Existing Scenario

1
Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development
Programmes
The Ministry of RD has put in place a
comprehensive, multi-level, multi-tool system of
Monitoring and Evaluation of the policy and
implementation environments.
2
Monitoring Evaluation (ME)

• Provides better means (by learning from past
  experience) for-
• improving service delivery
• planning and optimum allocation of resources, and
• demonstrating results (Success Failures of the
  Programmes)

3
Goal of Monitoring

• Operational control
• Quick feedback on Project effectiveness.
• Timely alarm signals in the case of
  significant deviations.
• Ensuring full benefits to the Target Groups.
• Providing inputs for better design of
  development Interventions, Project Planning and
  Community mobilisation.

4
Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development
Programmes

• The Ministry has a comprehensive multi-level,
  multi-tool system of Monitoring and Evaluation of
  the policy and implementation environments.

5

Mechanisms of Monitoring

• District Level Monitoring
• National Level Monitoring
• Vigilance and Monitoring Committees
• Review by Union Ministers
• Performance Review Committee (PRC)

6
Mechanisms of monitoring (Contd.)

• Area Officers Scheme
• Field Inspection by State/District Officials
• Periodical Progress Reports
• Concurrent and Quick Evaluation Studies
• Impact Assessment Studies

7
Review by Minister (RD)

• Review of Minister (RD) Ministers of State
  (RD) with Chief Ministers, Ministers and
  officials of the State Government.
• Reviews provide the much needed impetus by
  energizing and motivating the Implementing
  Agencies.

8
Performance Review Committees

• Constituted under the chairmanship of the
  Secretary (RD)/the Secretary (DWS).
• Members
• Planning Commission,
• Central Ministries of Finance, Statistics
  Programme Implementation, Environment and
  Forests, and
• All State Secretaries in-charge of Rural
  Development Panchayati Raj.

9
Performance Review Committees (Contd.)

• Provide a forum for discussing bottlenecks in the
  implementation of the Programmes.
• Helps in taking immediate corrective actions to
  smoothen and streamline the implementation
  process.

10
Area Officers Scheme

• All Senior Officers of the Ministry allocated one
  or more States.
• Visit villages regularly.
• Major issues brought out are shared with Chief
  Secretary and Secretary (RD) of concerned States.

11
Vigilance Monitoring Committees

• Reconstituted at States/UTs and District level
  recently.
• To supervise, exercise vigilance and monitor the
  implementation of all Rural Development
  Programmes.
• Elected Representatives have been given central
  role in these Committees.
• Minister (RD) in the State is the Chairman of
  State level Committee.
• One Lok Sabha Member is the Chairman of District
  level Committee.

12
Vigilance Monitoring Committees (Contd.)

• All MPs/MLAs have been assigned a crucial role.
• To hold Meetings at least once in a quarter.
• To look into the complaints of misutilisation of
  funds of various poverty alleviation programmes.

13
Monitoring Vigilance Committees (Contd.)

• States may ensure that
• Vigilance Monitoring Committees replace all
  other Committees constituted for similar
  purposes.
• Adequate notice is given to the Members

14
Periodical Progress Reports

• Financial Physical Performance.
• Important for monitoring, planning and decision
  making.
• Inputs for planning and decision making.
• Databases being created in the Ministry on the
  performance of different States/Districts under
  various programmes.

15
District Level Monitoring

• Supplementary Mechanism to strengthen the
  monitoring.
• Monitoring by external agencies in selected
  Districts.
• A Pilot Project in 128 Districts of 26 States.

16
District Level Monitoring (Contd.)

• Objectives
• Timely, authentic and reliable information about
  the performance of the programmes.
• Qualitative feedback
• Verification of the Assets/Beneficiaries

17
District Level Monitoring (Contd.)

• Projection of achievements and success stories.
• Supplements Traditional Monitoring System.
• Confidence building in beneficiaries.
• Independent Professional Support.

