A study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and...

A STUDY ON THE STATUS OFFEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS

AND THEIR ACCESS TO ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

AMPARA DISTRICT

A STUDY ON THE STATUS OFFEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS

AND THEIR ACCESS TO ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

AMPARA DISTRICT

2015

The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not represent the views of FOKUS.

Published by:FOKUS WOMEN34 A, Sulaiman AvenueColombo 5Sri LankaTel/Fax: +94112055404Web: http://www.fokuskvinner.no

Cover Photo: Thilina Madiwala/FOKUS WOMEN

Printed and Published in 2015

All rights reserved. This material is copyright and not for resale, but may be reproduced by any method for teaching purposes. For copying in other circumstances for re-use in other publications or for translation, prior written permission must be obtained from the copyright owner.

Printed and bound in Sri Lanka by Wits Originals

iii

FOREWORDFOKUS WOMEN undertook this research study in 2014. The available literature on female heads of households indicated many gaps and there was a need to clarify the conceptual understanding of who a female head of the household (FHH) is. This common understanding among development actors and state institutions is crucial as a first step towards working on the issues of FHH.

500 women were interviewed from three divisions in the Ampara district. The interviewees were selected from five Grama Niladhari (GN) divisions from these Divisional Secretariat (DS) areas to ensure the representation of the major ethnic groups. The sample consisted of 250 women from the Tamil community, 150 Sinhalese, 50 Muslims, and 50 Kuravars (Gypsies). The data collection was conducted through individual interviews and six focus group discussions (FGDs ).

FOKUS WOMEN identified the need to work on issues of female heads of households (FHHs) at the end of Phase One of the FOKUS programme. There was also a need for systematic documentation of information on FHH who have been affected by the conflict in these areas. We hope the findings of this research study will contribute to the state’s policies on female heads of households and result in more streamlined interventions for these FHH who have been affected by the war.

FOKUS WOMEN would like to thank Ms. Vasuki Jeyasankar, Women’s Rights Activist and Gender Consultant, who carried out the research study and wrote the report. FOKUS WOMEN would also like to thank Ms. Kanthimathy Joy and the Women’s Development Centre, Akkaraipattu that undertook the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the research.

Shyamala GomezCountry Director FOKUS WOMEN

iv A Study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Ampara District

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author of the study would like to thank Sumithra Sellathamby

for assisting with the study, Ms. Kanthimathy Joy and the team

from Women’s Development Centre, women who participated in

the focus group discussions and interviews and Marilyn Weaver

for proof reading the document.

FoKUS Women v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword iiiAcknowledgements ivContents v

Chapter I 1Introduction 1

Chapter II 2Methodology 2

Chapter III 4Limitations of the Study 4

Demographic Information 4Basic Information of the FHHs 5Reasons for Becoming FHHs 5Dependents of FHHs 7

Chapter IV 8Findings and Analysis 8

The right to be free from poverty and the status of FHHs 8Livelihoods of FHHs and Family Income 8Poverty within FHHs 9Livelihood Support Provided for FHHs 10

Chapter V 11Status and Social Position of Women 11

Recognition as Head of Household 11Membership and Participation in Committees and Groups 11Access and Ownership: Land, House and Other Assets 13Land 13House 15

Chapter VI 16Government Schemes, Policies and Practices 16

Insufficient Support, Lack of Information and Transparency of Government Schemes

16

Loans 17Discriminatory Government Policies and Practices 18Knowledge on Government and Other Structures for Seeking Justice 19

vi A Study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Ampara District

Chapter VII 20Discriminatory Practices and Violence 20

Early Marriage 20Physical Security and Violence 21Health Issues 22

Chapter VIII 23Conclusion 23

Chapter IX 25Recommendations 25

Government Policies and Schemes: 25General Recommendations: 26

Annexure: 1 27Stories of Courage 27

Annexure: 2 29Questionnaire 29

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Traditional gendered roles of women have been changing noticeably during the past 3 decades due to the civil war, tsunami and various other reasons. One such major

change is the increasing number of female headed households (FHHs).

This is a study commissioned by FOKUS WOMEN with the objective to assess the status of FHHs and their access to economic, social and cultural rights with special focus on land and housing rights, access to public services, participation in public life and governance, prevalence of underage marriage, and physical security and violence. Women’s Development Centre (WDC) in Akkaraipattu functioned as the field partner in the research.

For the purpose of this study the definition of FHHs is adopted from the International Labour Organization (ILO) that ‘female-headed households are households where either no adult male is present, owing to divorce, separation, migration, non-marriage, or widowhood; or where the men, although present, do not contribute to the household income, because of illness or disability, alcoholism, and so on’1.

According to the Family Income and Expenditure Survey 2012/13, 1.1 million families out of 5.2 million families are FHHs in Sri Lanka. Further, the higher numbers of FHHs are registered in war affected districts, North and East.

This study is conducted in 3 Divisional Secretariat Divisions of Ampara district namely Lahugala, Akkaraipattu and Alayadivempu. Ampara district is located in the South of Eastern Province. The district constitutes almost all the different ethnic groups of Sri Lanka including the numerical minorities - Veddhas and Kuravars (nomads). According to the statistics collected from the respective Divisional Secretariats there are 1140 FHHs in Alayadivempu, 525 in Lahugala including 193 in Panama, 2053 in Akkaraipattu including 77 in Meera Nagar.

1 ABC of Women Workers’ Rights and Gender Equality, International labour Office, Geneva, p. 32.

2 A Study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Ampara District

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The data collection was conducted through individual face-to-face interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). The key economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) issues

encountered by FHHs in their respective areas are classified and compiled into a questionnaire with the participation of field researchers of WDC.

3 divisions in Ampara district were selected for data gathering where all 3 major ethnic groups and the numerical minorities are living. Interviewees were selected from 5 Grama Niladhari (GN) divisions from these Divisional Secretariat (DS) areas and the representation of ethnic groups is ensured.

Individual interviews were conducted by the field volunteers of WDC. FGDs were conducted by the consultant and her assistant. 500 individual interviews and 6 FGDs were conducted. 4 FGDs were conducted before the detailed data collection and 2 FGDs were conducted with a specific category of women to check the accuracy of some key findings. Women leaders in the communities including presidents and secretaries of Women Rural Development Societies (WRDS) participated in the FGDs with the local FHHs.

Field data was collected from September 2014 to November 2014.

