Working Women’s Hostels in...Analysis of data was done by Dr Sunayana Swain, School of Gender Studies, TISS Hyderabad and Snehal Shahare from SRCW. Report writing was by Dr Sunayana

State Resource Centre for Women Department of Women Development and

Child Welfare Govt of Telangana

& School of Gender Studies

Tata Institute of Social Sciences Hyderabad Campus

MAY 2020

Working Women’s Hostels in

Hyderabad:

Perceptions of Hostel

Residents and Owners on

Living Conditions in Hostels

1

Table of Contents

List of tables and figures ................................................................................................................... 2

Research Team ....................................................................................................................................... 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 2

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 4

2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Field Sites ...................................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Key Sources and Procedure.......................................................................................................... 9

2.3 Sample ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2.4 Tools ............................................................................................................................................ 10

2.5 Procedure ................................................................................................................................... 11

3. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 11

3.1 Hostel Residents’ Perspectives .................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1 Socio-demographic profile .................................................................................................. 12

3.1.2 Living Conditions ................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.3 Security and Safety .............................................................................................................. 24

3.2 Hostel Owners’ Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 30

3.2.1 Socio-demographic Profile .................................................................................................. 30

3.2.2 Management of Hostels ...................................................................................................... 31

3.2.3 Security & Safety Facilities provided in the Hostels .......................................................... 32

3.3 Challenges & Suggestions by the Hostel Owners ...................................................................... 35

3.4 Comparison between the Hostel Residents’ and Hostel Owners’ Perspectives ...................... 35

4. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 37

5. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 38

Appendix.………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………40

2

List of tables and figures Tables P. no

1 List of Area Clusters 7

2 Sample from each Cluster 10

3 Socio-demographic profile of Hostel Residents 13

4 Rent Category 17

5 Provision of Contracts across Clusters 20

6 Cross-Tabulation of Knowledge about Rules with Provision of Contracts

21

7 List of Facilities provided in the Hostels 22

8 Satisfaction of Hostel Residents with Space, Size and Value-for-Money

24

9 List of Security and Safety services provided in the Hostels

26

10 Satisfaction of Hostel Residents with Safety and Security services

29

11 Suggestions by the Hostel Residents 30 12 List of Security and Safety Services provided – Hostel

Owner’s perspective 34

13 Comparison of services provided reported by Hostel Residents (HR) and Hostel Owners (HO)

35

Figures P. no

1. Map of Hyderabad 8

2. State of Origin of Hostel Residents 13

3. Categories of Profession 16

4. Monthly Income 16

5. Rent Category 18

6. Maintenance charge 19

7. Safety of Location – Hostel Residents 25

8. Accommodation Capacity 31

9. Safety of Location – Hostel Owners 33 10. Comparison of Services – Hostel Residents vs.

Hostel Owners 36

Research Team

The research study was conceptualized by the project staff of the State Resource

Centre for Women (SRCW), Department of Women Development and Child Welfare,

Govt of Telangana, and the faculty of School of Gender Studies, Tata Institute of Social

Sciences, Hyderabad campus, Prof U.Vindhya and Dr Sunayana Swain.

Data collection was led by A. Pragathi, State Program Coordinator, S. Prashanti,

Gender Specialist, Ch. Venkanna, Training Specialist, Shreya Ghosh and Snehal

Shahare, Research Officer at the SRCW, with the involvement of the following

students of MA in Women’s Studies and anchored by the School of Gender Studies,

TISS Hyderabad campus

1. Alisha Goutam Choubey 2. Alluri Swapna 3. Ananya Kundu 4. Aparna Sanjay 5. Ashyani Munda 6. Camellia Reja 7. Deepti Priya Karn 8. Dilja K M 9. Jonnada Madhuri 10. Kallem Aradhana 11. Karishma Shafi 12. Konduru Yasmeen 13. Kritika Rai 14. Navjot Singh 15. Piuli Basu 16. Prerna Singh 17. Priyanka Bemal 18. Sapna Gangadhar N 19. Sravani Borlakunta 20. Trisha Bhattacharya 21. Vadithya Harish Naik 22. Madhabee Mahanand 23. Tanya Jain 24. D Pavithra 25. Vaibhav Paul 26. Deepannita Mishra 27. Arshita Singh 28. Mona Analysis of data was done by Dr Sunayana Swain, School of Gender Studies, TISS

Hyderabad and Snehal Shahare from SRCW.

Report writing was by Dr Sunayana Swain and Prof U.Vindhya of the School of

Gender Studies, TISS Hyderabad.

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY • This is a report based on an assessment of the living conditions in working

women’s hostels in the city of Hyderabad, Telangana state. The key objectives were

to study and analyze the socio-demographic profile of the hostel residents, the

infrastructure conditions and the safety and security features in the hostels.

• The study used a mixed methods research design, employing both quantitative

and qualitative techniques to observe, survey and interview owners of 31 hostels

and 439 hostel residents spread across four densely-populated clusters in the city,

Madhapur, Gachibowli, Ameerpet/S.R. Nagar, and Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet that

were identified as having the maximum number of working women’s hostels in

the city.

• The socio-demographic profile of the hostel residents indicated the occupation of

the hostel residents to be predominantly that of software professionals, with small

percentages of sales and marketing personnel, accountants and those in finance

and banking agencies, and health care professionals. A majority of the hostel

residents are below 25 years of age (84%), with 47% coming from Andhra Pradesh,

predominantly single and unmarried (97%), employed (73%) with 92% of them

having moved to hostels for job-related purposes and the rest 8% for studying in

colleges/coaching institutes. This is in line with the current profile of young, single

women coming into cities in search of employment opportunities in contrast to the

earlier pattern of marriage-induced migration being the predominant reason for

the presence of women among migrants.

• The study assessed the quality of the hostels on two parameters – Living

Conditions and Security and Safety Services.

• On the first parameter of Living Conditions, it was found that

- Average rent is between Rs. 5000-8000 for shared accommodation

- 92% were satisfied with size of their rooms, 89% were satisfied with the

space in the hostels. 87% found their hostels to be value-for-money

- Sharing of rooms and bathrooms is a common practice

- Rooms are provided with wardrobes and lockers

- Regular supply of water for drinking and water purposes

3

- No separate facilities for differently-abled

- No day-care facilities for residents with children

- Contracts/rent agreements rarely provided

• On the second parameter of Security and Safety services, the results were:

- 82% were satisfied with the quality of the safety and security, 76% found

the hostels to be value-for-money and 78% were satisfied with the overall

services provided

- 89% had CCTV cameras in the hostel premises, with 81% having more than

one camera

- Only 33% had security guards; and no women guards were appointed

- Only 18% had visitor’s register book; and only 10% had a complaint register

available

- 76% had well-lit corridors and basement; 60% had boundary wall around

the hostel

- Poor fire safety arrangements (Only 15% had fire-extinguishers; and only

11% had emergency exit)

- Only 13% had access to Medical first aid.

• The hostel owners are aware of the legal permissions required to run such

establishments, yet 20% did not have it.

• 77% of the owners lived on the premises of the hostels making it convenient for

them to manage the day-to-day operations. In terms of location of the hostels, both

the hostel residents and owners reported the hostels to be in a safe location,

although the locality was congested.

• Based on the interviews and observations, it is understood that there is a strong

requirement of rigorous implementation of standard operating guidelines within

the framework of established governmental norms for the Working Women’s

Hostels, especially with regards to safety and security services.

4

1. INTRODUCTION

A noticeable trend since the past two decades or so is the migration of young women

to cities on their own in order to enhance economic opportunities either by seeking

employment or for education. Although historically, women have been thought to

migrate primarily for marriage and marriage-induced migration was considered to be

the predominant reason for an overwhelming presence of women among migrants to

cities in particular (Ghosh, 2009; NSSO, 2010), what is significant in recent years is the

increasing migration of women for work opportunities (Deshingkar & Akter, 2009).

According to a recent analysis of the 2011 Census data, women migrating for work

grew by 101 percent, which is more than double the growth rate for men at 48.7

percent (Indiaspend.org, 2016). The growing rate of migration of women to cities in

particular is attributed to the post-liberalization opportunities of economic

development in the services sector and in emerging avenues of employment such as

the IT segment.

The conditions of migrants, particularly poor migrants in the informal economy,

characterized by insecurity, exploitation, denial of basic needs such as identity

documentation, social entitlements, and so on have been fairly well-researched

globally and in India (e.g., UN Migration, 2015). A critical gap in research and analysis

however is the housing needs of young single women who migrate to cities for

employment or for education. While migration to urban centres may be empowering

for women, allowing them to access education and employment, help to overcome

traditional and rigid gender norms, and provide some agency in terms of enhanced

ability to make independent decisions and take charge of their lives, new challenges

upon reaching their urban destinations can arise such as increased risk of physical and

sexual violence, withholding of earnings, and trafficking (Kanthoul, 2015).

Furthermore, a key challenge in the form of precarious housing situation has not been

studied as much as the other challenges and forms the central objective for this report.

