 867 819.76
Household furniture 1.14 261 2.98
Household repair 0.13 483 0.60
Other household items 1.64 94 1.54
Electricity & electrical items 47.71 135 64.50
Work/labour related costs 0.32 64 0.20
Business & cottage industry expenses 0.13 304 0.38
Rickshaw rent/repair or purchase 2.40 446 10.73
Loan/interest payments 0.78 492 3.83
Loan given 1.22 312 3.81
Mobile & other telephone expenses 41.60 34 14.23
Wedding expenses 0.85 81 0.68
Religious event 26.88 36 9.66
Others 2.80 148 4.15
Purchase of drinking water 47.56 102 48.69
Baby food 20.04 95 19.12
Dowry 0.34 619 2.08
Household monthly expenditure 99.26 335 3310
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 41

Forty one types of expenditure were considered for household expenditure

assessment. Mean 1,064 Taka were spent 98.20% household per month to purchase the staple

food item rice followed by 94.53% household (mean 867 Taka) house rent. Other major item

of expenditure were potato 97.08% household (mean 124 Taka), edible oil 96.55% household

(mean 104 Taka), green vegetables 95.20% household (mean 120 Taka) fish 94.80%

household (mean 137 Taka) etc.

Table 9 B Household monthly mean expenditure by units

Units Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Total

Karail-1 3423 3356 3386
Kamrangirchar-1 2723 3244 3018
Kamrangirchar-2 3126 2933 3024
Kamrangirchar-3 3163 3076 3118
Karail-2 4348 3910 4122
Total 3074 3444 3301 3335

Household total mean expenditure was 3,335 (SD=1147) Taka per month compared

with 11,200 Taka nationally (HIES, 2010).

There was significant variation between units (F=399.24, p<0.001) with the greatest

mean expenditure per month by Karail-2 was 4,122 Taka followed by Karail-1 was 3,386

Taka with the lowest expenditure in Kamrangirchar-1 was 3,018 Taka only. Among the units

Kamrangirchar-1 and Kamrangirchar-2 evidenced no significance difference, but all others

units were significance difference observed in monthly household expenditure (table 9 B).

Table 9 C Household mean expenditure by item and by years

Implementation year Project unit

Y-1 Y-2 Y-3 KA-1 KC-1 KC -2 KC -3 KA-2 All
Food items 1817 2094 1848 1956 1901 1813 1841 2327 1968
House rent 708 909 886 784 846 894 718 1096 867
Other 599 493 607 679 328 346 581 808 548
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 42

Major portion of expenditure (58.17% of total expenditure) spent for food item, mean

1,968 Taka per household. Study households have to spend 25.63% of total expenditure

(mean 867 Taka) as house rent for single living room.

Significant heterogeneity identified on mean expenditure of house rent by units

(F=567.15, p<0.001), implementation years (F=318.09, p<0.001). Highest mean expenditure

on house rent of Karail-2 was 1096 Taka with the lowest expenditure in Kamrangirchar-3

was 718 Taka. When compared by project implementation years it was also highest for year-

2, mean 2,094 Taka and lowest for year-1 was 1,817 Taka per month.

The mean expenditure on food varied significantly by units (F=160.63, p<0.001), head of

households (t=30.50, p<0.001), number of adults (F=930.31, p<0.001), number of earner

(F=357.48, p<0.001).

4.7 Food intake status

The respondents were asked about the number of months they experienced food deficit in a

year. The daily food intake status was categorized as ‘one meal’, ‘two meals’, ‘three meals

with some difficulty’ and ‘three meals without any difficulty’.

Food intake status revealed that 30.09% households depended on one meal per day on an

average 2.98 months in a year, 38.47% household managed two meals per day on an average

7.39 months, 15.75% reported that they were avail three meal per day with some difficulty on

an average 2.99 months and 15.68% household managed three meals in a day without any

difficulty on an average 3.23 months in a year (table 10).

Table 10 Household daily food intake status by head of household

Three meal Three meal no

Meal per day One meal Two meal difficulty difficulty
Head of % of Mean % of Mean % of Mean % of Mean
household household month household month household month household month
Male 29.64 2.85 38.65 7.49 15.79 2.99 15.93 3.31
Female 30.91 3.21 38.16 7.20 15.69 2.99 15.23 3.07
Both 30.09 2.98 38.47 7.39 15.75 2.99 15.68 3.23
Overall (%) 76.53 97.84 40.06 39.87
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 43

Overall 97.84% households took two meals per day at least any month in a year. Data

revealed that from six months to twelve months in a year most of the households depended on

two meals per day.

