Self-Help Groups as a Platform to Improve Nutritional Status
51
INSIGHTS FROM VILLAGE AUREPALLE RACHEL GANSON Self-Help Groups as a Platform to Improve Nutritional Status
Transcript of Self-Help Groups as a Platform to Improve Nutritional Status
I N S I G H T S F R O M V I L L A G E A U R E P A L L E
R A C H E L G A N S O N
Self-Help Groups as a Platform to Improve Nutritional Status
Personal Background
Chicago, Illinois, USA12th Standard2012 World Food Prize Borlaug-Ruan International Intern
Interest in:Social/gender studiesHealth studiesSoutheast Asia & Africa
8-week study
Selected by ICRISATMentor: Dr. BantilanNutrition & Gender Development
Literature Review
Village and Household Economies in India’s Semi-Arid Tropics by TS Walker and JG Ryan
General introduction to ICRISAT & Village Level Studies (VLS)
Prompted interest in female income and household nutritional status
Improved Nutrition
Enable Educational Achievement
Sustain Income-Earning
Opportunities
Maintain Productivity Sustain Income-
Earning Opportunities
Ensure Mobility
Sustain Income-Earning
Opportunities
Reduced Child Mortality Increased
Uptake of Family Planning
Increased Life Expectancy
Increased Uptake of Family
Planning
Decreased Fertility
Decreased Population
Growth
Literature Review (cont’d)
“The Contribution of ICRISAT’s Mandate Crops to Household Food Security” by Kim Chung
In-Depth review of nutritionVitamins & Minerals provided by cropsAurepalle’s preference for riceQuantity v. Quality of dietary protein
“Empowerment Through Social Capital Build-Up: Gender Dimensions in Technology Uptake” by MCS Bantilan and R Padmaja
Female Social NetworkingMore informal groupsEmphasize common interestBridge caste, class, etc.
Introduced information leading to this study’s hypotheses and objectives“Gender and Social Capital Mediated Technology Adoption” by R Padmaja, MCS Bantilan, D Parthasarathy, and BVJ Gandhi
Collective action yields successful adoptionFemales who increase income have more voice on topics such as:
SHG ParticipationEducationConsumptionOther resources
Hypotheses
Female participation in SHGs will enhance the nutrition status of the household.
Involvement in SHGs will increase the consumption frequency of healthy, nutritious foods in the household diets.
Anthropometric measurements taken for all households will show an increase in “normal” ranges of nutritional status among SHG households.
Participation in SHGs provides more access to information on nutrition.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Saffilios-Rothschild (1980) paraphrased in Walker an Ryan (1985)
Objectives
Does participation in SHGs improve the nutritional status of the household?
In SHG households, are more nutritious foods consumed more consistently when compared to non-SHG households?
Does anthropometric data quantitatively show an increase in nutritional status for SHG households as opposed to non-SHG households?
Do SHGs provided information to members on accessible resources that can improve nutritional status?
Study Outline
Review of LiteratureFormulation of Objectives & HypothesesDevelopment of Questionnaire & Focus Group Discussion GuideData Collection
Aurepalle VillageIndividual Interviews
8 SGH6 Non-SHG
Focus Group DiscussionsSHGNon-SHG
Aurepalle VLS Data
Analysis of Data & In-House DiscussionsPresentationFinal Report
Methodology
Aurepalle VillageOriginal VLS VillageHighest SHG Participation
62 SHGs12-15 Members/Group
Field ResearchPreference to farm sizeFocus Group Discussions
2 FGDSHG=24 ParticipantsNon-SHG=18 Participants
Discussion GuideIndividual Interviews
14 Women Interviewed8 SHG Members6 Non-SHG Members
Extensive survey questions
VLS Data AnalysisBMI Calculated (World Health Organization)
Comparison of SHG and Non-SHGComparison to National Indian Standards
LimitationsTimeAvailability of IntervieweesLanguage BarrierParticipation Rate