Working women’s hostels in cities provide a safe, affordable means of accommodation

for women who migrate to cities for enhanced economic opportunities. This report

5

attempts to examine and highlight the living

conditions in working women’s hostels n the

city of Hyderabad, Telangana state, a city that

has emerged as a prime destination for

employment in various sectors in recent

years. The report is based on a survey

conducted by the State Resource Centre for

Women of the Department of Women

Development and Child Welfare (WDCW),

Government of Telangana, and students and

faculty of the School of Gender Studies, Tata

Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Hyderabad

campus. TISS Hyderabad is a knowledge

partner with the WDCW for conducting and

coordinating the activities of the SRCW.

State Policies and Programmes

The Ministry of Women and Child

Development in the central government

plays the supervisory role in the

implementation of the Scheme of Working

Women Hostels (WWH) with Day Care Centres. The scheme was introduced with the

primary purpose of providing financial assistance to voluntary organizations and

local bodies for construction of hostels for working women. Since the inception of the

scheme in 1972-73, the WCD has provided financial assistance for construction of 958

hostels in 25 states and 4 Union Territories (Ministry of WCD, 2017).

The WWH scheme is one of the seven categories of government schemes for women

including health, education, employment, housing, shelter, social support, and

violence. In April 2017 it was brought under the Pradhan Mantri Yojana, under which

Box 1. Objectives of the WWH

- To promote safety and location accommodation for working women along with day care facilities for their children, wherever possible.

- To facilitate the services in urban, semi urban or even rural areas where employment opportunities for women exist.

- To make available for all working women without any discrimination

- To accommodate women who are under training for job

[Ministry of WCD, 2017]

6

an additional 54 hostels have been sanctioned across the country (Ministry of WCD,

2017).

The cost sharing ratio amongst the central government, states/union territories and

implementation agencies is 60:15:25 for construction of the building. In addition, a

one-time recurring grant at the rate of Rs. 7500 per resident is released to the

states/union territories at the prescribed ratio of 60:40 at the time of commencement

of the hostel. In an evaluation study however, of working women’s hostels in the four

states of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, over 91% of hostels

reported not receiving maintenance grants from the government. This meant that

onus of meeting the deficit is on the managements themselves which they either did

by charging higher fees or by raising donations and contributing funds themselves

(Walokar, nd).

This report however, focuses on the working women’s hostels that are owned and

managed by private owners in the city of Hyderabad (within the Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation limits).

Eligibility criteria

- Single, divorced, widowed, married, separated but whose husband or relations does not reside in the same city or area

- Working women whose income does not exceed Rs. 50,000 per month in metro cities or Rs. 35,000 per month in any other place

The three key objectives of this report are to examine and analyse the

• Sociodemographic profile of those residing in the hostels

• Infrastructural conditions of the hostels and

• Safety and security features of the hostels

Govt. Working Women’s Hostels in Telangana

Hyderabad 1

Nizamabad 1

Mahbubnagar 1

Warangal 1

Khammam 1

[vide G.O. Ms no. 1 dt. 22-1-1996, WDCW Department, Govt of Andhra Pradesh]

7

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Field Sites

From information collected from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and

the police stations located in Hyderabad and Cyberabad Police Commissionerates

(two of the three police commissionerates in the city of Hyderabad and its outskirts,

six clusters of working women hostel locations were identified. These six clusters

were: Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet, Madhapur, Ameerpet/ S.R. Nagar, Mehdipatnam,

Ashoknagar, and Gachibowli.

As seen in Table 1, the total number of hostels in the six clusters is 551, with each hostel

having an average occupancy of 40 residents. After receiving permissions from the

local Police Stations and Hostel Owners (HO), four areas were identified:

Ameerpet/S.R. Nagar, Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet, Gachibowli and Madhapur.

Table 1. List of Area Clusters Sl.No. Name of the Area Total No. of

Hostels

1 Ameerpet /SR Nagar 240

2 Chikkadpally 11

3 Dilsukhnagar/ Malakpet 64

4 Mehdipatnam 26

5 Madhapur 126

6 Gachibowli 84 Total 551

These areas are densely populated in terms of number of hostels. Since Chikkadpally

and Mehdipatnam had a smaller number of hostels, they were excluded from the final

list of hostels taken for the study.

A map of the four study sites marked out in a map of Hyderabad is presented below

to give a picture of the expanse of the present study.

8

Fig. 1. Map of Hyderabad with the study locations

Madhapur

Gachibowli

Dilsukhnagar

Ameerpet

9

2.2 Key Sources and Procedure

The Hostel Residents (HR) and the Hostel Owners (HO) were the key sources for the

present study. With the list of hostels in each of the four clusters, the field workers

were divided into 18 teams, comprising of two members each. The teams comprised

of students of MA in Women’s Studies and were supervised by Field Coordinators

from the office of State Resource Centre for Women, Department of Women

Box 2. Brief profile of the study locations

Madhapur is a suburb of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy district and comes under the Cyberabad Commissionerate. From a rocky village in the early 1990s, Madhapur is now a well-developed area with the highest concentration of hundreds of Information Technology companies having offices there. In and around Madhapur, a huge population of people employed in IT sector are settled, along with people trying for employment and students also. To cater to the huge IT population, the area is teeming with hostels, paying-guest (PGs) accommodations, apartment complexes, apart from commercial spaces like hotels, restaurants, eateries, malls, multiplex theatres, etc.

Gachibowli too is one of the well-connected suburbs, located in Serilingampally mandal of Ranga Reddy district and comes under Cyberabad Commissionerate. Gachibowli area has impressive structures like the University of Hyderabad, Indian Immunologicals, GMC Balayogi stadium, and offices of countless IT companies. Because of Gachibowli’s proximity to the Hitech city (the IT hub of Hyderabad), the area is popular among the employees of these companies and students too. The area is inundated with commercial businesses like restaurants, gymnasiums, salons, service apartments, along with residential communities.

Ameerpet started developing in the early 1990s as the city expanded due to commercial activities and also comes under Cyberabad Commissionerate. Apart from the residential localities in Ameerpet, the area is now bustling with businesses of all kinds and is in fact a popular destination for software training in India with students coming from all over the country to join software training courses, especially at the Centre for Development of Advance Computing (C-DAC Hyderabad). Consequently, a lot of establishments have come up to accommodate those aspiring to join the courses. SR Nagar is close to Ameerpet but is predominantly a residential area.

Dilsukhnagar, one of the busiest commercial centres in Hyderabad along with Malakpet is part of the Old City area of Hyderabad. It was merged into the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in 2007 and comes under the Rachakonda Police Commissionerate. It is a densely populated area and home to numerous businesses, educational institutions, coaching and training centres.

10

Development and Child Welfare, Govt of Telangana on the field, and by faculty from

the School of Gender Studies, TISS Hyderabad campus.

2.3 Sample

Since the hostels in the four clusters varied in their occupancy, the sample size was

determined based on the same. The final sample consisted of the HRs, HOs and the

Hostel Staff (Warden, Cook, Security Guard, Caretaker). The total number of hostels

in the four selected clusters were 514 with the average occupancy pegged at 40 per

hostel. Using the statistical Cochran’s formula, the required sample size was

determined to be 377. According to the permissions of the HOs, availability of the HRs

and the local police stations, the final sample size from each cluster was the following:

Table 2. Sample from each Cluster Sl.no Cluster Area No. of HRs interviewed

1 Madhapur 100 (23%)

2 Gachibowli 75 (17%)

3 Ameerpet/ SR Nagar 189 (43%)

4 Dilsukhnagar/ Malakpet 75 (17%)

Total 439

Apart from the hostel residents, 31 hostel owners were also interviewed to gain a

different perspective about the management of hostels.

Random sampling was followed in the selection of the hostels from each cluster while

the HRs were selected on the basis of convenient sampling technique.

2.4 Tools

A detailed questionnaire was constructed to collect data. The questionnaire aimed to

capture data ranging from the HRs’ socio-demographic details (age, gender, native

place, current employment status, etc.) to information regarding their experiences of

living in the hostel. The questionnaire was divided into the following three sections

consisting a total of 28 items (listed in Appendix).

11

• Sociodemographic details

• Infrastructure of the Hostel and

• Security features of the hostels

The questionnaire combined items that were quantitative and qualitative in nature.

The quantitative items included Likert-scale type questions, checklist (yes/no), while

the qualitative items were expected to elicit subjective and detailed responses. A pilot

study was conducted to identify the limitations of the questionnaire prior to the

initiation of the main data collection and revisions were made accordingly.

2.5 Procedure

The data was collected over a span of 20 days between July and September 2019. Each

team of field workers covered specific area clusters for the survey. Required

permissions from the Hostel Owners and local Police were taken prior to the

commencement of the data collection. The HRs were approached with their approval

and the interview was carried out after obtaining informed consent from the

respondents. Each interview lasted for 30-40 minutes. The data from each cluster was

analysed separately for specific areas while a macro-analysis required the compilation

of the cluster data to gain a comprehensive perspective. The data was coded and

analysed in SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences, IBM) and Microsoft Excel.

3. FINDINGS & ANALYSIS

This section documents the findings of the survey and analysis of the collected data.

The chapter is primarily organized as per a comparative analysis of the flour clusters

viz. – Madhapur, Gachibowli, Ameerpet/S.R. Nagar and Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet),

interspersed with analyses unique to each cluster.