Table 1: Details of data collection:

Number of Questionnaires Completed in Each Division

Divisional Secretariat Village Number of Questionnaires

Lahugala Panama 150

Akkaraipattu Town Division 3 (TD-3) 50

Alayadivempu Kannakipuram + Puliyampath 250

Aligampe 50

TOTAL 500

FoKUS Women 3

Table 2: FGDs with Women Leaders and FHHs

FGDs with Women Leaders and FHHs

Divisional Secretariat/Place

Village Date of FGD Number of Participants

Lahugala Panama 07.10.2014 15

Akkaraipattu Town Division 3(TD3) 11.10.2014 10

Alayadivempu Kannakipuram + Puliyampath 10.10.2014 12

Aligampe 14.10.2014 8

WDC Office Specific FGDs on Samurdhi, Land Rights and Livelihood Support

11.12.2014 10

TD3 Specific FGDs on Samurdhi, Land Rights and Livelihood Support

11.12.2014 15


CHAPTER III

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

A primary drawback of the study was the limited knowledge on ESCR and little or no experience of the interviewees to complete the questionnaires. There was no scope to train

the team intensively on both the topics. There was only a one day workshop to identify key issues pertaining to ESCR rights of women in Ampara district in order to frame the questionnaire and to set the ethics for interviews.

The selection of study areas was limited to 3 Divisional Secretariats among the 20 Divisional Secretariat areas of Ampara district. Additionally the interviewees were also selected by WDC based on their contacts and experience in the field.

Demographic InformationAmong the 500 women who were interviewed 250 were Tamil, 150 Sinhalese, 50 Muslims, and 50 Kuravars (Gypsies). (Kuravar in Tamil means people from a hill origin. (Table 3)

Ethnicity Total InterviewsTamil 250Sinhalese 150Muslim 50Kuravar 50

Table3: Ethnicity of the respondents

The ages of the respondents ranged from 16 (only 1 respondent) to above 50 out of which 48% were between 31 – 50, 45% above 50 and the remaining 7 % are between18-30. (Table 4)

Age Total Percentage (100%)Under 18 1 0%18 - 30 35 7%31 - 50 239 48%Above 50 225 45%

Table 4: Age category of the respondents

FoKUS Women 5

While 24% of the respondents have not received any education, another 64 % had studied below the Ordinary Level (O/L). Only 12 % have studied O/L and above, while another 2% have studied up to Advanced Level (A/L). (Chart 1)

No Education24%

Under O/L64%

O/L10%

A/L2%

Chart 1: Educational background of the respondents

Basic Information of the FHHs

Reasons for Becoming FHHsAmong the 500 women interviewed, 151 became FHHs within the past 5 years and 131 became FHHs between the period of October 2004 – October 2009 mostly covering the period of post tsunami, height of war in the East and the end of the war. Another 218 became FHHs prior to 10 years; which is, before 2009. Among the first criteria which is those who became FHHs within the past 5 years, 26 families have become FHHs during the past 1 year.(Table 5)

Categorization of time period in which families became FHHs

No of total individuals

No of individuals by ethnicity

Kuravar Muslim Tamil SinhaleseWithin a year (between October 2013 –October 2014) 26 1 5 8 12

2-5 years (between October 2009 –October 2013) 125 9 21 58 37

6-10 years(between October 2004 –October 2009) 131 8 7 85 31

Above 10 years (before October 2004) 218 32 17 99 70

500 50 50 250 150

Table 5: Period in which families became FHHs


Only 15 (3%) among the respondents are unmarried and heading their families, whereas 485 (97%) women are married and stating different reasons for their status as FHHs.

Findings reveal that the main cause for the creation of FHHs in the death of their husband with 273 (55%) belonging to this category . Another 26(5%) claimed that their husbands have been disappeared. 41(8%) of them are divorcees. Of the remaining 145 women, husbands of 46(9%) women are ill and unable to contribute to the family income, 38(7%) are unemployed and 18 (4%) are working in other locations. 43(9%) women stated other reasons such as husband in prison, husband being an alcoholic and not taking responsibilities, abandoned the family and living with another woman. (Table 6)

Reasons for becoming FHH Total no of women Percentage

Unmarried 15 3%

Husband Dead 273 55%

Husband Disappeared 26 5%

Divorced 41 8%

Husband Working Elsewhere 18 4%

Husband Unemployed 38 7%

Husband Ill 46 9%

Other Reasons 43 9%

Total 500 100%

Table 6: Reasons for becoming FHHs

The ethnic breakdown of disappearances is shown below. When compared with the sample size the numbers among the Kuravar community is disproportionately higher (12%) than others. (Table 7)2

Ethnicity No of disappearances (Individuals)

% Based on the sample size of the particular ethnic group

Kuravar 6 12%

Muslim 4 8%

Tamil 9 3.6%

Sinhalese 7 4.7%

Total 26

Table 7: Disappearance of the male head of household by ethnicity

2 This may be due to their vulnerability of being identified as Tamil and living in the border villages whereconflicting parties confronted each other mostly. Refer TheWar and Its Consequences in the AmparaDistrict, Special Report No. 3, University Teachers for Human Rights (Jaffna), 16th October 1990, p.53.

FoKUS Women 7

Dependents of FHHsOut of the 500 respondents, 48 (9.6%) women stated that they are not responsible for any dependents. The remaining 452 respondents are having their children, husbands, parents or other relatives as dependents. The majority of them, 429 (85.8%) women, are having children as dependents. (Table 8)

Category of dependents Total no of dependents

Percentage (out of the total

500 respondents ) Parents 18 3.6%

Children 291 58.2%

Husband Only 5 1%

Husband and Children 37 7.4%

Husband, Children and Other Family Members 100 20%

Children and Mother-in-law 1 0.2%

Total 452 90.4%

Table 8: Dependents on FHHs


CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

The right to be free from poverty and the status of FHHs

Livelihoods of FHHs and Family Income73% of the women interviewed are engaged in some kind of income generation activities and the rest of the 27 % are not engaged in any income generating activities. (Chart 2)

Unemployed27%

Employed73%

Chart 2: Employment of respondents

Within the 73% of women who are engaged in livelihood activities, the majority (31.6%) are self-employed, involved in poultry, pottery making, sewing and small businesses (eg:grocery shop, selling rice, rice flour, curd and food). 27.2% of the interviewees work under the laborer category as agricultural laborers, beedi making laborers and as domestic workers which comprise. 1% (3 Tamil women and 2 Sinhalese women) are having permanent employment as teachers. There are 51 women categorized as ‘Other’ who stated that they are employed but were unable to define the type of work clearly. Begging is stated as a means of livelihood only by the FHHs from the Kuravar community. (Table 9)

FoKUS Women 9

Types of livelihood activities No of women PercentagePermanent Job 5 1Laborer 136 27.2Self Employed 158 31.6Other (not defined) 51 10.2Begging 16 3.2No job (Unemployed) 134 26.8

Table 9: Type of employment

Poverty within FHHsIrrespective of whether they work or not, 99% of the interviewees claimed to be to dependant on multiple other sources to fulfill their basic needs and the education of their children. The other sources of support were identified as support of relatives and government and non-governmental agencies. To the question on the fulfillment of their basic needs3 391 FHHs said that their basic needs are not satisfied and 3 said it’s not fully satisfied. See Chart 3.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Satisfied Not satisfied Not fully satisfied

106

391

3

Chart 3: Fulfillment of basic needs

Since 429 FHHs among the interviewed 500 are entitled to the Samurdhi support we can assume that the majority of them are living in poverty.