Figure 5 shows the number of months the households (%) enjoyed food availability

by food intake category i.e., one meal per day, two meals, three meals with some difficulty

and three meals per day. For example, if we consider the three months status, 47% HHs took

one meal, 15% HHs took two meals, 25% HHs took three meals with some difficulty and

13% HHs took three meals per day.

100 No month
90
Figure 4 A Food intake status 89 86
One month
80 Two months
70 64 Three months
60 Four months
47 Five months
50
40 Six months
30 25 Seven months
15 17 Eight months
20 13 13
9
10 4 5 4 4 Nine months
3 2
0 Ten months
One meal Two meals Three meals with Three meals Eleven months
difficulty Twelve months

Figure 5 B shows the overall percentage of household intake food per day over the months in

a year.
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 44

25.0
Figure 4 B Overall meals per day
20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven Twelve
No. of months
One meal Two meals Three meals with difficulty Three meals

Fish, in the fresh or dry form was the main source of animal protein, 95.1% household

consumed fish on an average 5.28 days per month. Only 16.5% household consumed meat,

76.9% household consumed egg, 12.4% household consumed milk on an average 1.24 days,

2.61 days, 1.88 days per month respectively. Considering all the above food items, 96.5%

household consumed at least one item with mean 7.74 days per month (table 11).

Table 11 Source of animal protein

Category of food % Mean days

Fish 95.1 5.28
Meat 16.5 1.24
Egg 76.9 2.61
Milk 12.4 1.88
All 96.5 7.74

4.8 Gender

Assets belongs to women

Among the urban extreme poor only 0.59% women reported that they owned any land or

home herself, 0.08.% had productive asset, 0.10% household women had livestock, 0.37%

had poultry and 0.14% women owned sewing machine. Only 15.99% household women
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 45

owned other household asset, 48.27% owned jewelery and 2.05% had other asset but only

0.14% had cash savings.

Table 12 A Ownership of assets by women of the household

Name of assets Percentage of

household
Land/home 0.59
Productive asset 0.08
Livestock 0.10
Poultry 0.37
Sewing machine 0.14
Other household asset 15.99
Jewelery 48.27
Cash savings 0.14
Others 2.05

Income status of women

Income status of women of the household revealed that 67.8 % households were contributed

by female income and 32.2% household had no female income as well. Among the female

income households 73.5% women had full control over their income, 21.4% had partial

control and 5.1% had no control over their income accordingly.

Figure 5 Income and control over income of women

No control
No 32.2% 5%
Partial control
21%

Full control
74%
Yes 67.8%
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 46

Women mobility

Women had to move frequently for shopping, hospital, relatives’ house, social function, work

place. Only 0.51% household women reported that they never went for shopping, 3.19%

never went to hospital any way, 60.94% women never went to upazila. Majority of the

household women (56.13%) had to go for shopping frequently.

Table 12 B Frequency of mobility of the household women at different places

Frequency More than Once or

Not at Once in a once in a more in Not No
Places all month month a year applicable response
Shopping 0.51 24.25 56.13 19.07 0.02 0.01
Hospital 3.19 17.89 14.77 62.81 1.32 0.01
Relatives 8.48 25.89 14.70 48.84 1.96 0.13
Union parishad 41.42 7.41 6.83 30.11 13.94 0.29
Upazila 60.94 8.32 6.36 3.02 20.67 0.69
Nearby village 21.54 19.79 37.92 18.44 2.28 0.04
Social function 7.19 22.70 17.62 48.67 3.55 0.28
Work 11.33 18.19 52.63 17.44 0.18 0.24

Women decision making

Women were actively participated in the decision making process at the household level.

Only 3.47% household women reported that they had no decision making power for daily

household activity, but 54.62% had moderate and 41.86% had high decision. For the income

generating activity 96.99% household women reported that their decision level were

moderate, but maximum of the household women had moderate or high level decision in case

of selling/purchasing, having child, schooling kids and marriage of the children.