This section focuses on findings in the following three categories corresponding to the

objectives of the study:

i) Socio-demographic profile

ii) Living Conditions

iii) Safety & Security.

12

The Sociodemographic Profile describes the diversity of the respondents (i.e. the

Hostel Residents) who seek accommodation in the hostels in terms of their age, native

place, purpose of moving to hostels, etc.

The Living Conditions section forms the crux of the survey wherein the details of the

hostels are recorded from the perspectives of the hostel residents which includes

wide-ranging questions about the rent paid, infrastructure of the hostels, facilities

provided, the ease of living in them, etc.

The last section focuses on a critical aspect of the survey i.e. the Security and Safety

services provided in the hostels and concerns faced by the hostel residents. The

analysis also records the perspectives of the owners and staff of few of the hostels.

This helps understand the gap between the services offered by the owners and the

requirements of the occupants of the hostels.

3.1 Hostel Residents’ Perspectives

3.1.1 Socio-demographic profile

During the course of the survey, the team interviewed 439 respondents (N = 439) who

are living hostels in the selected areas i.e. Madhapur (n1 = 100), Gachibowli (n2 = 75),

Ameerpet/S.R. Nagar (n3 = 189) and lastly Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet (n4 = 75). The

tabulation of the data, reveals that 47% of them are from the neighbouring state of

Andhra Pradesh, 40% are from the state of Telangana while the remaining 13% are

from Odisha, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Haryana and Assam. The

cosmopolitan composition of the population can be attributed to the IT boom that

changed the landscape of South India with the influx of skilled graduates with

engineering degrees from the nearby states. Despite the bifurcation of Andhra

Pradesh into two states, Hyderabad continues to be the preferred destination for the

youth with a background in technical education.

13

From Table 3, it can be seen that respondents were aged between 17-36 years, with the

mean age being 23 years (M). The respondents belonged to the age group of 17 years

to 36 years, with a major percentage being below 25 years of age (84%). Out of 437

respondents who chose to share the information on the religion they practiced,

majority percentage of the respondents reported to be Hindus (94%) and 6% from

other religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. Out of the 439 respondents, 206

(47%) reported to be from Other castes, 39% were from OBC and 12% were from SC

& ST category. Around 2% chose not to reveal their caste. The data showed that 97%

were unmarried and 3 % were married. Once married, it is assumed for a woman to

move into marital space (shared with husband, in-laws, etc.), but for unmarried

women, the single status plus the general lack of safety for women, it is not surprising

that maximum women prefer to stay in shared accommodation as it considered to be

safer than living alone. Additionally, the expenses are also less in hostels.

Table 3. Socio-demographic profile Cluster

Madhapur

(n1=100)

Gachibowli

(n2 = 75)

Ameerpet

(n3 = 189)

Dilsukhnagar

(n4 = 75)

Total = 439

Age

<25 years 73 61 162 71 367 (84%)

>25 years 27 14 26 5 72 (16%)

Religion

Buddhist - 1 - - 1 (<1%)

Islam 5 1 3 3 12 (3%)

47%

40%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Andhra Pradesh Telangana Other States

Fig. 2 State of origin

14

Christian 1 2 10 - 13 (3%)

Hindu 93 70 176 72 411 (94%)

Caste

SC/ST 8 6 21 16 51 (12%)

OBC 38 23 69 40 170 (39%)

OC 52 42 93 19 206 (47%)

Marital Status

Married 3 5 6 3 17 (3%)

Single 97 70 183 72 422 (97%)

Education

Intermediate 4 - 5 23 32 (7%)

Graduate 71 62 138 48 319 (73%)

Post graduate 25 13 46 4 88 (20%)

Employment

Employed 86 74 146 4 310 (71%)

Self-employed 1 - 6 1 8 (2%)

Unemployed 13 1 37 70 121(27%)

Reasons for moving into a hotel

Job 405 (92%)

Study 34 (8%)

Note. N = 439. For some variables, few respondents chose not to respond. Hence the N is not equal across variables

From Table 3, it is seen that:

• 73% were possessing a Bachelor’s degree like B.Tech and BSc, 20% were Post-

graduates (MBA), and 7% having an Intermediate degree.

• 71% are employed in different organizations, 2% are self-employed and 27%

reported to be unemployed. This 27% includes respondents who have moved

to Hyderabad from different cities to look for opportunities and taking up

15

coaching to learn skills to enhance their employability. With Hyderabad

housing hundreds of IT companies, many fresh graduates with an Engineering

and/or Master’s in Business Administration degree often take up residence in

and around these clusters, for various purposes.

• The analysis shows that 92% of the respondents are living in the hostels for job-

related purposes including the proximity to the work-place and also looking

for jobs.

Living near the IT companies makes it convenient for the job-seekers to go for

interviews (especially the walk-ins), and also gather valuable information from

women who are already employed in these companies. Additionally, the women

develop a sense of cohesiveness given similar qualifications, struggles, goals, etc. It is

also common knowledge that over the years, the hostels develop reputation for

renting out to people coming from particular states, providing food and other services

familiar with the region of origin, appealing to the sensibilities of these populace

leading people to take up hostels.

Hyderabad is known to be one of the IT hubs in India, apart from cities like Bengaluru

and Chennai. Out of the 318 respondents who reported to be working, 64% of them

are working in Engineering and IT/Software related sector, 20% have jobs in

marketing, sales, human resource, customer support services, 8% in finance, banking

and accounts sector. Doctor, nurses, teachers comprise 4% of the employed category

and the remaining 6% are in the miscellaneous group having jobs like working in

malls, drug stores, editing & content writing. The miscellaneous category also

included respondents working as medical coders, interior & fashion designers, and

counsellors.

16

The income profile reveals that the minimum salary is below Rs.2000 and the

maximum go beyond Rs. 27000 in monthly salary of the respondents. The tabulation

of the data showed that there are 5 respondents whose salary was less than Rs. 2000

per month, along with 57 others for whom the monthly salary ranged between Rs.

2000- Rs. 12000, comprising 19% of the employed group. 117 (37%) of them earned a

salary that was more than Rs.12000 up to Rs. 22000 and for 113 (36%) respondents the

monthly salary ranged between Rs. 22000 to Rs. 27000 and above. A small number of

26 respondents (8%) chose not to reveal their monthly salaries.

64%

20%

8%4% 4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

IT/Softwarerelated

Sales,Marketing &

HR

Finance,Banking,

Accounting

Doctor,Nursing,Teaching

Miscellaneous

Fig 3. Categories of Professions

<2000 - 1200019%

12000-2200037%

22000 - >2700036%

No response8%

Fig. 4. Monthly Income Category (in INR)

<2000 - 12000 12000-22000 22000 - >27000 No response

17

The detailed description of the socio-demographic profile of the respondents

provided a context to analyze the data further in terms of physical condition of the

hostels surveyed and the security and safety aspects of the hostels.

3.1.2 Living Conditions

Rent, Maintenance Charge and Contract

The living conditions of the hostels were ascertained by multiple factors. To begin

with, information was sought on the amount of rent paid for the hostel

accommodation. The overall data showed that 59% of the respondents were paying a

monthly rent between Rs. 2000-5000, 38% paid between Rs. 5000-8000 and remaining

3% paid more than Rs. 8000 per month as rent (Table 4).

Table 4. Rent category

Cluster Total (N=439)

Rent Madhapur

(n1=100)

Gachibowli

(n2 = 75)

Ameerpet

(n3 = 189)

Dilsukhnagar

(n4 = 75)

2000-5000 36 (36%) 2 (3%) 167 (88%) 55 (73%) 260 (59%)

5000-8000 57 (57%) 69 (92%) 19 (10%) 20 (27%) 165 (38%)

>8000 7 (7%) 4 (5%) 3 (2%) 0 (0%) 14 (3%)

From Table 4, data showed that more than half of the respondents paid rent between

Rs. 2000 to Rs. 5000 (59%), while 38% of the respondents were charged a rent amount

between Rs.5000 -Rs.8000, and 3% paid more than Rs. 8000 as rent. An area-wise

analyses revealed that, in Madhapur area 36% the respondents were paying rent

between Rs.2000-5000, 57% between Rs. 5000-8000 and 7% were paying above Rs.

8000. In Gachibowli, the percentage of people paying rent between Rs. 5000-8000 was

92%, with 3% paying between Rs. 2000-5000 and 5% paid more than Rs. 8000. In

comparison, 88% of the respondents living in the Ameerpet/SR Nagar area, paid Rs.

18

2000-5000 as rent, 10% paid between Rs. 5000-8000 and 2% above Rs. 8000. For

respondents in Dilsukhnagar/Malakpet area, the Rs.2000-5000 rent amount was paid

by 73%, while the remaining 27% paid an amount of Rs. 5000-8000 as rent.

With the development of Hyderabad as IT hub, the presence of the software and

related companies brought up a rapid expansion of the city. The expansion of areas

like Madhapur, Hi-Tech City, and Gachibowli led to numerous housing societies,

hospitals, showrooms, malls, schools, restaurants dotting the changed landscape.

Given this, the real estate value of those areas naturally increased. Hence, the

percentage of respondents living in these two areas (Madhapur and Gachibowli)

appear to be shelling out more money as rent in comparison to those living in

Ameerpet & Dilsukhnagar. Figure 5 presents a pictorial comparative analysis of the

differential rent amount paid by the respondents from the four clusters.