During the FGDs the reason for poverty is explained by FHHs the insufficient total family income. It was observed during the field visit and FGDs that some FHHs were in extreme poverty and unable to fulfill even the basic needs of their family. This phenomenon is observed in almost all FHHs in the Kuravar community. During the field visits to Aligampe for the FGDs the people we met there also confirmed this. One school teacher said that almost all the students from this particular community attend the school without having a proper meal.

3 Basic need defined for the purpose of this research is food, clothing and housing.


Livelihood Support Provided for FHHsThe question in FGDs on livelihood skills and the material support provided by different actors to the FHHs has highlighted a few issues. From time to time women were given trainings on various livelihood activities. Most of these trainings were closer to the traditional roles of women such as food processing and tailoring. Also there were trainings provided on non-traditional skills such as driving and carpentry. A few women in the FGDs said that they have received material support such as three wheelers, sewing machines and a rice pounding machine.

But none of the women who were present in the FGDs were able to confirm that those trainings or the material support have ensured a sustainable livelihood for them. The reasons for this in the perception of women are;

(1) Marketing possibilities were not assessed before deciding on the provision of trainings and items,

(2) Required long term support to the women who were trained on non-traditional work was not given and they were left alone to struggle against the gendered social perceptions about ‘work’.

eg 1: The woman who was donated a three wheeler said that she uses it to buy and sell cloth. But even after 2 years of being a female driver many people of her community are not confident about her driving and prefer to hire a three wheeler driven by a man. If they hire her they pay less than what they are supposed to pay a male. For example she will be given only Rs. 60/= to a distance the other male drivers charge Rs.100/=. In addition to these hardships the men in the community still pass comments about her.

eg 2: A woman said that she received a rice grinding machine. It is expected that she will earn a reasonable amount by fulfilling the grinding needs of her community. But she only receives 1-2 kilos per week. She charges Rs 20/= per kilo and around Rs6/= will go on electricity. So she only gets approximately Rs18/= per week. Another woman said similarly she was given a chillie grinding machine but hardly gets work. According to them the reason for this is the divided demand. Within the same community 4 rice grinding machines and 2 chilie grinding machines were given.

eg 3: A woman who earned from sewing clothes for the villagers in the past said that ‘I earned enough before, but since many women received sewing machines in the village the orders have reduced significantly’.

eg 4: A woman received carpentry training from an INGO and is good in wood carving. She functioned as an instructor during the project period of the agency. After that she cannot continue because men control the whole process of the work and she has to face a lot of harassment. Since she does not have any male family member to support her, she is not utilizing her skill. She has been trained on sewing by another NGO and is given some support to establish a small shop in her house by another NGO. Currently she is running a small grocery shop.

eg 5: A woman in Panama said that she is trained on shoe making but there is no marketing facility in the area. Therefore she cannot continuing working.

FoKUS Women 11

CHAPTER V

STATUS AND SOCIAL POSITION OF WOMEN

Recognition as Head of HouseholdAmong the women who are receiving some sort of government support, 354 are registered as heads of household in government records such as the Voter’s List and support schemes such as Samurdhi. 53 families are still registered in the name of their husband and 5 in a relative’s (daughter’s) name. Others couldn’t reveal their status clearly in the interviews. (Table 8)

numberIn Woman’s Name 354In Husband’s Name 53In a Relative’s Name 5

Table:8 Details of the person registered as head of household in FHHs

Recognition to women as head of household is given only when the husband is dead or divorced. In all other scenarios, even in the cases where the man is severely ill or frequently away from the house, the government officials are reluctant to give the head of household status to the woman. This is an exact reflection of the gender biases in society. In the case of men present at home with severe illnesses the wife is compelled to take the husband to the offices to sign any official documents including social security benefits. In cases where the husband has abandoned the family for a second marriage, FHHs are forced to look for them and plead with them for their signature. This is an added burden to the already burdened lives of FHHs. (FGDs with women from Akkaraipattu, 11.12.2014)

Membership and Participation in Committees and GroupsTo the question of their participation and membership in the community groups such as Rural Development Societies (RDS), Women’s Rural Development Societies (WRDS), Samurdhi groups, funeral service groups and other Community Based Organizations (CBOs), only 221 women said that they are part of one or many of these groups. Among them 10 are in presidential positions, 7 as secretaries, 2 as treasurers and 2 are functioning as vice presidents. 279 women are not interested and do not take part in any of these groups. Since 429 among the


500 are Samurdhi recipients, most of them must be part of the Samurdhi groups. However due to their perception, they are not claiming their membership. The reason for this was unclear. This research doesn’t have the scope of probing into such details and it could be an interesting factor for further research.

Many of the women are members of their local WRDSs. If they save money in their groups they are entitled to receive loans.

The major difference between the WRDSs functioning in Muslim areas (TD3) and Tamil areas (Akkaraipattu) is that the former does charge interest from the creditor but the latter charges some interest. Some women from the Tamil areas mentioned that the interest rate for the loan from their WRDS ranges from 10% to 24% per annum. This research didn’t gather any evidences to prove their statement.

189 women among the 221 said that their opinions on development are heard at the divisional and village level meetings.

454 women from the total interviewees said that they take part in social and religious events, 45 women said that they do not want to take part in any events, while 1 said that she was abused by the community and stopped taking part in events. Most of the women, especially the widows from the Tamil communities, felt that their presence in the family ceremonies is restricted. Within them 39 women said that they are not allowed to be in the forefront during the ceremonies. One FHH said that she is discriminated because of her mental illness.

Generally the community perception on FHHs is low in all communities. 32 women said that they are seen as having a bad character by the community’. During the FGD a women explained the social taboos against them which are currently in practice. The community does not appreciate a woman being well dressed, or traveling outside the village for work, trainings or for any other purpose if she is a widow or if her husband has disappeared. Dressing well or traveling far will bring unnecessary criticism of the character of the woman.

FHHs are not welcomed in meetings and public gatherings. They are discriminated in cultural events. Having a widow in the front in any occasion or ritual is generally considered as a bad omen among the Tamil population. According to the women who participated in the FGDs from Akkaraipattu, the widows and the women whose husbands have been disappeared or separated are not allowed to perform certain rituals in their family even though they have the right to do so as sisters or aunts.

When their status is confirmed as a widow the restriction is stronger when compared to the FHHs who are separated from their husbands.