A B R I E F E X P L A N A T I O N O F T H E I R R O L E I N V I L L A G E S O C I E T Y
Self-Help Groups and AurepalleVillage
Aurepalle Field Visit
(Above)Meeting for an interview in the field
(Above)SHG Focus Group(Right)Son of SHG member before school
Rise of Self-Help Group
Micro-financial institution12-15 members
Small monthly contribution to group savings
Receive bank loans
Low interest rates
Information disseminatorsGovernment official->SHG Member
NGO->SHG Member
SHG Member->SHG Member
Tool for EmpowermentPurchasing Power
Money Management Skills
Public Speaking Skills
Empowerment of Women
SociallyBridge caste and classOften emphasis on kin relationshipCommunity of common interest
IntellectuallyInformation sharedPublic speaking skills improved
Have discussions with men2 representatives from Federation of SHGs attend village meetings (monthly)
Purchasing power increasedDecision-making power expanded
Claim to make decisions within respective groupStill ask husbands adviceAll have joint decision-making power
Child education increasingly importantScholarshipsPrivate schools
100
62.550
12.525 25
12.525
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Reason Given
Reason for Joining an SHG
33.3
16.7
33.3
16.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Too Poor Husband Doesn't Approve
Not Been Asked Too Busy
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Reason
Reasons for Not Joining an SHG
37.5
50
12.5 12.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Group Leader Neighbors District Velugu SHG officers
Relatives
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Encourager
Encouragers of SHGs
H O U S E H O L D C O N S U M P T I O N A S A B A S I S F O R C O M P A R I N G S H G A N D N O N - S H G N U T R I T I O N A L S T A T U S
Nutrition
Changes in Food Habits
21.4
14.3
7.1 7.1
42.9 42.9
14.3
7.1 7.1
00
7.1
0 0
42.9 42.9
14.3
0 0
7.1
05
101520253035404550
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Food Item
Food Items Consumed 30 Years Ago
SHG
Non-SHG
Changes in Food Habits (cont’d)
21.4
14.3 14.3
7.1
21.4
50
28.6
14.3 14.3
0 0 0 0 0
21.4
0 0 0
42.9
28.6 28.6
7.1
35.7
21.4
7.1
14.3
7.1 7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Food Item
Food Items Consumed Now
SHG
Non-SHG
Inferences
Increase in “ready-mades”WheatBuns/BreadsBiscuitsSweets/Kara
Rice as staple grainDecrease in cereal consumptionSubsidy for rice, not cereals (FGDs)
Previously consumed “healthier” foodsOrganic foodsLocal varietiesChange in quality of food (e.g., BPT Rice)More diversity now, but feel weaker
Household Consumption
57.1
42.9
42.9
57.1
57.1
14.3
14.3
7.1
0
0
42.9
28.6
14.3
42.9
42.9
7.1
14.3
7.1
7.1
14.3
0 20 40 60
Rice
Sorghum
Pigeonpea
Milk
Vegetables (Includes GLV)
Non-Vegetarian Food
Pulses (Other)
Pearl Millet
Fruits
Wheat
% of Respondents
Fo
od
Ite
ms
Most Commonly Consumed Food ItemsNon-SHG
SHG
57.1
14.3 14.3
50
21.4
0 0
14.37.1
0 0
0
0
14.3
0
7.1
14.37.1
0
0
0 0
0
21.4
14.3
7.1
035.7
35.7
0
07.1
0
0
0
7.1
0
0
7.1 24.3
0
0 07.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Food Item
Frequency of Food Item Consumption in SHG Households
Never
Rarely (1-3x/Month)
Sometimes (1-2x/Week)
Usually (3-5x/Week)
Always (6-7x/Week)
42.9
0 0
42.9
21.4
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0
0
0 0 0 0
7.1
0
0
21.3
7.1
0
0
28.6
7.1 7.1 7.1
0
7.1
0
0
7.1
0
7.1
0
0 0 0
7.1
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Food Item
Frequency of Food Items Consumed in Non-SHG Households
Never
Rarely (1-3x/Month)
Sometimes (1-2x/Week)
Usually (3-5x/Week)
Always (6-7x/Week)
Inferences
SHG Households
More frequently consume:Non-Vegetarian FoodSorghumPigeonpeaGLVPearl MilletOther PulsesMilk
Higher consumption of nutritionally rich foods
Much higher GLV consumption
Non-SHG Households
More frequently consume:
Fruits
Wheat