It is common knowledge that the hostel residents are expected to contribute their share

for the upkeep of the hostel building and its premises, along with the electricity and

water charges in the form of Maintenance charge. The respondents were asked if they

paid the maintenance charge and if they answered yes, they were further asked if the

maintenance was inclusive or exclusive of the rent amount. From Figure 6, it can be

seen that overall, 88% of the respondents said they paid for maintenance charge while

11% said they did not. One percent chose not to respond.

36%

3%

88%

73%

59%

57%

92%

10%

27%

38%

7%

5%

2%

0%

3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Madhapur

Gachibowli

Ameerpet

Dilsukhnagar

Total (on 439)

Fig. 5. Rent Category

>Rs. 8000 Rs.5000-8000 Rs. 2000-5000

19

Further analysis revealed that out of the 386 respondents who reported to be paying

a maintenance charge, only 58 (15%) said they paid an amount above the monthly rent

while for the remaining 328 (85%) the maintenance charge was inclusive of the rent

amount. It is important to distinguish between the rent and maintenance charge as the

facilities provided like elevator service, security guards, caretakers, etc. are largely

dependent on the maintenance charge while the rent amount covers the lodging only.

Hostels charging a separate amount as maintenance is expected to provide these extra

services and can be held accountable in case there is a lapse in the services or facilities.

It is possible to speculate that the hostel owners’ accountability gets reduced if the

services are not listed out and the rent amount is made to be inclusive of the

maintenance charge.

A legal method to ensure that the tenant (in this case, the Hostel Resident) and the

Hostel Owner is protected from any kind of hassle, is to have a contract signed which

is legally bound document issued by notary officers. The survey revealed that only

12% of the respondents had a signed contract while a large 87% did not have a contract

with the Hostel Owners and 1% chose not to answer. Tabulation of the data was also

done to understand if this trend differed across the four clusters considered for the

study. The results are presented in Table 5.

89%

96%

85%

85%

88%

11%

3%

14%

15%

11%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Madhapur

Gachibowli

Ameerpet&SR Nagar

Dilsukhnagr&Malakpet

Overall

Fig. 6. Maintenance charges

No Yes

20

Table 5: Provision of contract across clusters

Cluster Contract for the hostel residence

Yes No Total (N = 433)

Madhapur 12 (12%) 88 (88%) 100

Gachibowli 12 (16%) 62 (84%) 74

Ameerpet/ SR Nagar 23 (12%) 162 (85%) 185

Dilsukhnagar/ Malakpet 6 (8%) 68 (92%) 74

Total 53 (15%) 380 (85%) Total = 433*

*Note. Six respondents choose not to respond

The lack of a legal contract (signed by both parties) puts the Hostel Residents in a

disadvantageous position. In case of any untoward incident, the Hostel Residents will

not be able to hold the Owner accountable. The absence of a legal contract between

the Hostel resident and the owner makes it difficult to hold the owner legally

responsible towards the safety and comfort of the hostel residents. The fact that the

trend is similar across the four clusters (in the survey) is worrisome and raises the

question about the legal status of the hostels being run in terms of permissions from

the local authorities like the Municipal Corporation.

Information regarding rules & regulations

Additionally, the HRs will not be aware of the terms & conditions of their stay in the

hostel, the services, the facilities that they are supposed to be provided for in the

hostels and more importantly, if the hostel is complying to the regulations stipulated

by the government for managing such spaces. When the respondents were asked if

the Hostel Owner had informed them about rules & regulations, 363 (83%) answered

in affirmative, and 17% said no. Further, cross-tabulation of the data showed that, out

of the percentage of respondents who were made aware of rules & regulations, 87%

did not have a contract with the Hostel Owners as shown in Table 6.

21

Table 6. Cross-tabulation between Knowledge about rules & Provision of Contract Knowledge about rules & regulations

Provision of Contract Yes No Total

Yes 47 (13%) 6 (8%) 53 (12%)

No 311 (87%) 66 (92%) 377 (88%)

Total 358 (82%) 72 (16%) 430* (100%)

*Note. Nine respondents chose not to respond. A Chi-Square test of Independence was run to verify if there is an association between

the residents’ awareness of rules & regulation and the provision of contract by the

Hostel Owners. The hypothesis was if the hostel residents are provided with a detailed

contract, they are more likely to be aware of the various rules & regulations about their

stay, as well as services, facilities, etc. to be provided by the hostel owners. The result

of the analysis showed that there is no association between the two (X2 = 1.28, not

significant at p<.05). In other words, despite a large number of respondents reporting

about having knowledge about the rules & regulations, they were not given legal

contract, indicating that the conversations around it was largely verbal and nothing

in written. With the presence of legal contract, the Hostel Owners are more likely to

be legally bound to inform the HRs about the governmental stipulations apart from

the other rules & regulations when they rent out the rooms.

Based on the preceding results, an attempt was made to understand if the facilities

provided were satisfactory for the residents. Under the list of facilities provided,

information was sought on various aspects like having roommates, provision of

facilities for differently-abled residents, etc. The results are presented in Table no. 7.

22

Table 7. Facilities provided in the hostels Sl.no. Services Yes No Do not know

1. Shared rooms 99% 1% -

2. Shared bathrooms 87% 13% -

3. Regular Water supply 90% 10%

4. Drinking water supply 90% 10%

5. Day care facility for children of hostellers (if any)

3% 81% 16%

6. Facilities for differently-abled 6% 73% 21%

7. Provision of wardrobes 75% 25% -

8. Provision of lockers 56% 40% 4%

9. Bio-Metric Attendance 1% 84% 15%

10. Parking area 41% 34% 25%

Sharing of Rooms & Bathrooms

It is important to note here that the hostel residents are often expected to share their

hostel rooms with other women. From Table 7, it is seen that 99% of the respondents

said they were living with roommates, sometimes more than four. Almost 78% lived

with three to more than four roommates. A cross tabulation was carried out to

understand if rent amount plays a role here. The results showed that the rent has no

relation with the number of roommates that the respondent had. In other words,

irrespective of the rent that was charged, the hostels operated on a room-sharing basis.

This could be attributed to two main reasons. Firstly, sharing of rooms often is a cost-

effective method for the young women to reduce their monthly expenses and hence

it’s a common practice. Secondly, it was beneficial for the hostel owners to operate on

a reduced-cost as the rent collected increased. Moreover, the presence of roommates

may also help the reduce the stress of living in a new city, or managing a new job. The

disadvantage of room-sharing can be where the hostel owners cramp the rooms by

renting it out to larger number of women, leading to congestion in the hostels.

Sharing of bathrooms is also a common practice in hostels. It was seen that 87% of

respondents had to share bathrooms while 13% had individual bathrooms. This aspect

of hostels had no relation to the rent category that the respondents belonged to.

23

The rooms and bathrooms were well-maintained as per the reporting of the hostel

residents with regular cleaning of the bathrooms once a week on an average.

Water Supply

The residents were asked about the regularity of water supply in the hostels. The data

revealed that 90% of the residents had regular water supply as well as drinking water.

Around 10% reported not having a regular water supply in the hostel along with

irregular drinking water supply.

Day-care facilities

Provision of day-care facilities is important for women having children and who are

living away from their marital homes. Only 3% of respondents said they had day-care

facilities in their hostels while 81% did not have such facilities.

Facilities for Differently-abled residents

Making hostels suitable for differently-abled people is an important feature of

modern-day hostel. In the survey it was revealed that there were almost 8% (n = 34)

of respondents who were differently abled. Out of them, only 6 (17%) of them said

that the hostels provided separate special facilities for them. When asked about the

problems they faced, majority of them reported that the movement within the hostel

building was difficult because of lack of dedicated infrastructure.

Provision of wardrobes and lockers

From Table 7, it can be seen that 75% of the hostel residents reported having

wardrobes in their hostels and 56% have locker facilities to store their valuables. 25%

did not have the provision of wardrobes and 40% did not have locker facility.

Bio-metric entrance

Bio-metric system is an expensive but an effective method to increase the safety

feature of the hostel. From the data it was seen that only 1% had a bio-metric entrance

system in the hostels.

24

Parking area

For the availability of parking area, 41% respondents had access to parking area in the

hostel whereas 34% did not have it.

After ascertaining the status of various factors contributing to the living conditions of

the HRs, the respondents were asked on their overall satisfaction with the hostels in

terms of size (of the rooms), space (location of the hostels) and value for money. Table

8 presents the figures.

Table 8. Satisfaction with the Hostel Size, Space, Value for Money Dimension Satisfied Dissatisfied

Size 92% 8%

Space 89% 11%

Value for Money 87% 13%

3.1.3 Security and Safety

With the liberalization of the economy since the 90s, more and more women are

gaining access to the formal service sector like the IT, Banking, Hospitality, etc. As a

consequence, there is an increasing demand on the states (especially the metro cities)

to provide safe and secure environment for the women to earn their livelihoods in

cities away from their homes. The mushrooming of the working women hostels can

be seen as a result of that demand. By providing a living space wherein the space is

shared by similar people, it results in giving a sense of security and safety that the

youth primarily look for when they are living in a new city. Given this context, it was

important to ascertain the security and safety services provided by the hostels as

perceived by the respondents in terms of the location of the hostels and the facilities

as well.