“Some women in our neighborhood don’t like us to come in front when their husbands are leaving for work. They believe it as a bad omen and it will bring harm to their husbands. We do not go out of our gates and hide ourselves when we hear someone leaving from their homes, even when we have to send our children to school”. (A woman in the FGD, Akkaraipattu, 11th December 2014)

FoKUS Women 13

Access and Ownership: Land, House and Other AssetsThe study posed separate questions on whether the FHHs have different assets; land, house, cattle, jewels and savings. The respondents’ answer ‘yes’ does not necessarily mean that she has legal ownership. The asset may be owned by her or the family.

Properties and Resources Yes (%) No (%)

Land 81% 19%House 76% 24%Cattle 7% 93%Jewels 4% 96%Vehicle 2% 98%Saving 6% 94%Others 7% 93%

Table 9: Access and/or ownership of assets as stated by FHHs

The majority of FHHs in the study area have ownership or access to land and houses. (Table 9)

Land

Parent3%

Brother0%

No Land19%

In her Name64%

Husband & Wife1%

Husband7%

Children6%

Chart 4: Land ownership of FHHs

Within the interviewed group of 500 women, 93 (19%) do not have access to any land. The remaining 407 (82%) FHHs said that they have land.(Chart 4) The reason for the higher rate of land ownership of women in the area can be explained by the still existing matrilineal customs of


Batticaloa and Ampara. as most of the women have received the land from their mothers. The breakdown of how they received the land is shown in Table 10.

Number PercentageFrom Parents to Daughter or as Dowry 294 72%Purchased on their Own 90 22%Other from Government, Mosque 16 4%From a Relative 7 2%

Table10:The ways FHHs received land

According to the understanding of FHHs, if someone in their family; the husband, children or herself is in possession of the land they believe that they have ownership of the land. Hence all 407 women are not necessarily having the legal ownership of the land in her name.

Among the 294 women who claimed that they received land from their parents, 10 still have the land title in their parent’s name. The lands of 2 women are written in both husband and wife’s name upon a demand made by the groom.

22% of women claimed that they purchased the land together with their husband. Among them 60 lands are in their name, 1 in both the partner’s names, 11 in the husband’s name and 18 in the children’s name.

Among those who have received land from the relatives, the lands are still in the names of relatives for 2 women. So the actual ownership of the land is only with 318 women. The breakdown below explains the ownership of the land perceived as their land by FHHs. (Table 11)

Number Percentage Among 407

FHHs Name 318 78%Husband’s Name 38 10%Parent’s Name 13 3%Children’s Name 33 8%Brother’s Name 1 0%Both Husband and Wife’s Name 4 1%

407 100%

Table11: Details showing the ownership of land

In the context of women not having actual land ownership (among 89) 32 women said that they do not have any issues related to land.

In all 4 cases of co-ownership, 3 owned the land through private transaction from their parents or relative. The only case of co-ownership was derived through joint purchase.

FoKUS Women 15

57 women said that they have problems related to land. The main problem stated by them was the difficulty in acquiring land titles for the permit lands. The other issue is related to the inability to divide land between daughters. (Table 12)

NumberLand Title in Other’s Name (Husband, Children) 2Land is Insufficient to Share Between Girl Children 6Permit Land and No Title 46Not Commented 3

Table 12: Issues on land ownership

Even though only 46 of the FHHs said that they have problems in regard to their land due to the lack of land titles, there may be more FHHs that have similar problems without realizing this issue. It was found during the FGDs that the women are not clear about the type of document they possess as land documents. Also there was confusion among them on their entitlement to receive land titles from the government. A detailed research on land issues of FHHs could shed more light on the actual problems.

HouseA house is another asset which many of the women claimed that they have (Chart 5). Only 24% of the respondents (122 FHHs) do not have houses at all. They live with relatives or neighbors and in some cases in rented houses.

Chart 5: Access or ownership of a house

76% of respondents claimed that they have houses but the condition of the house varies. (Table 13)

Percentage of women

who have houses House built with bricks 233 62%Tin Sheet - thatched hut 49 13%Partially built with Bricks 96 25%

378

Table 13: Type of house

If the situation of safe housing was considered, more than half of the FHHs (53.4%) in this research would have no houses or unprotected houses.


CHAPTER VI

GOVERNMENT SCHEMES, POLICIES AND PRACTICES

The majority of the FHHs are dependent on government support such as Samurdhi and Public Assistance Monthly Allowance (PAMA) referred in local terms as ‘beggar’s allowance’. 429 FHHs, among the interviewed 500, are Samurdhi recipients.

To the question on the sustainability of this support, 71% of women do not believe that this type of support will last long, while some 27% believe that this support will be long term. 2% women haven’t commented to the question.

Insufficient Support, Lack of Information and Transparency of

Government SchemesThe support provided to the FHHs is minimal and insufficient to manage their lives. The women we met during the FGDs receive monthly support ranging from Rs.140/= to Rs.560/= from Samurdhi. The payments are made every 3-4 months and many reductions are made to it.

eg: Geetha and her family have resettled in a different division from their original division after the tsunami. Their family received Rs. 140/= monthly stamp from Samurdhi before the tsunami and still get the same amount. Even though their Samurdhi registration has been transferred to the new division the amount has not been changed for the past 10 years. The Samurdhi savings they had in their original place has not been transferred to the current division yet. Since her husband cannot move around Geetha has to deal with all family matters including signing documents. She requested the Samurdhi officers to register her name as head of household which has not been done yet.

Women are unsure about the differences between the amount they are entitled to and the amount they actually receive under Samurdhi. They said in every Rs. 140/= stamp Rs. 40/= was taken back for ‘something’ in the past (according to some women it was told to them that it was taken as a donation to the military). Similarly there are various reductions made in most of the transactions from Samurdhi to the FHHs. But the women are unaware of the exact reason. There are no clear written acknowledgements for the money taken back by the Samurdhi officers.

FoKUS Women 17

Samurdhi provide loans to poor families including FHHs. But within the 429 women, only 32 said that they got loans from Samurdhi. This can be due to the high interest rate and various deductions made to it. (Also refer to the section on Loans)

eg: A woman in the FGD said that she was granted a Rs.100000/= loan from Samurdhi. But she received Rs. 82000/= only in hand and was told that the rest (Rs. 18000/=) had been deducted for various reason including an insurance).

The assessment process in the selection of recipients and in deciding the monthly support is not clear to the FHHs. One woman said, ‘they do not listen to the requests of FHHs, they favor the families headed by men’. Another FHH said, because we received material support as a grant from an NGO, Samurdhi support is denied’. In some other cases support is reduced as they received support from other sources.

When a new or increased Samurdhi stamp is requested by people the officers say that they have to close the accounts of some others and transfer those stamps to the new applicants. To do so they say that the savings of the ones whose accounts are getting closed have to be repaid. The said amount is being demanded from the new applicants. We met a woman who has paid Rs.3000/= already for the same reason and was waiting for 6 months to get an increased stamp.