Table 12 C Women decision making level at different activity

Daily Income Selling / Having

Decision level activity purchasing child Schooling Marriage Social
Not at all 3.47 2.99 0.75 1.30 0.77 0.83 0.59
Moderate decision 54.62 96.99 59.12 59.96 53.87 56.62 65.87
High decision 41.86 0.00 40.03 38.08 45.13 42.31 33.52
Not applicable 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.57 0.23 0.19 0.00
No response 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 47

Violence against the women

Household women asked regarding the violence against women by husband, relatives of

husband, employer and or others. Data revealed that high occurrence of violence against

women by the husband 1.67%, by the relatives of the husband 0.56%, by the employer 0.29%

and by the others were 0.06% including physical and other torture. Moderate violence was

occurring by husband reported 45.33% and seldom violence was occurring by husband

reported 43.61% of the household women. Women faced violence at residence by husband

and relatives of husband and workplace by employer (especially for the domestic workers).

Table 12 D Level of violence against women by different person

Torture by Torture by relative Torture by Torture
Level of violence husband of husband employer by others
Not at all 5.40 46.11 36.20 48.10
Seldom 43.61 34.55 25.31 24.19
Moderately occur 45.33 10.61 11.35 12.44
High occurrence 1.67 0.56 0.29 0.06
Not applicable 2.38 4.24 22.29 10.48
No response 1.59 3.94 4.50 4.72

A number of households mentioned a social problem – husbands leave the wives and kids

and got another marriage. In absence of main or only earner, the household became

vulnerable. A very low family tie and social bondage in the urban slum the social problem

like separation is increasing and a percentage of households fall in the poverty trap.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

There is some evidence to suggest that severe and repeated community-wide shocks

contribute to poverty traps in certain areas of the country. The recent steep rise in rice prices,

while benefiting a relatively small group of (larger) farmers, has had an especially severe

impact on the poorest households. The frequency and severity of such large shocks calls for

safety nets programs to play a critical role. Even there are more than eighty safety nets and
HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 48

welfare schemes of government do not cover the urban extreme poor without a very few like

OMS (open market sale). Considering the multidimensional context of urban extreme poor

‘social protection’ would be the effective way for the sustainable poverty reduction strategy.

Urban extreme poverty reduction strategy may address sheltering and social crisis (like

separation/divorce, polygamy) under social protection program for sustainability.

Specific areas for policy focus which are elaborated in the report include

measures to (i) promote growth by sustaining increases in labor productivity and job creation

in manufacturing and services; (ii) expand opportunities in lagging regions by improving

connectivity with growth poles and investing in human capital; (iii) facilitate migration from

poor areas given the poverty-reducing impact of remittances; (iv) stimulate women’s

participation in the labor force (v) sustain Bangladesh's past successes in reducing fertility;

(vi) improve poor households access to and quality of education, health and nutrition

services; (vii) strengthen the coordination, targeting and coverage of safety net programs.

Economic growth in Bangladesh has been driven primarily by factor

accumulation – of both labor and capital With public investment remaining almost

unchanged as a share of GDP, private investment has enabled capital accumulation, which

has in turn improved labor productivity, raising real wages and household incomes (WB-

2008).

Table 13 Recommended graduation criteria for urban extreme poor

Sl. Essential Criteria

1 Income per month per household- BDT 7,500 or above
2 Having 3 full meals per day
3 HH have some assets, working capital or savings at least equivalent to 3
months’ income (22,500 BDT)
Supplementary Criteria
4 Different sources of income (in terms of person and or sources)
5 Access to financial institutions
6 Access to health, safe water and sanitary latrine facilities
 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 49

Data quality control Data quality is a key element to the overall value of decisions

making using the database as an information tool. Almost everyone who is involved in

databases is aware that there are errors present in their data. These can arise from a number of

different factors including invalid data collection and entry e.g. human error, default values

not being appropriate for a given field that could lead to reports being misleading to the

interpreter. The origins of such errors are easy to understand, it is the removal and prevention

of such errors that are hard to eliminate.

Barriers to data use

 Poor data quality

 Insufficient skills to analyze, interpret and use data

 Insufficient institutional support for data collection and use

 Insufficient access to data

 Inadequate data validation

 Poor data feedback mechanisms

 Poor linkages between data and planning / inadequate data review systems

 Insufficient understanding of how data can improve project

 Poor attitudes (low motivation) toward using data

 Inadequate IT support to facilitate data use

 Poor formatting and presentation of data to stakeholders and decision makers

 Clear links between every data point and its relative value in decision making not made as

data systems are developed

 Lack of standardized and harmonized systems for data collection and reporting

 Inability to retain data users in the indicator development process

 Little interaction between data users and data producers

 Lack of incentive for data informed decision making

 HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 50

 Decisions are based on authority – in hierarchical contexts, only decisions that are only

backed up by senior managers will be implemented

 Decision maker’s unwillingness to use data because of the subsequent actions s/he may be

called to execute

Lack of knowledge during pre-service training on the importance of good quality data

thus quality data is not collected at the point of service, data quality assessment tools are not

customized to settings of the organization, individuals in data collection roles and have not

been trained for this function, lack of standard operating procedures for data management.