Location of the Hostel

The location of the hostels is an important factor for people seeking accommodation

in the city, apart from the location of the workplace that determines people’s choices

of a hostel. The survey revealed that 80% of respondents reported that the hostel was

25

near to police station, hospital and public transport, making it a convenient location

for the hostels to operate and popular, especially amongst the IT population. 88% had

access to the local police station, and similar percentage to public transport. In other

words, the respondents could easily access the multiple forms of public transport

available like buses, auto rickshaws and Metro trains. Further analysis showed that

94% of respondents also said that the hostels were located near hospitals. The

respondents were asked how safe they felt with regards to the location of their hostels

(Figure 6). 90% of them felt their hostel location was safe. However, 50% did feel that

their hostels were located in secluded and congested areas. The areas that were taken

for the survey are quite densely populated because of the IT companies and the

coaching institutes operating there, a large number of hostels for the working youth

have come up in the last 20 years or so. Perhaps that explains reason behind the figure

that 88% of the respondents felt safe commuting to-and-fro the hostel. With the offices,

often open till late into nights, there is usually much traffic on the roads, hence making

it safer for commuting.

While the location is an important factor, the other security and safety services are

critical in providing a safe accommodation to the women, living away from their

homes. Table 9 presents the tabulation of the various services provided by the hostels

as perceived by the respondents.

90%

50%

88%

10%

50%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Location

Seclusion&Congestion

Commute

Dim

ensi

on

s

Fig. 7 Safety in Location of Hostels

No Yes

26

Table 9. List of Security and Safety Services provided Sl.no. Services Yes (in %age) No (in %age) Do not

know 1 Functional CCTV 89% 9% 2%

i. One CCTV 8% - -

ii. >One CCTV 81% - -

iii. Do not know 11% - -

2. Security guard 33% 54% 13%

3 Visitors’ Register Book 18% 67% 15%

4. Complaint Register 10% 87% 3%

5. Independent Warden 40% 55% 5%

6. Lighted corridors and basement 76% 12% 12%

7. Boundary Wall around the hostel 60% 24% 16%

8. Well locked entrance gates 70% 16% 14%

9. Restriction on timings 70% 24% 6%

8. Fire Extinguishers 15% 67% 18%

9. Emergency Exit 11% 71% 18%

10. Medical Services (first aid) 13% 70% 17%

Note. The number of respondents varies across the variables and the percentages are calculated

accordingly.

CCTV cameras

As can be seen in Table 8, 87% of the respondents were residing in hostels having

functional CCTV cameras with 81% reporting more than one camera in their hostels.

The respondents were also asked if they knew about the location of the CCTV in the

hostels. 96% said the camera is placed at the entrance. This records the movement of

people in and out of the building which is crucial. CCTV cameras were also reported

to be placed at the entry to the hostel office (76%), parking area (58%), and around the

premises (54%), hostel corridors (60%).

27

Security guards

As seen in Table 7, only 33% said that their hostels had security guards, 54% said they

didn’t have security guards while 13% did not know whether there was a security

guard or not. The presence of CCTV cameras seems to justify the absence of security

guards. Although the CCTV cameras can aid the security aspect of a building and not

completely replace security guards. At best, CCTV can act as a deterrent but perhaps

cannot prevent any untoward incident from happening. Hence, it is important for the

guards to be present along with the CCTV cameras.

Visitors Register and Complain Register

From Table 8, it is seen that only 18% reported the hostel having Visitors Register to

track the movement of people in & out of the hostel. The register is necessary to

maintain a record of the people moving about the premises. The respondents (10%)

reported of incidents of unknown men entering the hostel premises, some into the

hostel rooms, being stared at from nearby buildings, entering the rooms and stealing

mobile phones, wallets, etc. resulting in the women feeling unsafe and threatened by

such incidents. When asked about the mechanisms to deal with such incidents, 87%

of the respondents said the hostels did not provide for a Complaint Register to write

their concerns and issues. Without a written record of such serious matters, it becomes

difficult to address the issues. This was reflected in the survey as well.

Independent Warden

The respondents were also asked about the presence of an independent warden to

help manage the concerns of the residents. 55% respondents were living in hostels

which did not have a warden, 40% said they had a warden in their hostels, while 5%

did not respond. Not having an independent warden reduces the scope for the

residents to report their concerns or issues because many a times the owner is living

somewhere far away. Also, it might not be possible to listen to day-to-day matters of

the hostel residents. In this scenario, the hostel residents are left to their own devices.

More importantly, the presence of a warden can extend a sense of security to the

people staying in the hostel. 14% of them also reported that in some hostels that had

28

warden, the warden was a man and not a woman. The presence of a warden who is a

woman is imperative because the residents are women.

Boundary Wall, Well-locked Entrance and Lighted Corridors & Basement

60% of the respondents reported having a boundary wall around the hostel, 70% had

well-locked entrance gates, and 76% mentioned having well-lighted corridors and

basement without which the CCTV cameras will not serve any purpose, yet 24% did

not have properly lighted premises.

Restrictions on timings and Penalty

It is necessary to mention here that 70% of the respondents had to follow timings of

the hostel for entry and exit that usually is between 10-12 AM, out these respondents,

48% did not have security guards provided in their hostels. With the timings of entry

& exit in place, perhaps the Hostel Residents are expected to take precautions and

safeguard themselves while the Hostel Owners’ responsibility towards them ends

with placing of restrictions on their movement. While a majority of respondents

reported that there is no penalty given in case they return past the curfew (83%), a

small number of respondents did say that they are penalized in various ways. For

instance, their parents would be informed about the incident, or they would not be

allowed to enter the hostel, and in some cases, they have to bear with the scolding of

the owners too.

Availability of Fire Extinguishers

As for the Safety concerns of the Hostel Residents, it needs to be highlighted that 69%

of the respondents said there were no Fire Extinguishers available in their hostels and

additional 10% did not know about the requirement of them. The hostels are often

congested and even a small fire-related accident can cause significant damage if there

are no safety mechanisms available to stop the fire, if not prevent.

Emergency Exit

81% reported not having an Emergency Exit or not seeing one. Despite 83% of them

saying that they were made aware of rules and regulations, perhaps the safety

29

regulations were not covered in the initial period of stay. In case of emergencies, the

lack of emergency exit and the knowledge about it can prove to be disastrous.

Medical First- Aid

Provision of Medical First-Aid is a basic and an essential requirement of running an

establishment such as hostels. However, 70% reported not having the Medical First-

Aid being available to them with 17% not knowing anything about it.

Resolution of Security Issues

Out of the respondents who had faced security issues, around 13% of them managed

to file a complaint with the police and/or the owners, and 50% of them reported no

action being taken by the police or the owners. For one respondent, the owner installed

a CCTV camera only to resolve the issue and one respondent was asked by the Hostel

Owner to stay in order to avoid such situations.

Overall, 82% of the respondents found the quality of security services to be satisfactory

and 76% found it to be value for money. 78% found the overall services to be

satisfactory.

Table 10. Satisfaction with the Security & Safety Services Dimension Satisfied Dissatisfied Don’t Know

Quality 82% 14% 4%

Value for Money 76% 19% 5%

Services 78% 16% 6%

Suggestions for Improvement by the Respondents

The respondents were asked to suggest the aspects on which the hostels can be

improved. Table 11 presents the list of suggestions.

30

Table 11. Suggestions to improve the quality of hostels Sl. No. List of Suggestions

1. Increased number of security guards, especially women guards

2. Increased number of CCTV cameras placed in strategic in & around the

hostels

3. Police patrolling on the streets, especially in the late evenings

4. Presence of an independent warden, especially women

5. Drinking water supply

6. Maintenance of Complaint Register

7. Quality of food

8. Responsive management (owner, staff, security)

The areas covered in the survey are extremely popular amongst IT sector people,

students coming for training in technical skills in computing, coding, etc. As per the

responses, the standard of the hostels appears to be generally satisfactory. However,

the mere provision of a building with rooms and wardrobes is not enough to fulfill

the basic criterion of safe and secure accommodation. The analysis of the data on

security and safety services show inadequate measures provided by the hostels in

terms of even basic facilities like Security guards, CCTV cameras, Fire Extinguishers,

Medical First Aid, etc. Without a proper legal contract, and lack of knowledge of rules,

regulations & rights, the living conditions of the Hostel Residents in these buildings

are less than satisfactory and may be a disaster waiting to happen.

3.2 Hostel Owners’ Perspectives

While understanding the hostel residents’ perspectives was important, it was also

necessary to gain insight into the management of the hostels from the hostel owners’

viewpoint. 30 hostel owners and one hostel staff were interviewed to fulfil this

purpose.

3.2.1 Socio-demographic Profile

Out of the 30 owners, 61% were women and the 39% were men. The youngest owner

was 18 years of age while the oldest owner was 62 years old. 93% of the owners of the

31

hostels were Hindus and 7% were Christians. 13% of them reported to be not

educated, while the rest 87% had respondents who were graduates, school drop-outs,

and some had intermediate degree. The one respondent who was a staff and

managing the hostel was a BTech graduate and was not married.