Women during the FGDs shared that they face ignorance and discriminatory treatment from government officers, especially Samurdhi. They were reluctant to share their experiences about Samurdhi due to the fear of repercussions. They had such experiences in the past. When some women raised voices and demanded information from the Samurdhi officers they were threatened that their support will be stopped.

LoansAll 500 women said that there are various credit schemes available in their villages but only 163 of them said that they borrowed money. Some 32 women have borrowed from Samurdhi, 18 from WRDSs, 19 from banks and the others from NGOs and individuals. The major reason for getting loans as stated by 76% of women from those that acquired loans is for seeking jobs in the Middle East. It can be for her or to send the husband abroad. The other main reasons are family expenditures, health issues, death or marriage of a family member, education of children and to buy, construct or renovate a house.

23 women said that the amount they get as a loan is above Rs. 50000/=. The interest rates vary from no interest to 48% per annum. Within the 163 women 58 women said that they cannot repay the debts due to high interest rates and loss of livelihood activity. During the FGDs few women said that they got loans to support their husband or a family member to seek overseas employment but when they failed to send back money the women could not repay the loan. In the case of one woman from TD3, the man came back with the earned money and married another woman while the first wife was still burdened with the loan and accumulated interest.


On the whole women do not feel that the credit schemes of banks, companies or government as supportive of women. During the FDGs women criticized those schemes as not considering the situation of FHHs. In their understanding the interest rates are high. Except the WRDSs in the Muslim areas which do not charge interest, no other credit facilities are seen by FHHs as suitable to them. Even though they didn’t have information on the interest rates of Samurdhi they said that it was high4.

Discriminatory Government Policies and PracticesDuring the FGDs one commonly discussed issue was the migrant domestic work. Many women believe it as a better means of earning than what they could earn in Sri Lanka. But they are not satisfied with the policies that protect them.

They complain of the insufficient security measures for the women going to Middle East and getting into trouble. One woman we met during the FGD in Akkaraipattu said that she got injured in a burst gas cylinder accident when she was working as a housemaid in the Middle East in 2002. She was treated in the hospital there and sent back when she recovered enough to travel. She was not paid for her work there. The family that hired her said that all her earnings were spent on her medical care. On return she was admitted again to hospital and went through medication for a long time. She said that this mentally affected her as well. She only received Rs. 15000/= insurance payment from the Sri Lanka Foreign Employment Bureau.

Another issue they raised was about the recent policy which controls the migration of women with children. There was uncertainty during the discussions on whether the mobility of women with children has to be controlled. But the women felt that this policy adversely affected some families where there is no other mean of income and the government is not in a position to fully support the families of FHHs.

eg: A woman from TD3 lost her first husband. Her parents married her off the second time to a sickly man who was 16years older than her. She has a 20 year old daughter from her first marriage and 3 other children aged 9,8 and 2 from the second marriage. Her husband is asthmatic and could not seek a job for the past 10 years. Her parents are also dead. She earns from several odd jobs; labor work, pounding rice and making beedi. The Samurdhi support allocated to her 20 years back has not been increased until now. The family is living in debt. Since she worked as a domestic worker in the Middle East earlier, she wanted to go again to repay the loans. But her attempt failed due to the recent regulation of the Ministry of Foreign Employment Promotion and Welfare to restrict the migration of women who have children below 3years. She has a 3 year old son. The family had a house built by her with the money she earned in the Middle East. They sold it for a low price to repay their Rs. 600000/- loan. The family is still living in their sold house but she has to buy another small house with the balance money (Rs. 700000/=) and move soon. She is unable to visit her husband who is admitted to the hospital as she doesn’t have money to buy the bus ticket.

4 The SahanaAruna loan of Samurdhi charges 24% interest, refer this news which confirms the perception of women, http://www.dailynews.lk/?q=local/sahana-aruna-loans-samurdhi-recipients

FoKUS Women 19

In addition to the above, women expressed their views on the ignorance and discriminatory treatment of government officers. One of them said that ‘some officers do not listen to the requests of FHHs,they favor the families headed by men’.

Knowledge on Government and Other Structures for Seeking

Justice36% of the FHHs who were interviewed were not aware or unsure of the local mechanisms where they could seek recourse for the problems and injustices against them. 64% of the FHHs are aware of some mechanisms such as the Police and GN. Few said that they could seek legal action but are not certain about the processes.

Among the ones who are aware of some mechanisms (321), a majority (74%) of the women think that they could seek support from the Police. Notably, only few (7%) consider the GN as someone who could support them when in distress. None of them were aware about institutions such as the Human Rights Commission (HRC) where they could go to seek assistance if these systems failed to support them. Mostly the knowledge on NGO support is minimal too. Some 24% of women are aware of the insurance schemes for people and/or for vehicles. But they said that those are only for rich people.

During FGDs it was noted that many of them lack knowledge on the legal mechanisms or institutions that could help them especially in regard to seeking maintenance from the separated husbands and to claim their land rights. The Muslim women said that they do not have support in challenging the discriminatory judgments of the Quazi Courts and their lack of follow up.


CHAPTER VII

DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES AND VIOLENCE

Early MarriageTo the question on the age of marriage for women in the families of FHHs, 75% of them said that the age of marriage for women in their families is between 19-25 years. 1% said the age is above 26. 1 % of women were not certain with the answer. 23% said that the age of marriage for women in their family is below 18. (Table 14) Interestingly, all 50 respondents from the Kuravar community are falling under this criteria. (Table 15)

Number PercentageBelow 18 115 23%19 - 25 371 75%26 - 30 6 1%31 – 35 1 0%Above 36 1 0%Uncertain 6 1%

Table 14: The age of marriage in practice of the families of FHHs

Number of Respondents

Practice of Early Marriage in the

Families

Percentage of Practice of Early Marriage Based on the Sample

Size of Each Ethnic GroupKuravar 50 50 100Tamil 250 37 14.8Sinhalese 150 18 12Muslim 50 10 20

Table 15: Practice of early marriage among different ethnic groups

The reason for early marriage as explained by the FHHs is the hardship in keeping up and protecting female children as a single parent. Even though there is no visible threat on female children or unmarried young women they are not encouraged to stay alone in the local cultural context. So mothers cannot leave behind the adolescent or adult daughter at home when they

FoKUS Women 21

have to go out for different reasons and work. But the key reason for marrying off the daughters at an early age is the fear of sexual harassment. A woman during the FGD said that some men from the village take advantage towards FHHs. They wander around the houses of FHHs at night. A woman said that she fears for the protection of her daughter due to this type of harassment. Marriage and having a man in the family is perceived by them as a measure of protection. This perception could be analyzed further in a detailed study and matched with the cultural beliefs and practices.