18
National Level Monitors

• Most recent Initiatives.
• Involvement of Ex-servicemen and Retired Civil
  Servants.
• To monitor the policy and implementation
  environments of the programmes.
• Also to look into various specific complaints
  brought to the notice of the Ministry.

19
Evaluation Mechanisms

• Concurrent Evaluations
• Quick Evaluations
• Impact Assessment Studies

20
Evaluation Mechanisms (Contd.)

• Objectives
• To assess the impact of the programmes and
  identify bottlenecks in implementation.
• To improve effectiveness of Policies and
  Programmes.

21
Concurrent Evaluations

• Objectives
• To evaluate the performance of the Schemes at
  the field level
• To assess the impact of the programme, and
• To identify the problems in the course of
  implementation.
• To make mid-course corrections, as and when
  necessary.

22
Concurrent Evaluations (Contd.)

• Also helps to decide whether to expand, modify,
  or eliminate a programme and to prioritize public
  action.
• Expert Group consulted in finalization of
  methodology and sampling plan.
• Concurrent Evaluations conducted so far
• IRDP - Five Rounds, latest in 1995-96
• JRY - Two Rounds, latest in 1993-94
• MWS - One Round in 1999-2000
• IAY - One Round in 1999-2000
• SGSY One Round in 2002-03

23
Concurrent Evaluations (Contd.)

• Impact Assessment studies of watershed programmes
  in 20010-02.
• Rapid evaluation of Sector Reforms Projects under
  the ARWSP in 2001-02.
• 34 Special Projects under SGSY in 15 States.
• Studies under progress.
• Concurrent Evaluation of the Sampoorna Gramin
  Rozgar Yojana (SGRY) in all the Districts of the
  country.

24
Concurrent Evaluations (Contd.)

• Concurrent Evaluation of Innovative Stream of
  Rural Housing and Habitat Development Projects.
• Concurrent Evaluation of Samagra Awaas Yojana.
• Intensive Study of Watershed Programme.
• Concurrent Evaluation of 40 Special Projects
  under SGSY.

25
Quick Evaluations

• Quick Evaluation Studies are conducted as Rapid
  Appraisal exercises.
• The Quick Evaluation Completed during 2000-2001
• Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY)
• National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP),

26
Quick Evaluations (contd.)

• Development of Women and Children in Rural Areas
  (DWCRA)
• Training of Rural Youth for Self Employment
  (TRYSEM)
• Supply of Improved Tool Kits to Rural Artisans
  (SITRA)
• Information Education Communication (IEC), and
• Watershed programmes

27
Impact Evaluation Studies

• Assesses the changes in the target Groups
  well-being attributable to particular Programmes
  and policies.
• Decision making tools for policy-makers
• Conducted through Independent Professional
  Organisations.
• Village based Impact Assessment Studies - to
  assess the collective impact of all the
  programmes of the Ministry on the individuals,
  the community and the area.

28
Impact Evaluation Studies (Contd.)

• 12 Impact Assessment Studies in 1999-2000.
• 44 Studies in 44 Districts in 22 States during
  the year 2000-2001.
• 47 more Districts taken up during 2001-02,.
• 25 Districts taken up during 2002-03.

29
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• Average income of beneficiaries steadily
  increasing.
• average annual incremental income is estimated at
  Rs.8,800/- for individuals and for the groups
  Rs.34,930/-.
• 93 of the total Swarozgaris belong to the BPL
  families and 64 of the beneficiaries are women.
• Swarozgaries from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled
  Tribes constitute 47.45.

30
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• SGSY (contd.)
• Almost 84 of the total beneficiaries feel that
  SGSY activities have helped them in increasing
  their income.
• The programme has also resulted in developing a
  greater desire for self-employment.
• While 78 of individual beneficiaries had no
  difficulty in availing of the loan, only 36.8
  SHGs have got loan for starting economic
  activities. 56 SHGs complained about delay in
  getting loans from banks.
• Repayment is reported in 79 of the cases.