To determine the perspectives of the owners running the working women hostels,

they were asked a series of questions pertaining to the legalities of running such

operations to the facilities that they claimed to offer in their hostels.

3.2.2 Management of Hostels

The hostel owners were asked if they were aware about obtaining permission from

police to operate the hostels. 80% were aware while 20% reported not having any idea

about such requirements. Without the knowledge of the local police and other

authorities, running such operations are not only illegal but also highly risky in case

of emergencies. Out of the 80% (n = 24) who were aware about the requirements of

permissions, 8% (n = 2) did not have permissions despite having knowledge about it.

77% of owners stayed on the premises of their hostels and managed the operations

from there itself while the rest 23 % stayed separately. The presence of owners can be

advantageous for the residents for resolution of issues.

Out of the 30 hostels whose owners were interviewed, 6 hostels (19%) had the capacity

of accommodating more than 100 residents at any given point of time with the highest

going up to 400. The rest of the owners (81%) reported having a capacity that ranged

from 20 to 95 residents finding accommodation in their hostels. A break up of this

aspect is presented in Figure 8.

39%

42%

19%

FIG. 8 ACCOMMODATION CAPACITY

32

Out of the 31 Hostel Owners (including one staff) interviewed, 68% of the them

reported that their hostels are running at full capacity. In fact, 2 hostels owners said

they have 34 residents in their hostels despite having a capacity of 20. A small

percentage i.e. 26% were having residents less than the accommodation capacity. It

can be understood from the data that such hostels for working women are quite

popular among the youth seeking opportunities in the city. 45% of them reported

having a separate mess staff to run the daily operations of the hostels which is a

necessity given the number of people residing in such hostels.

3.2.3 Security & Safety Facilities provided in the Hostels

As the owners/proprietors of the businesses of hostels, the responsibility of providing

secure and safe accommodation is of utmost importance. Majority of the youth,

especially women living independently, seek a safe location with adequate security

services. Hence, it is crucial to understand the perceptions of safety and security of the

hostel owners and whether they are similar to the realities perceived by the hostel

residents living in these hostels.

Location of the Hostels

In the past two decades, such hostels have cropped up in around the city where the

offices of the IT companies are located. While the areas may be suitable for commercial

purpose, it might not be so for residential buildings. In this scenario, location of the

hostel, in terms of safety, takes a back seat. Hence, at the outset, an attempt was made

to understand if the HOs felt their hostels were in a secure & safe location. The analysis

revealed that the 100% of the owners thought their hostels were in safe location, while

61% did feel that their hostels were located in congested & secluded location. When

asked about the proximity to local police stations (PS), hospitals, and public transport

(PT), 94% of them replied in affirmative. A large percentage of Hostel Owners (94%)

also reported that the commute from the place of residence to the main roads is safe.

The analysis is represented graphically in Figure 9.

33

Further analyses were undertaken to determine about the facilities provided in the

hostels in the name of security and safety. Around 73% reported having knowledge

about the security and safety guidelines for running the hostels. However, having

awareness does not necessarily translate into provision of the required security and

safety facilities. The list of such services is presented in Table 12.

From Table 12, it can be seen that 87% of the hostels provide functional CCTV cameras.

In terms of placement of the CCTV cameras, 90% said the cameras are located near the

main entrance, 70% on the entrance to the main office, 84% in the parking area, 55%

in the hostel corridors, and 52% said they had cameras placed around the premises of

the hostel.

Among the hostel owners, 68% of them have security guards, 61% have provided for

a visitor’s register book to monitor the movement of people in and out of the hostel.

35% of the hostel owners said their hostels have an independent warden. Only 6% of

the hostel owners reported providing a separate complaint register for the residents

to notify the hostel owners/staff about the security and safety issues. Although the

residents are allowed to register their complaints on WhatsApp, around 55% of the

owners said the residents are expected to talk to them directly in case of any concerns.

Nevertheless, the informal nature of this arrangement reeks of lack of accountability

on the part of the hostel owners in addressing the serious issues that might arise in the

hostels.

100%

61%

94%

94%

0%

39%

6%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Safe Location

Secluded/congested

Proximity PS, Hospitals, PT

Safe Commute

Dim

ensi

on

s

Fig. 9. Safety in Location of Hostels

No Yes

34

Table 12. List of Security & Safety services offered by the Hostels Sl.no. Services Yes (in %age) No (in %age) Do not

know 1 Functional CCTV 87% 13%

i. One CCTV 16% -

ii. >One CCTV 65% -

iii. Do not know 19% -

2. Security guard 68% 32%

3 Visitors’ Register Book 61% 39% -

4. Complaint Register 6% 74% 20%

5. Independent Warden 35% 59% 6%

6. Lighted corridors and basement 100% - -

7. Boundary Wall around the hostel 84% 16% -

8. Well locked entrance gates 94% 6% -

9. Restriction on timings 84% 16% -

8. Fire Extinguishers 35% 65% -

9. Emergency Exit 16% 84% -

10. Medical Services (first aid) 26% 74% -

As for the safety concerns, all the hostel owners reported their hostel corridors and

basements to be well-lighted, 84% said having a boundary wall around their hostel

premises, with 94% having well-locked entrance gates. Only 35% reported having fire-

extinguishers in their hostels for fire emergencies, 26% provide medical first-aid, and

even smaller percentage i.e. 16% have emergency exit in their hostels. The data reveals

a severe lack of the crucial safety mechanisms that are mandated to be there by the

local authorities.

Resolution of Security issues

The Hostel Owners were asked to share if any kind of untoward incidents had ever

happened threatening the safety of the residents. Only one owner reported of an eve

teasing incident that happened on the main road that was sorted out by the owner

themselves. 90% of the them said no such incidents had ever happened and 6% chose

35

not to answer. Given the complexity of running such establishments, it would be

natural for the owners to face varied challenges. The next section presents the same

along with list of suggestions from the owners.

3.3 Challenges & Suggestions by the Hostel Owners

The management of such hostels can be a challenging task given the numerous

guidelines that need to be followed by the hostel owners. In that context, the survey

also sought to understand the challenges faced by the owners while running the

hostels and if they had any suggestions to improve the conditions.

Majority of them (55%) reported not facing any challenges. One of the problems

reported by the owner was the frequenting of ‘boy friends’ of the girls. Other problems

included the presence of eateries nearby open until late into the night and attracted

alcoholic men. Street dogs were also reported to be a menace. The suggestions to

improve the conditions ranged from increased police patrolling to stricter timings in

the hostels for entry and exit, to increased number of CCTV cameras.

The perspectives of the Hostel Owners lend a different understanding to the

phenomenon of management and operations of such hostels. While, its important to

capture such understanding, it is equally crucial to compare the perspectives of the

Hostel Residents and the Hostel Owners.

3.4 Comparison between the Hostel Residents’ and Hostel Owners’ Perspectives

Comparison was sought to understand the differences between the reporting of the

Hostel Residents and the Hostel Owners in terms of services provided. The analysis

is presented in Table 13.

Table 13. Comparison of services provided reported by Hostel Residents (HR) and Hostel Owners (HO)

Sl.no. Services HR HO

1 Functional CCTV 89% 87%

i. One CCTV 8% 16%

ii. > One CCTV 81% 65%

iii. Do not know 11% 19%

36

2. Security guard 33% 68%

3 Visitors’ Register Book 18% 61%

4. Complaint Register 10% 6%

5. Independent Warden 40% 35%

6. Lighted corridors and basement 76% 100%

7. Boundary Wall around the hostel 60% 84%

8. Well locked entrance gates 70% 94%

9. Restriction on timings 70% 84%

8. Fire Extinguishers 15% 35%

9. Emergency Exit 11% 16%

10. Medical Services (first aid) 13% 26%

From Table 13, it can be seen that, the HRs and the HOs report differently on almost

all the aspects. It can be seen that on the aspect of presence of CCTV cameras, the

reporting of the Hostel Residents and the Hostel Owners are almost same. The data

shows that the Hostel Owners have reported in greater percentages than the Hostel

Residents on the provision of many of the services. For instance, only 33% of the

Hostel Residents reported having security guards, while the 68% of the Hostel Owners

said they provided security guards. 70% of the Residents reported that they had well-

locked entrance gates, while 94% of the Hostel Owners reported of the same.

For ease of understanding the differences are presented graphically in Figure 10.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Fig. 10 Comparison of Services

HRs HOs

37

The discrepancy indicates a mismatch between the list of services offered and the

services actually delivered to the Hostel Residents. A major discrepancy that was

noted during the course of the analysis was about the resolution of issues concerning

security of the residents. While the residents reported about various mechanisms that

was or was not provided by the hostels (talking to the owners, complaining to the

police, etc.), the none of the owners mentioned about any kind of steps that were taken

to support the women, implying a washing-off-hands attitude towards the security of

these women.

While such discrepancies are expected, the differences translate onto larger concerns

regarding the living conditions of the hostels as well as the security & safety of the

hostel residents.

4. CONCLUSIONS

The analyses of the data collected from the residents of the hostels and the hostel

owners are presented in the following section.

Socio-demographic profile

• 84% are below the age of 25 years.