Physical Security and ViolenceThe question on the violent experiences of FHHs was not answered properly by the respondents during the individual interviews. The reason may be the cultural restrictions on women to reveal the violence inflicted on them or the fear of the violator. The inexperience of the enumerators also can be a reason for not probing into the issues of violence.

Only 13 women said that they faced physical violence and in addition to this, another 9 women said there were attempts to commit violence on them. Among these 22 women who said that they experienced violence or attempted violence, 5 women said that there were attempts of sexual abuse.The others experienced physical violence such as beating, pushing and verbal violence such as scolding and shouting at them.

The perpetrators of violence identified by women are relatives, travelers in public transport and security forces.

Among the ones who said that they experienced physical or sexual violence only 3 made complaints to the Police. They were not satisfied with the actions taken by the Police.

Case story (Seetha): We have 3 female children who are studying. We were affected by the tsunami and resettled in this current residence after the tsunami. We were given a land in my husband’s name and a small house. We lived on the earnings of my husband as a daily laborer. He has been paralyzed below the hip for the past 2 years. Since then I am looking after the whole family. I opened a small shop in my house with the help of a local NGO.

A month before a man from our neighborhood who buys things from my shop for credit came to settle his debt. It was around noon and I just came back from a wedding. He paid back the money but was angry that I demanded it. He started abusing me verbally using filthy words. He abused my husband’s inability to make me happy and that I was earning by satisfying my sexual needs with others. When I started to fight back he physically pushed me to a fence and tore my blouse. The people in the neighborhood were watching but no one came forward to help me. I filed a complaint with the Police. The villagers tried to negotiate but I refused to do so and let the case be brought to the courts. I believe that this has happened because I am a female head of household. As no one in the neighborhood helped me to prevent the violence I am not going to hear them in negotiation.


On the issue of security, women who are living in unfinished houses or huts, shared their worries about the unsafe shelters. Staying alone with children is a big challenge for the FHHs living on their own. Women with female children face additional pressure of protecting the child: the difficulties in protecting the female children lead to early marriages. Men from the village take advantage of FHHs, They wander around the houses of FHHs in the nights and some women in the FGDs said that even if they shout for help at night, men of their village do not come forward to help them as their names will be tainted.

In some instances FHHs shared that they are humiliated, threatened and discriminated by the local politicians. Many women were complaining about the local parliamentarian. Another woman said that she doesn’t wants to seek assistance from a particular politician as he was the one involved in the disappearance/killing of her family members. She said, ‘As they are in politics and have become the local leaders; one cannot go to them for justice’,

Health IssuesThis research has not dealt with health aspects in detail. But a general question about reproductive health during the FGDs was raised. It was found that there is lack of awareness on reproductive health; sexually transmitted diseases, birth control etc. Unwanted pregnancies within FHHs were reported in some places (Panama).

FoKUS Women 23

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSIONThis study has proven once again the strength and resilience of FHHs to cope with life in spite of the challenging reality. The struggles of FHHs to overcome their low economic, social and cultural status are mostly individual and to some extent are supported by their parents, relatives and neighbors. The study could not locate any successful models portraying the strategy of the State or non-governmental actors in ensuring the enjoyment of ESCR rights of FHHs.

Poverty and extreme poverty has been observed in almost all the FHHs interviewed. Patriarchy coupled with poverty is suppressing them even more. The government schemes are insufficient and are not necessarily considering the specific situation of FHHs and the gendered aspect of their status.

Marginalization and discrimination of FHHs is prevalent in all different ethnic groups. The major discriminators are the community members of the FHHs. Even though there were no cases documented of the direct discrimination inflicted by State structures or policies, the discriminatory practices by the service providers are highlighted by the FHHs.

The findings of this research have shown that the past approaches of economic empowerment of FHHs by the government and non-governmental factors have had minimum impact. The current situation of FHHs after 2 decades of intensive interventions of many development agencies during the war and post tsunami scenario to empower women in the East is raising the question on the lack of holistic approaches of such interventions. Poverty alleviation programs and livelihood initiatives neither helped the FHHs to establish a sustainable livelihood nor provided a steady income as a paid worker. Hence, the main reason for the ineffectiveness of the support provided to the FHHs to economically empower them can be the lack of a holistic approach and strategies of the State or any other factors responsible for protecting and promoting the rights of women.

There is no State recognition of the multiple roles and responsibilities forced on those such as FHHs. They are carrying both the traditional responsibilities of a man and a woman in the family, doing paid and unpaid work and areexpected to participate in various social and public activities including community meetings of government and non-governmental factors such as Samurdhi, WRDSs, women’s groups of NGOs and micro credit groups of financial institutions. No means of support have been developed by the State to ease the multiple burdens of FHHs.


The interconnection between patriarchal norms and values determining their status as women and FHHs, obligation of additional responsibilities on them, poverty, violence and the gaps in the institutional and legal mechanisms are not considered or addressed adequately by all development actors including the government.

The development agencies which are expected to have a better understanding on the gendered nature of subordination and mostly having gender and women’s rights as core to their programming have also not succeeded in changing the lives of FHHs positively. This is due to the short term interventions, the expectation of quick results and the failure of not targeting historical patriarchal systems where these changes are expected.

FHHs continue their struggle single handedly to bring up the children, to uplift their families and to enjoy their rights as women.

FoKUS Women 25

CHAPTER IX

RECOMMENDATIONS

Government Policies and Schemes:• Policy level recognition should be given to the multiple roles and responsibilities of FHHs

and to the paid and unpaid work resulting from it. This recognition should be translated into practice through the sensitization of all officers in the State machinery especially the ones who are working at the divisional and district level, creating special structures to reduce the multiple responsibilities of women, allocating financial resources to subsidize the family expenditure and developing long term plans to ensure the enjoyment of the rights of FHHs.

• The government should take the necessary steps to broaden its definition of FHHs. Women who are claiming themselves as FHHs and actually responsible for their households, even in situations where the husband or an elder man is present, should be given due respect and acknowledgement as head of the household or the person responsible for the household in all government documents, transactions etc. Heterogeneity of FHHs should be considered in all government schemes. For example unmarried single women who live on their own or with a relative and mothers living with their married daughters should have an option to register themselves as separate families.

• Strategies should be developed by the government to address the various aspects of marginalization and discrimination of FHHs. The intersectionality between poverty, patriarchy and ethnicity based on marginalization has to be addressed in these strategies. It should also deal with the gaps in the institutions and legal mechanisms and ensure their access and control over resources including land, economic resources, knowledge and skills. Special measures must be made to ensure the land rights of the FHHs who do not own land or are having problems with the ownership due to the land permits. All these strategies must be developed in consultation with the women. The sustainability of the economic activities of FHHs should be envisioned considering the cultural impediments to them. Hence, creating an enabling environment should be part of these strategies with longer term visioning to change the patriarchal ideologies, the discriminatory attitudes and practices of the communities.