Vegetables
Fruit & Vegetable Consumption
43.9
35.7
50
7.1 7.1 7.1
21.4 21.4
14.3
5.7 7.1
28.6
2.9
42.9
21.4 21.4
14.3
21.4
14.3 14.3
21.4
14.3
21.4
14.3
7.1
14.3
7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Vegetable/Fruit Item
Comparing Fruit and Vegetable Consumption Between SHG and Non-SHG Households
SHG
Non-SHG
Presenter
Presentation Notes
SHGs tend to eat more variety in higher #
Home Production
35.7
28.6
7.1
21.4 21.4
7.1 7.1
21.4
14.3
0
21.4
28.6
7.1
21.5
14.3
0 0
7.1
0
7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Food Item
Comparing Home Produced Items in SHG and Non-SHG Households
SHG Non-SHG
Home Production (cont’d)
0
14.3
21.4
14.3
7.1
0
14.3
7.1
0
21.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
Almost All More than Half
About Half Less than Half
Almost None
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Amount Home Produced
Comparing the Amount of Home Produced Food Between SHG and Non-SHG Households
SHG
Non-SHG
Home Production (cont’d)
21.4
7.1
14.3
7.1
0
7.17.1 7.1 7.2
14.3
7.1
00
5
10
15
20
25
5,000 Rs. 4,000 Rs. 3,000 Rs. 2,000 Rs. 1500 Rs. 200 Rs.
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Rupees/Month
Amount Spent Purchasing Food
SHG
Non-SHG
42.9
50
21.4
7.1 7.1
28.6
0 0
28.6
35.7
14.3
0
7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Expenditure Purpose
Most Costly Household Expenditures
SHG Non-SHG
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Non-Veg food, milk, curd, vegetables, fruit, sorghum, roti& pulses eaten in higher frequency, but prices also increased
Household Concerns
35.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
7.1
0
35.7
21.4
0
7.1
14.3
14.3
7.1
0 20 40
Agriculture
Child Health
Education
House Construction
Old Debts
Other Health problems
Dowry
% of Respondents
Issu
es/
Co
nce
rns
Most Concerning Household Issues
Non-SHG
SHG
78.6
21.4
Would SHG Involvement Help with these Issues?
Yes
No
A N A L Y S I S O F Q U A L I T A T I V E D A T A
Anthropometric Measurements
Body Mass Index
10.3
23.3
56
9.5
0.9
BMI Classification of SHG Households
Severe Thinness (>16.00)
Underweight (16.00-18.49)
Normal (18.50-24.99)
Pre-Obese (25.00-29.99)
Obese (>30.00)
7.15
35.7
57.15
BMI Classification of Non-SHG Households
Severe Thinness (>16.00)
Underweight (16.00-18.49)
Normal (18.50-24.99)
Pre-Obese (25.00-29.99)
Obese (>30.00)
BMI Limitations
BMI Classification SHG Non-SHG
Severely Thin 12 2
Thin 27 10
Normal 65 16
Pre-Obese 11 0
Obese 1 0
Total 116 28
Severe limitations found because of heavy involvement in SHGs
Under 5 Measurements
Measurement Normal Mild Moderate Severe
Height 1 2 1 1
Weight 1 2 1 1
Arm Circumference 0 2 3 0
SHG Measurements
Non-SHG Measurements
Measurement Normal Mild Moderate Severe
Height 0 1 2 0
Weight 1 2 0 0
Arm Circumference 0 3 0 0
C O M P A R I N G I N F O R M A T I O N S H A R I N G B E T W E E N S H G A N D N O N - S H G M E M B E R S
Information Sharing
21.4
21.4
14.3
14.3
28.6
21.4
28.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
No Information Given
Public Speaking Skills
Savings Management
Loan Repayment Management
Bank Transaction Management
General Awareness
Agriculture Information
% of Respondents
Info
rma
tio
n T
ype
The Most Important Types of Information Shared in SHGs
35.7
14.3
7.1
14.3
7.1
14.3
7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Information Source
Sources of Information (Non-SHGs)
Level of Receptiveness to New Information
7.1
42.9
0
7.1
0
7.1
21.4
0
14.3
005
101520253035404550
Very Open Somewhat Open
Depends Not Usually Open
Not Open at All
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Level of Receptiveness
SHG
Non-SHG
Nutritional Information
35.7
0 0
14.3
7.1 7.1
21.4
0 0
14.3
0
7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Increases Iron
Increases calcium
Increases potassium
Increases Vitamin C*
Improves Eyesight