• 47% are from Andhra Pradesh, 40% from Telangana, 8% from other states

• 97% are unmarried

• 73% have an undergraduate degree

• 73% are employed

• 92% have moved for job-related purposes

• 64% are employed in IT and related sector

For ease of understanding, a contrast is drawn between the facilities and services that

are inferred to be adequate and those that needs to be improved.

Living Conditions

Adequate Needs to be Improved

• Rent is largely between Rs. 5000-Rs.8000

• Provisions with wardrobes and lockers

• Regular water supply (cooking/ drinking)

• Parking space

• Separate mess staff

• Provision of contracts

• Hostel rooms are operated on sharing basis in a congested manner

• Bio-metric system

• Day-care facilities

• Infrastructure for differently-abled people

38

Security and Safety Services

Adequate Needs to be Improved

• CCTV cameras

• Lighted corridors & basement

• Boundary wall

• Well-locked entrance gates

• Scope for registering complaints

• Number of security guards

• Monitoring of Visitors

• Independent warden

• Fire safety arrangements

• Emergency exit

• Medical first-aid services

• Prompt resolution of security and safety concerns

• Police patrolling

• Location of the building

The analyses reveal that the hostel residents are overall satisfied with the hostel Living

Conditions as the majority of the requirements are adequate. The lack of provisions of

contracts/rent agreements, absence of facilities for differently-abled, or day-care

facilities for women with children are often left out. With regards to the Security &

Safety dimensions, the hostel residents are overall satisfied and find the services to be

value-for-money. The basic services are made available viz. CCTV cameras, lights in

the common spaces in the hostels, boundary wall, gates, etc. However, the absolutely

crucial services like police patrolling security guards, fire safety arrangements,

medical first-aid, and presence of emergency exit need to be given special attention.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

In the backdrop of the conclusions drawn from the study, the following

recommendations are made

• Standard guidelines need to be established for the management and operations of

the hostels by the concerned governmental department, especially for private

hostels

• Hostel buildings are required to be thoroughly vetted with regards to location,

living conditions, security and safety aspects as per the established governmental

guidelines

• Formulation of guidelines to support women with children (like day-care facilities)

• Establishment of infrastructure to provide support to differently-abled women

accessing job opportunities

39

• Regular monitoring and evaluation of such buildings to maintain the standard of

the facilities and services offered

• Improved liaisoning with the local law & order personnel

With ever-expanding globalization, increasing number of women are expected to

participate in the labour force, especially in the formal sector, preferring to move to

major IT destinations like Hyderabad, Chennai, Bengaluru where the development

vis-à-vis social, health, and literacy aspects is already appearing. The 2011 Census

shows a steady increase in the number of skilled people migrating to southern states

for better job opportunities rather opting for states like Delhi or Haryana. With the

widening job market people with varied skill set (employable in tertiary

sector/informal sector) are also migrating to such cities and to some extent, provide

support to the workers of the formal sectors like the IT. The mushrooming of Working

Women Hostels (as well as those for Men) is the consequences of the rapid growth of

the cities that are trying to accommodate the ever-increasing demands of the

burgeoning population. The expansion, notwithstanding, the onus on providing safe

and healthy living conditions for the lakhs of women, irrespective of their marital

status, physical conditions and socio-economic background, lies with city

administration.

Hyderabad (ranked as the ‘Most Liveable City’, 2019, Mercer’s Quality of Living

Survey), being one of the most popular destinations for people seeking employment

opportunities in the IT and related sectors, must strive from being Gender-Sensitive

to becoming Gender Promotive and that can happen when the city adopts and adapts

practices providing robust and sustained support to women in their journey to

empowerment.

Appendix

Research Study on Living Conditions in Working Women’s Hostels

in Hyderabad Hello, we are students from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad along with State Resource

Centre for Women, functioning within the Department of Women Development and Child

Welfare. We are conducting a survey on women hostels all over Hyderabad in collaboration with

Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Government of Telangana. The information

we collect will help the government to identify the issues related to security and safety mechanisms

in hostels and thereby plan/recommend appropriate policies for proper implementation. Your

hostel being one among the randomly selected for the survey, we would like to invite you to

participate in the same for our understanding.

Participating in this study will involve answering some questions about your hostel and your

experiences here. The questions usually take about 20 to 30 minutes.

All of the answers you give will be kept confidential and will not be shared with anyone other than

members of our research team. Your responses will be numbered and the code linking your number

with your name will be kept a secret.

There are no foreseeable risks to your participation in the survey. There will be no direct benefits

to you, but this research may help to improve the delivery of government services, and society

may benefit from research by gaining a better understanding of the safety and security concerns of

women hostels in Hyderabad.

Your views are important, so we hope you will agree to answer our questions. However,

participating in this survey is completely voluntary. You are free to not participate, to stop

answering our questions at any time and for any reason, or to refuse to answer any particular

question. If I ask you any question you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to

the next question, or you can stop the interview at any time.

In case you need more information about the survey, you may contact us.

Please sign below if you agree to the above terms and conditions

QUESTIONNAIRE

(for Hostel Dwellers only)

A. Personal Information:

Hostel No. Interviewer ID Interview No.

1. Name of the Respondent (optional)

2. Age

3. Gender a. Male

b. Female

c. Others

4. Religion a. Hindu

b. Muslim

c. Christain

d. Sikh

e. Others

5. Caste f. General (OC)

g. SC

h. ST

i. OBC

6. Current Employment Status a. Employed

b. Searching for Jobs

c. Self-Employed

7. Education Status a. Secondary

b. Intermediate

c. Graduation

d. Post-Graduation

e. Others

8. Profession

9. Company Name

10. Income (per month) a. Below 2000

b. 2000-7000

c. 7000-12000

d. 12000-17000

e. 17000-22000

f. 22000-27000

g. Above 27000

11. Marital Status a. Single

b. Engaged

c. Married

d. Divorced

e. Separated

f. Widow

12. Permanent place of residence

13. Current place of residence (Hostel Name

&Address)

14. Contact Number (optional)

B. Hostel Details &Facilities provided:

1. What is your reason to move into a hostel? Write in brief.

2. Do you feel safe about the location of your hostel?

(i) Do you think your hostel is located in a

secluded/congested area?

(ii) Is your hostel in close proximity to hospitals/medical

clinics and the local police station?

(iii) Do you feel safe while commuting to-and-fro the

hostel?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

3. What is the usual timing of your movement?

4. How much do you pay for rent?

a. Below 2000

b. 2000-5000

c. 5000-8000

d. 8000-11000

e. 11000-14000

f. Above 14000

5. How do you pay for your maintenance, facility and security

charges?

(i) Has there been an increase in the maintenance

charges –

1. In the last five years?

2. In the last two years?

a. I pay an amount separately every month

apart from the rent.

b. The charges are included in my rent

c. I pay no such charges

YES NO

6. What is the time restriction of the hostel?

7. Have you faced any problem if you have come after time

limit?

8. What is the penality if you cross time limit?

9. How many roommates do you have?

a. None

b. 1

c. 2

d. 3

e. 4

f. More than 4

10. Rating of overall hostel rooms:

(i) Size

(ii) Value of money

(iii) Space

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied

11. What are the facilities provided in your hostel under Safety &

Security? (Don’t read out the answers)

(Tick all those that are applicable)

a. CCTV Cameras

b. Well lit corridors and basement

c. Fire Extinguishers

d. Emergency Exit

e. Parking area

f. Bio-Metric Attendance

g. Independent Warden

h. Security Guard

i. Day care facility for children of

hostellers (if any)

j. Separate mess staff

k. Visitors’ Register Book

l. Boundary Wall around the hostel

m. Medical Services

n. Maintenance of official contract for rent

o. Well locked entrance gates

p. Windowpanes in the washroom

q. Windowpanes in the rooms

r. Lock in doors

12. How many CCTV Cameras are in your hostel? a. 0

Do the CCTV Cameras cover –

(i) Main entrance to the hostel

(ii) Entry to the hostel office

(iii) Parking area

(iv) Hostel Corridors

(v) Around the premises

b. 1

c. More than 1

YES NO

13.

Is there a Movement Register in your hostel?

(i) If yes, is it updated every day?

(ii) Which of the following is recorded in the movement

register of your hostel?

YES NO

YES NO

a. Out-timing with signature

b. In-timing with signature

c. Record of leaves taken for more than one

day

14. Is there an independent Warden in your hostel?

(i) If yes, is she a female?

(ii) Rate the following:

I. Behaviour of hostel warden with respect to sorting

out problems

II. Response speed to any untoward emergencies

III. Response speed to medical emergencies

IV. Response speed to general complaints

V. Knowledge and skills

VI. Overall behaviour of the warden

YES NO

YES NO

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very

Dissatisfied

15. Are there security guards in the hostel?

(i) Rate the following:

I. Response speed to any untoward

emergencies

II. Response speed to security issues

III. Their presence within the hostel

premises everyday

IV. Their overall behaviour

YES NO

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

Very

Dissatisfied

16. Is there a Day Care Facility for children of hostellers?

(i) If yes, do you have to pay separately for the service?