• Specific actions should be taken as immediate measures to release them from some of the current issues given below:

• Increase Samurdhi support to the FHHs families, regulate the payments and ensure that FHHs are given the details of all transactions.

• Write off the loans of the FHHs who are struggling to repay the loan and interest due to the loss of the breadwinner , or their livelihoods.

• Introduce low interest or interest free credit schemes for FHHs and poor families with recovery plans that suit the actual income generation patterns.eg: recovery plan should consider the actual time of return from the livelihood activity.

• Issue land titles to the FHHs who are living on permit lands.

• Provide information on all relevant schemes of government and semi- government which could support FHHs.

General Recommendations:• Information: The right to have information with regard to their lives and government

schemes has to be respected. In addition to the verbal communication by the local officers, simplified written versions of the government schemes and programs should be shared with the people at grassroots level, who do not have access to other means of communications.eg: information about the criteria to receive support, their entitlements and benefits under different schemes such as Samurdhi, (currently DiviNeguma).

• Transparency and Accountability: Ensuring that all the transactions to and from the government bodies or any other actors provide written acknowledgement. eg 1: all the breakdowns are mentioned in writing in any material or fund transactions and copy of the detail is provided to the beneficiary, eg 2: when a portion of the Samurdhi (DiviNeguma)allowance or the loan is deducted for savings, insurance or any other purposes there should be a receipt provided with the details to the recipient. Similarly the bank and finance companies, which are having business relationships, should provide written acknowledgements for all the transactions.

FoKUS Women 27

Annexure: 1

STORIES OF COURAGE1. Woman from Kannakipuram(Tamil): Her husband is a laborer and alcoholic. He never

brings home any money. They have 3 daughters and 1 son. If she requests the husband to stop drinking, he will demand her to stop the children from attending school. They live on the support of the relatives and at one point she decided to go as a domestic servant to the Middle East. She worked there for a while but returned soon as the husband was not taking care of the children. Then she got a loan from a relative and sent her husband to the Middle East. But he neither sent sufficient money for the daily needs of the family nor to repay the loan. She continues to live with the support of relatives. Sometime she sells household items to repay the debts. Even with all these hardships she is determined to educate her children. Her eldest daughter sat for the A/L exam recently. Her struggles are not limited to the family but extend to working on behalf of the community as well. She plays key leadership roles to bring betterment to the whole community. Currently she is the president of the WRDS.

2. Woman from Aligampe (Kuravar): Her husband died by drowning in 1990. She has 4 children; 2 daughters and 2 sons. 3 of her children were married before the age of 18 and she goes from village to village begging along with her unmarried 17 year old daughter. She is living alone with her children in an unprotected hut.

3. Woman from Aligampe(Kuravar): Her 36 year old husband consumed poison and died 5 years ago. She has 6 children, 2 of them had early marriages. The other 4 are attending school. She is also begging and looking after the family. She is living alone with her children in an unprotected hut.

4. Woman from Kannakipuram(Tamil): She lost her husband during the war and she herself has injuries on her body by the battering of the military. She has an 18 year old son and both of them are living with her elderly bed ridden parents. She has to attend to the parents at home and take them to hospital. She works as an agricultural laborer in the paddy lands for her livelihood. She sent her son to the Middle East with the hope of raising the family income. But he met with an accident and is getting treatment there. The agencies said that he will be sent back after recovering from the injuries. She continues to go to the paddy fields for weeding. She said that she faces a lot of harassment in the field and on the roads by men.

5. Woman fromTD3 (Muslim): She is living alone with her 15 year old daughter in an old dilapidated house given to her by her parents. Her husband left her and married again. She does not receive any maintenance from him. Both mother and daughter stay at the houses of neighbors because some men attempted to harass them in the night. She is having breathing problems, hence she cannot work. Both of them live on Samurdhi relief and the dry rations given to them by the neighbors.


6. Woman from TD3 (Muslim): She sent her husband abroad by selling all her jewellery given by her parents. Her husband never sent money to her or the children; instead he sends money to his parents. When she demanded money from his parents they accused her of being a bad woman. Her husband believed his parents and abused her as a woman having affairs with many men. On his return he stayed with his parents and abandoned his family. Since then she is heading her family; making hoppers for the school canteen. She has 2 daughters, aged 14 and 9. If she seeks support from anyone in the village the husband will accuse them of having affairs with her. Hence no men in the village are willing to support her. She is managing the basic needs, education of the children with hardships of mental pressure due to the negative image portrayed of her, negligence of the society and extreme poverty.

7. Woman from TD3 (Muslim): She is married to a vegetable seller in the local market. He started torturing her physically demanding her to sell the house and land when his business was lost. He left her on the 38th day of child birth. He married another woman. She took the headship of the family earning by sewing clothes. Since many other women in the village started sewing as their livelihood too, her income reduced. Even with all her hardship she educated her daughter who has been selected to the university. On the day of the FGD she was worried that she needed Rs10000/= to send her daughter for leadership training.

8. Woman from Panama (Sinhalese): She lost her husband during the war. She lives with her 2 children and parents now. She works as an agricultural laborer which is periodic and irregular. She can stitch clothes but since she does not have a sewing machine she uses the machine at her brother’s house to make clothes for the villagers. The local authorities are discriminatory and do not hear her problems. She said if she owns a machine her life will be better.

9. Woman from Panama (Sinhalese): She is separated from her husband who is keeping her 3 children with him. She lives with her old parents and looks after the family. Her brother who is a laborer supported them for a while and is not supporting them anymore. She can make foot wear, but due to the difficulties in accessing materials and marketing, she could not continue.

10. Woman from Panama (Sinhalese): She does labor work and when she goes to other villages for work due to this the villagers accuse her of being a sex worker. She faces verbal abuse on the street just for wearing good clothes.

FoKUS Women 29

Annexure: 2

QUESTIONNAIRE A Study on the Status of Female Headed Households and their Access to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Ampara District - 2014;

For Official use

Name of the Interviewer : ...............................................................................................................................

Date : ........................................................

GN / DS Division : ................................................ Questionnaire No : ...................

