4.1. Hajapar NGO Agency Driven Approach

They can also contribute their money, this is we called owner-driven and also there is the kind of NGO or contractor driven approach that can be 2 types; one is product-centric approach and people-centric approach. This product-centric approach where it is done by the NGO itself, it is mainly NGO driven or agency driven. People's-centric approach is more like a collaboration of partnership between people and the private agencies or NGO’s.

This chunk outlines two main approaches to agency-driven strategies. The first approach is owner-driven, where individuals contribute financially to projects. The second approach includes NGO or contractor-driven methodologies, which are further divided into two types: product-centric and people-centric. In a product-centric approach, the NGO independently handles the project, whereas in a people-centric approach, the NGO collaborates with the community or private agencies for more integrated involvement.

Think of building a community garden. In an owner-driven approach, each member of the community might contribute money or resources to create the garden themselves. In contrast, in a product-centric approach, a local NGO might take charge of building the garden entirely, while in a people-centric approach, the NGO works alongside community members, ensuring their needs and preferences are included in the garden's design and function.

So, we have total 3 categories of models; 1, 2 and 3. So we can see clearly here also that there is one package from package number 2, there is owner-driven. And from package number 1, there are 2 that are NGO driven and community NGO partnership approach. What they have done in Gujarat; post-disaster interventions, they Rs.1 lakh was made to the next of kin of each of the deceased person, Rs.1250 rupees per family was given as the household kits was to provided and in case of cattle death, different amount of money was given like for goat 150, for bull 750 rupees, for cow 2500 like that.

This segment discusses the categorization of models used in post-disaster interventions, emphasizing three main models: owner-driven, NGO-driven, and community partnership approaches. In the aftermath of a disaster in Gujarat, financial aids were disbursed, including Rs. 1 lakh to families of deceased individuals, Rs. 1250 for household kits for each family, and compensation for livestock losses based on the type of cattle.

Consider a village facing a natural disaster where some people lost their loved ones and their homes. The NGO sets up a system where families receive financial help based on their losses. For instance, just like insurance, if someone loses a cow, they are compensated for the livestock loss. The approach is tailored to ensure that everyone impacted gets the necessary support to begin rebuilding their lives.

Shelter reconstruction; some of the reports here; now, progress of housing reconstructions in Kutch, number of total destroyed houses was 1 lakh 56,000 little more than that in Kutch area, and that was planned by the NGO was around 50,000 among them, the under-construction house right now that time 2003 was little more than 6000, completed almost 40,000 thousand little less than that. Self-construction that is owner-driven basically is around 96,000 to 97,000, and the total houses constructed were 1 lakh 35,000 thousand that time.

This chunk reports on the shelter reconstruction efforts following a disaster in the Kutch area. Initially, around 156,000 houses were destroyed, with the NGO planning to construct about 50,000. By 2003, more than 6,000 were under construction, and approximately 40,000 were completed. Alternatively, owner-driven construction resulted in about 96,000 houses being built by the owners themselves, leading to a total of around 135,000 houses constructed at that time.

Imagine after a significant earthquake, an entire neighborhood needs rebuilding. An NGO sets a goal to build a certain number of homes, while many families opt to rebuild their houses using their own resources. If the NGO aims for a specific target like '50 houses,' and several families also put in the effort and rebuild their homes, it emphasizes a collaborative effort between the community members and the organized relief efforts.

Now, what was the variation in the rooms in case of new houses, is it increased, decreased, remain same? When NGO constructed, increase is around 20%, what they had before they received more built-up area, or rooms that is 20%, most of the cases is same but also significantly 27% compared to 20% increase that decrease, whereas in case of owner-driven, it did not increase much also, did not decrease much, it remains most of the cases the same, the total area. Use of reconstruction house; are they really using these houses according to a Abhiyan survey in 2003, NGO houses are almost also very significantly people are using, owner-driven of course but NGO-driven also some people are not using around 20%.

This section looks at the outcomes of new housing built by NGOs versus owner-driven constructions, particularly focusing on the size and satisfaction of these homes. The survey noted that homes built by NGOs typically had about a 20% increase in built-up area. Most families however remained with the same total area in owner-driven homes. Additionally, a survey (Abhiyan 2003) indicated that while many houses were being used, approximately 20% of the NGO-constructed houses were not occupied by families.

Consider newly built homes after a disaster. NGOs often build larger homes that provide extra room for growing families. However, if a small number of these houses are built but not lived in, it might be because families have either moved away or found alternative living arrangements. It's like building a school in a location where families have already relocated for jobs; it becomes underutilized despite being well-constructed.

--