Concerned Action Now (CAN) Trip Report

Contact person: Tara Negi / 9810118778 / /
Trip description and impressions
On 17 Apr 2007, Carolyn Au, Netika Raval and Tan Yuen-Lin visited two centers where CAN projects were conducted, and the CAN office. Our visit was facilitated by Rohini Muthuswami of Asha Delhi, and we were escorted by Tara Negi of CAN. Netika translated from Hindi to English for Carolyn and Yuen-Lin.
Our first stop was the CAN vocational training project at Kusumpur Pahari. It is based in a single-storey concrete building of about 1000 sq ft (?) owned (?) by the Rotary Club of Delhi, and located within an urban slum area. The slum borders an affluent area. We drove for about 10 minutes on a narrow road past small and densely packed shops and residences made of cement and wood. Viewed from the car, the sanitary conditions seemed quite poor. At one point we passed a large lot filled deep with uncollected garbage. On our way to and from the center, we saw women with plastic water containers collecting water.
Inside the center, there were desks and chairs arranged in a classroom layout, and a large table. At the table a group of about 10 young girls were making ornamental glass plates. We met some of the CAN facilitators, including Arvind and Sonia. We were educated about the various items that the children make under the guidance of CAN personnel, for example jute bags, ornamental glass plates and neck rests. The items were attractive and well-made. We asked questions about the children and the items, and met a few of the children, but did not manage to speak substantially with them. Throughout our time there, the children worked quietly and very intently. The ones we interacted with appeared happy and were not shy. The facilitators were warm and sincere, and from what we could tell had a good rapport with the children.
After about 1.5 hours we left for the second center, located in Dakshinpuri. CAN conducts both vocational training and pre-nursery education at this center. The center was a small room (around 250 sq ft) on the first floor of a two-storey building. The building was on a street lined with two to three-storey shop lots. We were greeted by 15-20 people sitting on mats and on the floor. Those present were a mixture of children and adult women. The women were from the families of the children served by the center. A few of the children had severe disabilities, e.g. physical deformation. Apparently, incidence of such disabilities was unusually high in the community. In the room there were a few sewing machines, and on the walls we saw educational posters for young children. The items made at this center were different from the previous one, but were similarly well-made. Some of the items are file folders, envelopes, doll keychains, dresses and tea cosies. During our time at the center, a few of the women were making items.
Our final stop was the CAN office, where we met some of the staff/volunteers. They were all female except for the office assistant. Apparently, most of the CAN personnel are female. The office was clean and tidy. We spent most of our time here on remaining questions and action items. The staff told us that it was easier to work with disabled girls than boys, as the boys are often pressured to find work. Also, they said that the children are sincere and hardworking because they feel the need to go the extra mile to make it in life.
Facts (some unverified) and observations

  1. The Kusumpur Pahari center has been running for 5 years.
  2. 15 children are served by the Kusumpur Pahari center. They are up to 20 years of age, with the majority between 10-15 years of age. They are mostly female. They attend government schools in the area; not sure if this includes the males.
  3. 15-22 children are served by the Dakshinpuri center. Children 9-12 years of age come for the pre-nursery programme in the morning, then in the afternoon the vocational training programme is held. Adults (e.g. family members of the children) also attend the afternoon session (?).
  4. The facilitators live in the same communities as the children they help.
  5. Items at both centers employed home-made and repurposed materials (e.g. plumbing wire, home-made glue). They were attractive and useful, attesting to the artistry and resourcefulness of the facilitators who had designed them.
  6. Raw materials, equipment and training are provided by CAN. Some of the items were designed by the facilitators (Arvind and Sonia in particular) and others by the children.
  7. The items are sold to special event organizers, universities, companies. Prices of some of the items made: small bag 60Rs, big bag 150Rs, ornamental glass plate 150Rs, neck pillow 150Rs. For the 150Rs items, about 50Rs profit is made. The center had a stall at a trade fair; earned 30,000Rs in two weeks. We felt that the items could potentially fetch higher prices in overseas markets like the US.
  8. The children are paid 20Rs per item.
  9. Besides vocational training, the centers also help place the children at higher education institutions or factories with good working conditions. In addition, they help the children's families in various ways as needs arise.
  10. CAN has a partnership with a spine hospital where they send children for treatment.
  11. Benefits that the programmes have brought (as described by Tara):
  12. Skills learnt have helped the children find jobs, e.g. seamstressing. In some cases CAN supported those starting work by giving them sewing machines.
  13. Helps the children gain confidence to face mainstream society, e.g. three times on the International Day for the Disabled, the children met the Indian President.
  14. Increased awareness among parents and the community that there is hope and a future for their disabled kids.
  15. Certification as disabled to access government services.
  16. CAN helped a disabled girl get married.

Areas for further investigation

  1. We did not collect much info about the pre-nursery programme at Dakshinpuri.
  2. Tara said they had collected some data about the children they help. We should request it from them, especially data that describes the children's progress as they spend time in the two CAN programmes, and after they "graduate" from them.
  3. The kind of help extended to the children's family members and local community members.
  4. What proportion of the budget goes towards non-educational activities?
  5. Would be great to talk directly with the children and their families to better understand the impact of the programmes.
  6. How would CAN evolve without the leadership of the late Prof Baquer?