1 Basic Information1.1 Name

(Optional) :1.2 Ethnicity : (Indicate the Ethnic Group)1.3 Age :1.4 Educational Level (Including vocational training, if any) :

1.5 How long do you function as the Head of your Household ?Less than 1 year

2 - 5 years6 - 10 yearsMore than 10 years

1.6 What is the reason that led you to become the Head of your Household?Staying with the family without getting marriedDeath of the husbandDisappearance of the husbandDivorceHusband working elsewhereHusband unemployedIll-health of husbandOther reasons Details


1.7 Who are your dependents ?

2 Livelihood2.1 Are you engaged in any livelihood activity? Yes No

2.1.1 If yes, nature of your livelihood ?Nature of Livelihood Details of the Livelihood ActivityPermanentLabourerSelf-employedOthers2.1.1.1 Is the income you earn from your

livelihood adequate for your living ? Yes No

2.1.2 If no, who provide you income support? (please describe)HusbandRelativeSavingsGovernmentNGOsOther

2.2 If you are receiving assistance from the government, through which channels are they transferred to you?

2.2.2 In whose name is the government assistance provided?

2.3 Is the Government/NGO assistance provided to you sustainable ?

FoKUS Women 31

ASSETAsset Yes (Nature of asset) Nos

2.4 Land (deed, permit, others)2.5 House2.6 Cattle2.7 Jewellery2.8 Vehicle2.9 Savings2.10 Others (specify)2.11 If you own your land, how did you acquire that land ?

Directly from the parentsAs dowryWe purchasedBy other means

2.12 In whose name is your land registered ? Yes No

2.13 Do you face any problems with regard to the deed of your land?2.14 If yes, can you describe the nature of such problems ?

2.15 If you have a house, what is the condition of that house ?

Safe house built with bricks Tin sheet – Thatched hut

3 Credit3.1 Do you have any credit scheme for women in your village ? Yes No

3.1.1 Did you obtain any loans ? Yes No

3.1.1.1 If yes,

3.1.1.1.1

From whom3.1.1.1.2

Amount3.1.1.1.3

Interest p.a.3.1.1.1.4

Repayment weekly/monthly

3.1.1.1.5

Did you obtain this loan as a group or as

an individual


3.1.1.1.6 Why did you obtain a loan ?

3.1.1.1.7 As a result of that borrowing do you face any problems at present ?

3.1.1.2 If no, can you state why the loan was not given or not obtained ?

4 Social Status – Social Security4.1 In the government records, are you registered as the Head of

your Household ?Yes No

4.1.1 If not, state the reason

4.2 Do you have membership in any CBO or Groups ?

Yes No Position

4.2.1 If yes, details

Position4.3. Are your opinions heard when decisions are made at Divisional

and Village level development activities ?Yes No

4.3.1 If yes, specify

4.4 Are you aware of any schemes, policies and practices that ensure your physical, material and financial security?

Yes No

4.4.1 If yes, describe?

FoKUS Women 33

5 Early Marriage5.1 What is the normal age of marriage of the girls in your family ? 5.1 If you have any girl children, did they marry below the age of

18 years ?Yes No

5.2 If yes, can you state the reason for such early marriage ?

6 Physical Security and Violence6.1 Have you ever been subjected to physical violence ? or anyone

did attempt to inflict violence on you ?Yes No

6.2 Has any one attempted to misbehave (sexual violence) with you?

Yes No

6.3 If yes for 6.1 or 6.2 above, can you describe the nature of such violence ?

At the houseAt the workplaceAt a public place

6.3.2 Who are the perpetrators ?

Male Officers

General public (Male)

Security forces

(Army, Police)

Other persons

6.4 If you have been subjected to violence or faced such a situation did you lodge a complaint with any person ? any place ?

Yes No

6.3. If yes, where ? to whom did you complain ?

6.3.1 Were you able to obtain a relief for your complaint ? Yes No

6.3.1.1 If yes, were you satisfied with that relief ? Yes No


7 Poverty7.1 Are you satisfied with the fulfillment your basic needs such as

food, clothes and shelter ?Yes No

7.1.1 If no, can you give details?

7.2 Do you receive Samurdhi assistance ? Yes No

7.2.1 If yes, are you satisfied with the assistance provided to you under Samurdhi Scheme?

7.2.2 If not satisfied, what are the reasons ?

8 Cultural and religious issues8.1 Have you been recognized by your community as a Head of a Household ?8.2 Do you participate in the events and social functions held in

your village ?Yes No

8.2.1 If no, why ?

8.3 Do others accept you, when you are in the forefront at the functions held at your home ?

Yes No

8.3.1 If no, can you give reasons for such disapproval ?

8.4 (In addition to the above) if you feel that you are being discriminated against for being a Female Headed Household please describe ?

Observations of the Interviewer – Additional Notes :

Sri Lanka has witnessed a rise in the numbers of female-headed households (FHH) after the war. This includes those FHH in the North and East and also the ‘military widows’ in the South. Ad hoc interventions by the state and by civil society have resulted in their concerns not being addressed meaningfully. A welfarist ‘hand outs’, ‘one size fits all’ approach to interventions has meant that their basic human rights to physical security and right to be free from violence, socio economic, civil and political rights and their psycho social needs have not been addressed.

FHH from different communities face various challenges. The FHH in the former border villages struggle with young widows who have married at a young age and now have to provide for their households while FHH in the North face militarization and threats to their physical safety due to their physical vulnerability in addition to unsafe housing. Further, FHH in the North are discriminated against by the Tesawalamai law, which curtails their rights of ownership to land in the absence of a spouse. FHH also face several obstacles when they access government services such as health facilities. They also have to bear the brunt of being main provider to the household and to take on the responsibilities that come with this role. The stigma and cultural ostracism they face also needs to be tackled. The tracing of missing or disappeared spouses during the war and those in detention is another concern that needs urgent attention.

The state also needs to address the needs of very young women who have been widowed at an early age and the high numbers of elderly FHH in the North. In addition, economic and social security for these FHH, their social welfare are concerns that need state intervention. These concerns of FHH need to be addressed with their participation. A platform that provides them with a space to take decisions and gives them the opportunity to participate in decision-making on their issues needs to be created.

A lack of clarity on who a FHH is has hampered these interventions at every level. Eg. single women providing for their household should also be included as FHH but are at times not included. Human rights organizations and others working in related fields in Sri Lanka tend to use the term ‘widow’ to include many types of female heads of households. This misrepresentation results in many FHH falling through the cracks and not receiving state and other benefits and being unable to access their rights.

FOKUS WOMEN seeks to bring clarity to the term ‘female head of household’ and also to give visibility to the socio economic and other issues faced by FHH through its research and advocacy with the state. Providing solutions to the problems faced by FHH will contribute to building peace and ensure that women’s voices from the grassroots are heard at national level.

FOKUS WOMEN34 A, Sulaiman AvenueColombo 5Sri LankaTel/Fax: +94112055404Web: http://www.fokuskvinner.no

A STUDY ON THE STATUS OF FEMALE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLDS AND THEIR ACCESS TO ECONOMIC,

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AMPARA DISTRICT

A study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and...

Documents

Transcript of A study on the Status of Female Heads of Households and their Access to Economic, Social and...