Don't Know
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Benefit
Benefits of Green Leafy Vegetables
SHG Non-SHG
Nutritional Information (cont’d)
21.4
35.7
14.3
0 0
7.1
42.9 42.9
21.4
28.6
7.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% o
f R
esp
on
de
nts
Method
Best Way to Obtain Protein
SHG
Non-SHG
14.3
35.7
7.1
7.1
7.1
0
0
14.3
42.9
0
0
0
7.1
7.1
0 20 40 60
Doctors
Neighbors
Peer Group
Television
Radio
Parents/Elders
Co-Workers
% of Respondents
So
urc
e
Source of Information on the Best Way to Obtain
Protein
Non-SHG SHG
Indicates Level of Nutritional Concern Among Villagers
0%
100%
Respondents Content with Information Sharing in SHGs
Yes No
100%
0%
Respondents Finding Information Sharing
Beneficial
Yes No
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Nobody feels they should learn more information, but they find new information beneficial – Nutrition is not a concern
A S U M M A R Y O F W H A T T H E R E S U L T S I N D I C A T E A N D S U G G E S T I O N S A S T O W H A T
R E S P O N S E S C A N B E M A D E
Conclusions & Recommendations
Conclusions: Nutrition
Quality ConcernCould indicate a lack of knowledgeIncorrect adoption of technology
Rise in popularity of ready-made productsWheat flour, buns/breads, biscuits, etc.Less time-consumingSocially popular
Rise in consumption of:Rice, wheat, vegetables, green leafy vegetablesFarmers want cash
SHG householdsMore frequently consume: Sorghum, Pigeonpea, Pulses (others), Pearl Millet, Non-Vegetarian Food and Green Leafy VegetablesLess frequent consumption of wheat
Both SHG & Non-SHGDecrease in cerealsIncrease in ready-made goods (ie biscuits, buns, breads, sweets)
Lack of Concern over Nutritional Status
Conclusions: Anthropometric Measurements
Unable to make informed conclusions due to sample size
Conclusions: Information Sharing
Neighbors are main source of information
SHG members more open to information
Lack of concern regarding nutrition
Adoption occurs collectivelyFocus Group Discussions
Neighborhood adoption
“Gender and Social Capital Mediated Technology Adoption”
“Women will talk”
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Women will talk, give information to women who will talk
Information
Groups
Learn Together
Successful Information
Adoption
Collective Action & Adoption
Successful Information
Adoption
Open Discussion of Problems &
Solutions
Successful Information
Adoption
Individuals
Doubt Information
Failure of Information
Adoption
Unsure of Usefulness
Failure of Information
Adoption
Non-Comprehensive
Attempt to Adopt
Failure of Information
Adoption
Self-Help Groups
Empowerment of Women
Public Speaking
Skills
Expanded Knowledge
Increased Influence
Group Receives Information
Collective Action Takes Place
Information Shared with Neighbors & Relatives
Successful Adoption Takes Place
“Women Will Talk”
Group learns together
Group adopts together
Group shares information
Adoption is successful!
NGOs/Government Schemes with
Nutritional Information
Individual
Unsuccessful Adoption
Self-Help Groups
Empowered Woman
Shares Information With Relatives &
Neighbors
Collective Action & Successful Adoption
Empowered Woman
Shares Information With Relatives &
Neighbors
Collective Action & Successful Adoption
Empowered Woman
Shares Information With Relatives &
Neighbors
Collective Action& Successful Adoption
Individual
Unsuccessful Adoption
Recommendations
Increase study depthCompare to village with lower SHG participationIncrease sample sizeMeasure daily caloric intakeGo outside VLS sample size
Promote home-productionProvide incentive for consumption of cereal grains other than riceNot just “how”, but “why”Use SHG to disseminate nutritional information
Pinpoint SHG members in neighborhoodsTeach empowered women why nutrition should be a concernPromote collective action & adoption (between neighbors)
~Dhanyavād!~
