EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  1. Coverage

    1. The study was awarded by Ministry of Rural Development to ORG Centre for Social Research as nodal agency for Quick Evaluation of TRYSEM Programme. To carry out the fieldwork 33 field agencies were contracted by the Ministry.

    2. The survey covered 6686 beneficiaries of TRYSEM. The statewise distribution of beneficiaries contacted during the survey is given in Annex. for Chapter III, Table 3.1.

    3. Of the total beneficiaries covered, around 54 percent were women, which is more than the prescribed norm that 40 percent of the TRYSEM beneficiaries should be women.

    4. Castewise distribution shows that 32 percent of the total beneficiaries were Scheduled Castes and 21 percent Scheduled Tribes, which is as per the norms of the programme (that 50% beneficiaries should be SC or ST).

  1. Awareness

    1. The survey revealed that 76 percent of the total non-beneficiaries were aware of TRYSEM, but not many were aware of the various components of the programme. However, among the beneficiaries, around 60 percent were made aware about TRYSEM by respective Panchayat or relatives.

    2. Programme is primarily meant for people living below the poverty line (BPL). Hence during the survey, beneficiary's awareness regarding BPL list was assessed. The survey revealed, that nearly one-fifth of the beneficiaries were not aware of the BPL list.

     

     

  2. Profile of the Beneficiaries

    1. The study revealed that right segment has been targetted for imparting training under TRYSEM. This has been supported by the fact that more than 85 percent of the sample beneficiaries dwell in either kutcha or semi-pucca structure. Around 70 percent of them were reported to be from BPL category. There has not been any significant change in the economic status of the beneficiaries, as the percentage shift of beneficiaries after TRYSEM training, from BPL to non-BPL category is negligible (69.6% prior to TRYSEM as against 69.3% currently).

    2. Around 60 percent of the beneficiary households had more than one earning member.

    3. More than half of the beneficiaries reported that they were unemployed. This shows that, the impact of the programme has not been very significant.

    4. The age group classification of beneficiaries shows that more than two-thirds of the beneficiaries trained, were in the age group of 18 to 29 years.

  3. Programme Details

    1. Around half of the beneficiaries were reportedly selected by block officials based on BPL list, whereas another one-fourth were selected directly by the Panchayat. However, over 30 percent of the beneficiaries, reportedly belong to non-BPL category, which clearly shows that selection norms were not adhered to.

    2. Nearly four-fifths of the total beneficiaries expressed their satisfaction about the training received. Over four-fifths of the beneficiaries were satisfied with the stipend amount provided during training. Around two-thirds of the total beneficiaries received more than Rs.1000, as stipend.

    3. Among the total employed beneficiaries only half reported to have got employment through skills acquired during training.

    4. Around half the beneficiaries got employment after six months of their training. Nearly 60 percent of the employed beneficiaries reported that the Panchayat assisted them in identifying potential jobs.

    5. Among those, who were self-employed, over one-fourth received subsidy or rebate for starting self-employment activity. Nearly half of the self-employed beneficiaries incurred an amount of Rs.5,000 to start their activities.

    6. Nearly 60 percent of the self-employed beneficiaries reported that there was demand for their goods/services in the market. Over one-third of the self-employed beneficiaries depended on their own village to market their goods/services, whereas nearly a tenth reported to be marketing their foods/services outside their village but, within the district.

    7. Nearly 30 percent of the self-employed beneficiaries had availed capital loan and same percentage of beneficiaries got improved tool kits. Nearly one-fourth got help from panchayat and / or block officials in marketing their products.

    8. Among the unemployed beneficiaries, nearly 60 percent desired to go for self-employment after training.

    9. Over one-fourth of the unemployed beneficiaries, reportedly did not make any effort for employment. However, over one-third reported to have approached block/district functionaries for employment, whereas another one-fourth approached sarpanch for the same.

5.0 Strengths and Weakness of the Programme

    1. The programme has been planned to streamline the process of generating an alternate source of (non-farm) income by providing opportunities for self-employment and thus curbing unemployment among the rural youth. The process of identification of area specific trades was one of the strengths of the programme. The trainers, who were in some cases identified from the local community, reportedly made training ambience friendly for the trainees.

    2. TRYSEM has been quick to recognize that women have a high potential to take up skilled based self-employment activities and it is creditworthy to note that at the national level the women beneficiaries are higher than the reservation norms for women. The programme definitely contributes to the process of women's empowerment.

    3. 28 percent of the TRYSEM trainees were illiterate, which is positive in a sense, that this skill based training programme also provides a channel for providing employment opportunities to the illiterate population.

    4. TRYSEM, in most of the cases, has come out as a one-time training intervention. There is hardly any monitoring of the effectiveness of the training. The programme should have a component of on-the-job-training where the trainees should be attached to some industry/unit where similar job is being carried out.

    5. Feasibility of trade selection is often not done with care. Beneficiaries feel that the market demands and constraints of horizontal linkages is not given due consideration.

    6. The curriculum does not lay much emphasis on development of entrepreneurship and aspects of marketing linkages.

    7. The programme does not have uniformity in terms of financial and credit support to the trainees and in the provision of toolkits.

    8. Lack of awareness about the programme and imperfect outreach of government machinery to identify the deserving candidates often exclude the genuine recipients.

    9. The quota for physically handicapped (3%) has been found to be a difficult one to fulfil by functionaries in most of the state/UTs.

    10. Monitoring of the programme is mostly an exercise on paper. In most of the cases it takes place only in the form of any inquiry in response to a complaint.

  1. Impact of the Programme

    1. The employed beneficiaries reported that, their average annual income increased by Rs.3000 after having received training under the programme.

    2. There was no significant increase either in ownership of land or other assets after training.

  2. Non-Beneficiaries Profile

    1. A total of 1769 non-beneficiaries were covered under the study, out of which just over one-third were women.

    2. Caste distribution shows that nearly 55 percent of the total beneficiaries belong to scheduled caste category.

    3. Among the total non-beneficiaries sampled, nearly one-fourth were illiterate.

    4. Over 85 percent of the total non-beneficiaries reportedly lived in either kutcha or semi-pucca dwellings.

    5. Around 50 percent of the non-beneficiary households reported more than one earning member in their households. However, around two-thirds of the total households reported single economic activity in which their household members are engaged.

    6. Over four-fifths of the total non-beneficiaries were found to be aware of BPL list.

    7. Over four-fifths of the total non-beneficiaries were willing to take training under TRYSEM.

  3. Conclusion

    1. Most of the states/UTs have not been able to achieve their physical targets in terms of the number of youth to be trained.

    2. A look into the individual performance of all the states/UTs reveals that in the reference period of three years, namely 1996 to 1999, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Gujarat and Haryaa are among the top performers while Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Maharashtra, Jammu & Kashmir and Bihar performed badly. This was done by taking 6 performance indicators into account. These were:

    1. The reservation targets for women and SC/ST categories have been addressed during implementation but the reservation quota for handicapped (3%) has totally been neglected.

    2. The utility of the training progrmme can be measured by looking at the increase in employment level among the beneficiaries after TRYSEM. This percentage has been observed to be around 20. Out of this around 15 percent started their own employment ventures.

    3. Main source of financing self-employment activities has been private funds. Access to bank loans has been very limited. Among the beneficiaries who started self-employment activities only 26 percent reported having received any subsidy / rebate / concession.

    4. More than 80 percent of the TRYSEM beneficiaries were satisfied with the quality of training imparted and stipend offered to them during training. But hardly half of them reported of converting the acquired skill into self or wage employment.