People on the Move How Impactful is the LEaD model in influencing the social position of poorest of the poor ?

2. People on the MoveHow Impactful is the LEaD model in influencing the social position of poorest of the poor ? Susil H.Liyanarachchi International symposium on Community Governance Practices 4-6 June 2013 Colombo

3. Social Position • Refers to the way societies self-organize into hierarchical structures • A socially constructed phenomena • A variety of other terms are used interchangeably (socio-economic status, social stratification, social hierarchy, social status) • Inquiry is influenced by its implications • Negative consequences • Interest in measuring

4. Social Position Operationally – indicates access to collectively desired resources – income, power, social networks, health care, opportunities

5. Social Position – Measures • Objective social position – occupation, education, income, wealth • Subjective social Position – Individual perceptions within a hierarchy • Both view SP as constant determinants • Do not view one’s position in a changing environment having potential to change • Influence of the evolving context, opportunities- externally created, individual attributes

6. Objective To assess if any, the outcomes of development interventions of a six year project on Local Empowerment and Development (LEaD) conducted by CARE International Sri Lanka In Contributing to social mobility – changes in social position of most marginalized groups in the District of Hambantota through the community structures and processes that the project introduced

7. Research Questions • What were the outcomes of LEaD Project that contributed making changes to the social position of the most marginalized ? • Measured by subjective perceptions of the most marginalized • key informants of the project – VOU leaders • What were the main contributory factors for the observed changes ? • Internal • External • How the institutional structures created and processes introduced by LEaD facilitated the upward movement of the most marginalized ?

8. processes and structures Facilitated by CARE Structures Process National Plans National Level National Planning Ministry District Development Plan District Advisory Committee District Level DSD Progress Monitoring Committee Divisional Development Plan Divisional Level Rural Coordinating Committee GN Level (group of 3 villages) GN Development Plan Village Development Plan Village Operation Unit Villages HH HH HH HH HH HH= Households (17,000 families)

9. Voice and Influence National Level National Agencies District Level District Advisory Committee District Development Plans Divisional Level Rural Coordination Committee GN Development Plans Village Operating Units Village Development Plans Village/ Community Level HH HH HH HH

10. Impact Group and Entry Points for Empowerment – Social Position • Work with the whole community with special focus on Most Marginalized Groups selected based on certain criteria ( for a special assistance program) • Entry points for empowerment – social position • Space for participation and voice through governance structures and processes • A Grant component to ensure economic security • Comprehensive capacity building program including networking, peer to peer learning, and linkage building with external agencies

11. Sampling • Three divisional secretariat divisions in Hambantota District • Covered 18 villages in 17 GN divisions • Villages were selected through stratified randomized sampling • Purposive sample out of the most marginalized groups that the Project identified & included (100) • Purposive sample for data collection • Achievers - 27 (70 percent women) • Non-achievers - 02 • Stagnant - 06

12. Methods – Data Collection • Household Interviews • Individual Case studies • Social ladder – to measure subjective social status ( MacArthur scale of subjective social status) • A 10 rung ladder used to position respondents socioeconomically relative to others in the community • Lower the rung the lower the perceived social status • Before the project and after the project • Conducted on individual basis • Triangulated using baseline and key informants

13. Results - Before the project

14. Results Perceptions of achievers • In general Subjective Measures correspond with Objective Measures • Cultural and Context specific factors also emerged as influencing one’s social position • Values, honesty, leadership, entrepreneurship, hard work, commitment, integrity and cohesiveness of the family unit

15. Results Social Ladder – before the project • Around 90 percent placed them on the 2nd and 3rd rung of the ladder – before the project • Only 2 persons placed themselves on the 7th rung before the project • Social, economic and psychological factors made the individuals perceive their position

16. Results Determinants of subjective position Before the project • A mixture of objective social measures and some that are context specific • Income and assets base, occupation, level of education, leadership position in village societies • Vulnerability, lack of voice/power, discriminatory practices in resources allocation, housing condition, low self –esteem, low social recognition, disability ,cast

17. Results – Characteristics of Households before the project • Occupation – Casual day laborers and gender based discrimination in wages . “We both men and women start working at the same time and finish the work at the same time and do the same quantity of work. But why they are paid Rs.1,000 for men and we women are paid Rs.800 per day?” Chandralatha, women day laborer, sooriyawewa • Assets – poor housing condition and land uncultivated • Education – Low levels of education

18. Results – Characteristics of Households before contd.

19. Results – Characteristics of Households before contd. • Social relations – majority did not have memberships in village societies Restricted to few families they worked for “ We were confined to the household work and were discriminated by others due to our occupation. No one in upper casts in the village did not even the cross the boundary, but purchase clay pots while waiting outside.” Latha. A woman engaged in pottery. Hambantota.

