2.4. Participation of NGOs

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.

In this chunk, two main approaches that NGOs can take in their involvement are discussed. The owner-driven approach allows individuals to contribute and control their resources. In contrast, the product-centric approach is where the NGO directly manages the project, whereas the people-centric approach emphasizes collaboration between the community and NGOs or private sectors. Essentially, NGOs can either carry out initiatives independently or involve the community in the process.

Consider a community garden as an analogy. In an owner-driven approach, individual community members might contribute different plants and tools, deciding amongst themselves how to care for the garden. In a product-centric approach, the NGO might independently manage the garden, choosing what to plant and how to maintain it. Meanwhile, in a people-centric approach, the NGO works alongside community members, making decisions together on what to grow based on community needs and preferences.

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 chunk describes how NGOs and government initiatives in Gujarat provided financial assistance after a disaster. Each family that lost a member received a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. Additionally, Rs.1250 was provided to each family for basic household necessities. In cases of livestock death, monetary compensation varied based on the type of animal, highlighting the diversity in support based on individual circumstances.

Imagine a community hit hard by a natural disaster, where families not only grieve the loss of their loved ones but also face the destruction of their livelihoods. By receiving financial support for loss of life and immediate necessities like clothes and food, families can start to rebuild their lives. Just like insurance serves to cover losses in a family car accident, these compensations act as crucial aid during a community crisis, allowing for recovery and hope.

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.

In the aftermath of a disaster, a significant number of houses were destroyed, with 156,000 homes lost in Kutch. Out of this, NGOs planned to reconstruct around 50,000 homes. By 2003, over 6,000 homes were still under construction, while around 40,000 were completed. Furthermore, a noteworthy amount of self-construction efforts occurred, with around 96,000 to 97,000 houses built by the owners themselves, making a total of 135,000 houses that were successfully constructed.

Think of a neighborhood that has just gone through a devastating storm. Much like how community members band together to help one another rebuild their homes, NGOs and local owners can collaborate to replace what's lost. An NGO may organize resources to build homes for those who lost everything, while individual families might take it upon themselves to rebuild their houses, ensuring they have a place to call home once again.

So, total 102 NGOs; 100 NGO’s were involved working on reconstructions, 65 of them have been a part of “public-private partnership” program and 37 out of them is working as independently without much collaborations with the local people. 82% of work of the total requirement of housing by 2003 were reported as complete, 96,000 or little more than that was owner-driven or self-construction house under the category of G4 and G5 damaged category. And, another 31,000 was NGO reconstructed houses.

A total of 102 NGOs participated in the housing reconstruction efforts, with 100 of them actively engaged in the rebuilding process. Of these, 65 NGOs were part of a public-private partnership, allowing for more resources and expertise to be utilized effectively. However, 37 NGOs worked independently, lacking collaboration with local communities. As a result, by 2003, a significant 82% of the required housing was completed, achieved through both owner-driven initiatives and NGO efforts.

Think of a company that partners with various departments to complete a large project. In this case, some NGOs worked together (much like cooperating departments) to pool their resources and knowledge to build homes effectively, while others chose to work on their own. However, by bringing many players into the game, the overall objective of providing housing was accomplished, benefitting the larger community.

Now, what was the variation in the rooms in case of new houses, is it increased, decreased, remained 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.

This segment discusses the changes in the size and quality of new houses. For houses built by NGOs, there was a reported increase of about 20% in the overall built-up area and room count. In contrast, houses constructed through owner-driven methods did not see significant changes, with many remaining comparable to the pre-disaster conditions. This indicates that while NGO involvement can enhance living conditions, self-construction efforts may lack similar improvements.

Imagine a student upgrading from a regular textbook to a new and improved edition with additional chapters and exercises. If the NGO comes in and builds new houses with modern designs and more rooms, that's like getting an upgraded textbook. But if a student keeps using the old edition without any enhancements, it’s similar to people reconstructing their homes without any changes.

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%. Area of NGO constructed house, you can see this table mostly from 200 to 350, this is around 50%, around 60% of the total stock and this is from 350 to 450 or above, this is around 35% or little more than that.

In a survey conducted by the NGO 'Abhiyan' in 2003, it was found that a significant percentage of people were actively using the houses reconstructed by NGOs, although about 20% were not utilizing them. The survey highlighted that most houses constructed fell within specific size ranges, illustrating how the area of the constructed houses varied. This information is significant for understanding how effectively the new houses are meeting the needs of the residents.

Imagine a school providing desks for students. While most students use their new desks excitedly, some might prefer to bring their own chairs from home. Similarly, even if many families are happy and using the NGO-built homes, a few might still choose to stay with extended families or in their old homes depending on personal preference or circumstances.

What was the level of satisfaction according to the Abhiyan 2003 survey, an NGO called Abhiyan that NGO 80% people that those buildings were constructed by NGO 80% are satisfied and in case of owner-driven, 91% were satisfied.

The satisfaction ratings from the Abhiyan 2003 survey revealed that 80% of the individuals residing in NGO-constructed houses expressed satisfaction with their new homes. This was slightly lower compared to the satisfaction rate for owner-driven constructions, where 91% reported being satisfied. This indicates that while both approaches met the needs of the community, self-construction brought higher personal contentment among the families.

Consider two different types of meals served at a party. One is catered by a professional chef (NGO houses), and the other is a potluck where everyone contributed their favorite dish (owner-driven). Most attendees enjoy the chef's meal, but since everyone feels proud of their contributions in the potluck, they rate their experience even higher, showing personal investment tends to heighten satisfaction.

--