Staff is asked to handle tasks that they are not trained for. This leads to frustration with data

collection and use activities. Lack of feedback to staff on M&E findings feeds poor attitudes

as they don’t see the usefulness of collecting data nor do they see the results of their daily

efforts. Insufficient M&E infrastructure to provide basic programmatic information.

Poor understanding of the value of data in decision making for project thus it is not

prioritized, assumption that if data is available it will be used – time, resources, infrastructure

and other supports are not dedicated to these activities. Low recognition that data informed

decision making will lead to more sustainable and targeted projects.

Use of household profile (baseline) data Household profile is treated as baseline

data. Establishing a baseline is the first step (or one of the first steps) in most problem solving

(variation reduction) strategies (Steiner and MacKay). The purposes of the baseline data are

to determine current indicator levels before intervention, to prepare the program objectives and to

evaluate the progress/accomplishment of the additional objectives, to establish the target

level/objectives of the project/program or to provide base values for the chosen indicators, to provide

a comparison for assessing program impact, to draw conclusions that can be applied generally

to the target group.

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 51

Baseline data are used to establish pre-exposure conditions and estimate the change

over time, it is an early element in the monitoring and evaluation plan and uses the logframe

structure to systematically assess the circumstances in which the activity commences. It

provides the basis for subsequent assessment of how efficiently the activity is being

implemented and the eventual results achieved. Subsequent monitoring of activity progress

also gathers and analyses data using the logframe and will be consistent with, but not repeat,

the baseline study. Mid-term reviews, project completion reports and other evaluations will

judge progress largely based on comparisons with the information from the baseline study.

If baseline information will not be used to improve the quality of activity

implementation or to measure development results, then the reason for collecting the data

should be seriously questioned. A baseline study should take place as soon as practicable

after an activity begins. A study is better conducted once the main implementing agents have

a reasonable understanding of the context of the activity. This will enable thorough planning,

and time to gain the commitment and involvement of community (CBO).

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 52

REFERENCES

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (2011). Population and Housing Census 2011.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (2011). Population & Housing Census 2011-

Preliminary Results.

Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (2010). Report of the Household Income &

Expenditure Survey (HIES).

Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2008). The Chronic Poverty Report 2008-9: Escaping

Poverty Traps. Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre (CPRC).

de Haan, A. (1999). Livelihoods and Poverty: the Role of Migration. A Critical Review of the

Migration Literature. Journal of Development Studies. Volume 36 Issue 2: 1-47.

de Haan, A.(2000). Migrants, Livelihoods, and Rights: The Relevance of Migration in

Development Policies. Social Development Working Paper 4. U.K. Department for

International Development.

DSK (2009). Project memorandum.

Harper, C., Alder, H. & Pereznieto, P. (2011). Escaping Poverty Traps – Children and

Chronic Poverty. Child Poverty Insights Social and Economic Policy. UNICEF Policy

and Practice.

Satterthwaite, D. (2002). Reducing Urban Poverty; Some Lessons from Experience.

University of Birmingham, Birmingham.

Shiree (2009).Socio-Economic & Nutrition Survey Final Report

Shiree (2010). Socio-Economic & Nutrition Baseline Survey Final Report

Shiree (2010). Socio-Economic Quarterly Survey Final Report

Sobhan, R. (2010). Challenging the Injustice of Poverty: agendas for inclusive development

in South Asia. SAGE Publications India Ltd.

HOUSEHOLD PROFILE 53

Steiner, S.H. and MacKay, R.J. (2009). Using Baseline Data in Problem Solving. Business

and Industrial Statistics Research Group. Dept. of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences.

Canada.

World Bank (2008). Poverty Assessment for Bangladesh. Bangladesh Development Series.

Paper No. 26

World Development (2003). Volume 31 Number 3. (Special issue – Chronic Poverty and

Development Policy)