20. Results – Characteristics of Households before contd. • Vulnerability – All were highly vulnerable to various shocks /Natural disasters &Health shocks “My elder brother was disappeared during the JVP insurrection. Exactly one year after the incident my younger sister committed suicide due to the shock since they were very close to each other and she could not bear up the loss. In grade 12, I became mentally ill, I see blood everywhere even on the plate that I eat, and that continued 9 years. All of our assets were spent on my ill health and my parents were day laborers. At the end we lost everything and I was socially stigmatized and discriminated”. Priyani, now the owner of three small businesses and holds key positions in a number of village level societies. Pannegamuwa.

21. Results After 5 years

22. Results Social Ladder – after More than 90 percent placed them around the 7th and 8th rung after the project ( compare to 90 percent on the 2nd and 3rd rung before the project)

23. Results Impact of the Entry Points • Space for participation and voice through governance structures and processes • A Grant component to ensure economic security • Comprehensive capacity building program including networking, peer to peer learning, and linkage building with external agencies

24. Results Characteristics of individual achievers and Households after the project Results • Almost all the achievers have used the grant component exclusively for improving their livelihoods – Starting their own small ventures • Almost all the achievers consciously diversified their livelihoods and involved in at least 2 income generation activities – reinvesting the profits. • Most of them have invested in housing incrementally . Key Finding - is that individual initiatives, determination and commitments of the achievers to capitalize the external opportunities offered have contributed their upward mobility. Was that sufficient ?

25. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes • Almost all the achievers mentioned that sustainability of their individual achievements are conditional upon their participation in community structures and process. Why ?

26. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes • VOUs at village level and RCCs at GN level facilitated linking the village communities with local and regional authorities providing space for the most marginalized to voice their needs and aspirations and to participate in decision making processes • VOUs are integrated forums of village communities where the leaders of different interest groups come together and make decisions for mutual benefit

27. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes • A public space to demonstrate their character and achievements in order to gain wider social recognition - “ This is an insurance against discriminatory practices and attitudes” . Soma from Aluthwewa. • Community structures (VOUs) are important means for networking and access to external opportunities “I have become the best mushroom producer in this DS division due to the VOU network. ” Sriya, from panvila, Secretary VOU

28. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes contd. • VOU/RCC is a forum where the most marginalized groups to have their voice and claim their rights and entitlements through their representation “ We brought two important issues to the notice of policy makers at higher levels through the VOUs and RCCs: 1) Wage discrimination for women 2) land titles and allocation” . Hema, VOU committee member from Aluthwewa.

29. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes contd. • VOUs are representative community structures that bring external resources to implement development interventions that benefit the wider community. “ We brought 15 million rupees for various development projects in for three villages in this GN. And were monitored by us.” Karuna, president RCC”, Katuwewa

30. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes contd. • VOUs were instrumental in bringing the grassroots voices to the national level through media “I accompanied this elderly woman to the television program to tell the plight of vulnerability of the elderly.” I am going to participate in the next one to tell how I built my business around mushrooms.” Karuna, small entrepreneur Wilgoda

31. ResultsSpace for Participation and voice through governance structures and processes contd. • VOUs through its innovative approach changed the existing community relationships and the traditional power structures, which are at time quite discriminatory

32. Conclusions • The VOU and RCC process and its effects transformed the traditional receiving mechanisms at the community level which are passive, discriminatory and in most cases based on clientelism & Patronage (Eg. Tsunami- motor boat distribution) • This transformation was an enabling factor for the most marginalized groups to enhance their social position and ensure its growth and sustainability

33. Conventional Receiving and Delivery Mechanism Receiving Mechanisms Delivery mechanisms

34. Transformational Changes in the wider community influenced by the VOUs and RCCs Participatory governance Representation Interaction Dialogue, negotiation Social Inclusion and equity Gender parity Delivery mechanisms Receiving mechanisms Products Transparency and accountability Support extended by the external agencies

35. Conclusions contd. Community structures and processes facilitated • Individual effort supported by the grant component acted as a catalyst to change the social position of the most marginalized groups and to maximize the opportunities provided by CARE and other agencies • knowledge provided/gained – Training, skills development and exchange visits used for improving the livelihoods choices of the achievers

36. Recommendations • Analysis of the local context is critical to understand various dynamics at the community level and for identifying various entry points for empowerment of the marginalized • Representative structures at the community level that embrace the diversity and good governance practices is instrumental in contributing to the local economy, poverty reduction and social equity • It is important to have effective linkages between the community structures and local government agencies for effective service delivery, planning, and ensure transparency and accountability

37. Thank you