31
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• SGSY (Contd.)
• 37.24 individuals and 15 SHGs have crossed the
  poverty line due to SGSY activities.
• The major complaints reported by the District
  Authorities include non-cooperation from the
  Banks, delay in Bank procedure and delay in
  disbursement of the assistance.

32
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• SGSY (contd)
• About 87 of the beneficiaries were of the view
  that there is adequate market for their goods and
  services.
• More than 2/3rd of the districts face problems in
  operationalising the Scheme.
• Formation and evolution of SHGs are observed to
  be rater slow in most of the districts.

33
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• Watershed Programmes (IWDP, DPAP DDP)
• Improvement with regard to moisture conservation,
  control of soil erosion, arrest of run-off water,
  productivity, drought-proofing etc. observed.
• Increase in net and gross cropped areas, areas
  under irrigation and availability of fodder and
  fuel.
• Significant increase in household income post
  project has also been observed.

34
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• IAY MWS
• The Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), by and large, is
  being implemented in all the States in accordance
  with the Guidelines and the beneficiaries seem to
  be happy about the Scheme.
• Beneficiaries from the Million Wells Scheme (MWS)
  had reported increasing productivity of crops and
  a rise in agricultural income.

35
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• IRDP V ROUND
• Majority of the recipients of assistance for
  creating assets were earning viable income from
  the scheme.
• Increment in employment days and income has
  resulted in better quantity of meal.
• The target group enjoys better standard of living
  in the villages which indicates that impact.

36
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• IRDP V ROUND (contd.)
• These programmes has been favourable in the past
  in raising the standard of living of the poor
  people.
• Over 46 of the beneficiaries crossed the poverty
  line of Rs.11,000/- which was applicable at the
  time of the Study. More than 94 of the
  beneficiaries felt that the quality of productive
  assets provided under the Programme was good or
  fair.

37
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• IMPACT ASSESSMENT
• Despite many problems, the poverty alleviation
  programmes had definitely made an impact. All
  stakeholders had reported that although
  piecemeal, the villages had certainly progressed
  in the past three years, especially due to the
  creation of community assets like roads water
  points, essential buildings like the school, etc.
  
  
• 
  contd

38
Findings of Evaluation and Impact Assessment
Studies

• (Contd)
• There were reports of increasing affordability
  for basic necessities and other household
  expenses. In many cases, the additional income
  had been diverted to the education of the
  children.

39
Four-Pronged Strategy

• A four pronged Strategy for improving the quality
  of implementation of Programmes at the
  grass-roots level and improving delivery of
  benefits.
• Components of the Strategy
• Creation of Awareness about the Schemes
• Transparency
• Peoples Partnership
• Accountability Social Audit by Gram Sabha

40
Four-Pronged Strategy(Contd)

• Strategy has not picked up in several villages.
• Display Boards are to be put up at worksites
  prominently indicating
• Nature of the Scheme/Work
• Total allocation
• Date of starting the work
• Date of completion
• No. of beneficiaries

41
Four-Pronged Strategy (Contd)

• Arrangements may be made to supply copies of
  documents to the beneficiaries, if demanded (on
  nominal cost)
• Ensure to display the list of beneficiaries at
  Village Panchayat Offices, indicating details of
  works.
• Ensure regular Meetings of Gram Sabhas and
  scrutiny of accounts.

42
BPL Census - 2002

• Expert Group on BPL Census.
• Report submitted in September, 2002
• Major changes in methodology recommended.
• A simplified and easy-to-canvass Schedule.

43
BPL Census 2002 (Contd)

• Methodology based on Score Based Ranking
• 13 Socio-economic indicators with scores.
• Five general indicators (not to be scored) for
  profiling.
• The number of BPL families in a State to be
  limited to the Planning Commissions estimate.

44
Thank You