(ii) Rate the following:

1. Security

2. Value for money

3. Services

YES NO

YES NO

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied

17. Have you been provided any contract for your stay?

(i) Have you been informed about the hostel rules and

regulations?

YES NO

YES NO

(ii) Are you satisfied with the security services that were

promised and that is being actually delivered?

YES NO

18. (i) Condition of doors of your rooms:

(ii) Condition of windowpanes of your room

(iii) Condition of bathrooms

(iv) Condition of windowpanes of your bathroom

(v) Are there any Cleaning staff for bathrooms?

(vi) If yes, then how often

(vii) Regular supply of water in washrooms and common

area?

(viii) Is there safe drinking water supply in your hostel?

a. Creaky condition

b. Perfectly maintained

c. Manageable condition

d. Locks are broken

a. Windowpanes are broken

b. Windowpanes are well maintained

c. There are no windowpanes

a. Individual

b. Shared

a. Windowpanes are broken

b. Windowpanes are well maintained

c. There are no windowpanes

a. Yes

b. No

a. Yes

b. No

a. Yes

b. No

19. Are you provided with wardrobes for storing your personal

& important belongings?

YES NO

20. Were you provided lockers for wardrobes?

YES NO

21. Are you allowed to participate in on-going management and

other decisions important to the quality of security in the

hostels?

YES NO

22. Is there a separate Complaint Register that records your

security and safety concerns?

YES NO

23. Tick the following which are accessible and near to your

hostel?

a. Public transport

b. Hospital

c. Police station

24. Is there any woman with special needs (disability) in your

hostel?

(i) If yes, are there any separate security facilities for

them?

(ii) Have they been victimised because of their special

needs? If yes, describe the incident in brief.

(iii) What kind of difficulties you/they might be facing?

(iv) What measures have been taken by the hostel

authorities?

(v) Were they satisfied with the outcome?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

25. Have you experienced/ witnessed any incident, which might

have threatened your safety, in the hostel during your entire

stay?

(i) If yes, please describe the incident in brief.

(ii) What measures have been taken by the hostel

authorities?

(iii) Are you satisfied with the outcome?

YES NO

YES NO

26. Rating of overall safety & security facilities:

(i) Quality

(ii) Value of Money

(iii) Service

I. According to you, what more can be done to improve

the quality of services for the safety and security of

women in your hostel?

Very

Satisfied

Satisfied Dissatisfied Very

Dissatisfied

27. Are you being Harassed from any other? a. Owner

b. Warden

c. Roommate/hostel mate

d. Other staff

Research Study on Living Conditions in Working Women’s Hostels

in Hyderabad Hello, we are students from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad along with State Resource

Centre for Women, functioning within the Department of Women Development and Child

Welfare. We are conducting a survey on women hostels all over Hyderabad in collaboration with

Women Development and Child Welfare Department, Government of Telangana. The information

we collect will help the government to identify the issues related to security and safety mechanisms

in hostels and thereby plan/recommend appropriate policies for proper implementation. Your

hostel being one among the randomly selected for the survey, we would like to invite you to

participate in the same for our understanding.

Participating in this study will involve answering some questions about your hostel and your

experiences here. The questions usually take about 20 to 30 minutes.

All of the answers you give will be kept confidential and will not be shared with anyone other than

members of our research team. Your responses will be numbered and the code linking your number

with your name will be kept a secret.

There are no foreseeable risks to your participation in the survey. There will be no direct benefits

to you, but this research may help to improve the delivery of government services, and society

may benefit from research by gaining a better understanding of the safety and security concerns of

women hostels in Hyderabad.

Your views are important, so we hope you will agree to answer our questions. However,

participating in this survey is completely voluntary. You are free to not participate, to stop

answering our questions at any time and for any reason, or to refuse to answer any particular

question. If I ask you any question you don't want to answer, just let me know and I will go on to

the next question, or you can stop the interview at any time.

In case you need more information about the survey, you may contact us.

Please sign below if you agree to the above terms and conditions

QUESTIONNAIRE

(for Hostel Staff only)

C. Personal Information:

Hostel No. Interview No.

15. Are you the owner or Warden?

16. If warden, are you relative of owner? Yes/No

17. Designation

a. Chief Warden

b. Sub-Warden

c. Chief Security Guard

d. Security Guard

e. Mess Staff

f. Support Staff

18. If not owner, Tenure of your job (in months/years)

19. Age

20. Gender d. Male

e. Female

f. Others

21. Religion j. Hindu

k. Muslim

l. Christain

m. Sikh

g. Others

22. Caste n. General (OC)

o. SC

p. ST

q. OBC

23. Education Status f. Secondary

g. Intermediate

h. Graduation

i. Post-Graduation

j. Others

24. Income (per month) h. Below 2000

i. 2000-7000

j. 7000-12000

k. Above 12000

25. Marital Status g. Single

h. Engaged

i. Married

j. Divorced

k. Separated

l. Widow

26. Permanent place of residence

27. Office (Hostel Name and Address)

(i) When was the hostel started? (Mention year)

28. Contact Number (optional)

D. Hostel Details &Facilities provided:

28. Do you know that the hostel has to be registered with the

local police station?

(i) If yes, is your hostel registered yet?

YES NO

YES NO

29. (i) Have you been provided an official call letter

for your appointment?

(ii) Have you received any guidelines regarding the

maintenance of safety & security in hostels

before commencing your duty?

YES NO

YES NO

30. Do you receive your salary on time? If not owner

YES NO

31. Do you stay in the hostel?

(i) If yes, have you been provided a separate room

for your stay in the hostel?

YES NO

YES NO

32. Do you feel safe about the location of your hostel?

(iv) Do you think your hostel is located in a

secluded/congested area?

(v) Is your hostel in close proximity to

hospitals/medical clinics and the local police

station?

(vi) Do you feel safe while commuting to-and-fro the

hostel?

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

33. What is the usual timing of your duty?

34. What is the usual timing of your movement in and out of

the hostel?

35. What are the facilities provided in your hostel under Safety

& Security? (Don’t read out the answers)

(Tick all those that are applicable)

s. CCTV Cameras

t. Well lit corridors and basement

u. Fire Extinguishers

v. Emergency Exit

w. Parking area

x. Bio-Metric Attendance

y. Independent Warden

z. Security Guard

aa. Day care facility for children of

hostellers (if any)

bb. Separate mess staff

cc. Visitors’ Register Book

dd. Boundary Wall around the hostel

ee. Medical Services

ff. Maintenance of official contract

for rent

gg. Well locked entrance gates

hh. Windowpanes in the washroom

ii. Windowpanes in the rooms

jj. Lock in doors

36. Is there a Movement Register in your hostel?

YES NO

(iii) If yes, is it updated every day?

(iv) Which of the following is recorded in the

movement register of your hostel?

(v) How many residents are there in the hostel?

(Specify in number)

(vi) How many of them are students, employed and

unemployed? (Specify in number)

(vii) How many are currently residing in the hostel?

(Specify in number)

YES NO

d. Out-timing with signature

e. In-timing with signature

f. Record of leaves taken for more

than one day

g. Visitors’ records

37. Are visitors allowed in the hostel?

(i) If yes, are they allowed to stay overnight?

(ii) Are male visitors allowed in the hostel

premises?

(iii) Are the male visitors allowed to stay overnight?

(iv) Choose the visitors who are allowed to visit the

hostellers:

(v) Visitors’ timing

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

YES NO

a. Family members

b. Male friends

c. Female friends

d. Relatives

e. Office colleagues

f. Others

38. What is the time restriction of the hostel?

39. Did anybody faced any problem if they have come after

time limit?

40. What is the penality if dwellers cross time limit?

41. How many CCTV Cameras are in your hostel?

Do the CCTV Cameras cover –

(vi) Main entrance to the hostel

(vii) Entry to the hostel office

(viii) Parking area

(ix) Hostel Corridors

(x) Around the premises

d. 0

e. 1

f. More than 1

YES NO

42. Is there an independent Warden in the hostel?

If owner?

(iii) If yes, is she a female?

YES NO

YES NO

43. Is there a Day care facility for children of hostellers?

(iii) If yes, do they have to pay separately for the

service?

YES NO

YES NO

44. Are you allowed to participate in on-going management

and other decisions important to the quality of security in

the hostels?

YES NO

45. Is there a separate Complaint Register that records all the

security and safety concerns of hostellers?

(i) If yes, how many complaints have been

registered till now?

(ii) How many cases have been closed successfully?

(iii) How many cases are still pending?

(iv) If there is no Complaint Register, how are

complaints addressed? (Please write the

process in detail)

(v) Has there been any untoward incident in the

hostel which threatened the safety and security

of the hostellers?

(vi) If yes, please describe the incident in brief.

(vii) What measures have been taken by the hostel

authorities?

YES NO

YES NO

46. Is there any woman with special needs (disability) in the

hostel?

(vi) If yes, are there any separate security facilities for

them?

(vii) Have they been victimised because of their special

needs? If yes, describe the incident in brief.

(viii) What kind of difficulties they might be facing?

(ix) What measures have been taken by the hostel

authorities?

YES NO

YES NO

47. (i) According to you what are the main challenges

faced by the hostellers here?

(ii) According to you, what more safety and

security measures must be taken for the

hostellers? (Suggest points)