Programme Evaluation in India

1
Programme Evaluation in India

• V.K. Bhatia
• Adviser (Evaluation)
• Programme Evaluation Organisation
• (PEO)
• Planning Commission
• Government of India

2
Five Year Plans play a crucial role for the
development of Indian Economy. We are in the last
year of the Tenth Five Year Plan and action for
preparation of Eleventh Five Year Plan has been
initiated.

• Average Growth rate has increased from 5.5 in
  9th plan (1997-98 to 2001-02) to over 8 in the
  recent years.
• Though this performance reflects the strength of
  economy in many areas, large number of people
  lack access to basic services such as health,
  education, clean drinking water and sanitation
  facilities especially in rural areas.

3

• Rapid growth needed to raise the incomes of these
  people to bring about a general improvement in
  living conditions.
• Apart from other policy initiatives, monitoring
  and evaluation of government programmes will be
  crucial to learn lessons about the design and
  implementation of programmes to increase their
  effectiveness.

4
PLANNING PROCESS
Plan Formulation
Monitoring Evaluation
Plan Implementation
5

• In India, development programmes/ projects are
  implemented under
• Central Sector
• State Sector
• The Tenth Five Year Plan outlay for these
  programmes is

At 1 US Rs. 45
6

• There are around 1200 Central Sector Schemes
  along with 130 Centrally Sponsored Schemes.
• There are 28 states and 7 Union Territories. They
  are implementing a very large number of schemes.

7
Some of the major programmes under implementation
are as under
Tenth Plan Allocation
For Annual Plan 2006-07 only
8

• Cabinet Secretary in his letter to all Ministries
  and Finance Minister in his budget speech for
  Annual Plan 2006-07 has given emphasis to
  independent evaluation of all schemes/programmes
  by professional agencies.

9

• Present Evaluation Setup
• I. Central PEO - Established in 1952 to take up
  independent diagnostic evaluation of
  development (Central CSS) programs fo
  assessment of
• Physical financial performance.
• Effectiveness of Implementation Delivery
  System.
• Impact on target groups.

10

• Organisation
• PEO headquarters located at Planning Commission.
• 15 Field Units at State Capitals.
• Sanctioned staff of 241

11

• Planning Commission has constituted Development
  Evaluation Advisory Committee under the
  Chairmanship of Deputy Chairman, Planning
  Commission with members drawn from academics
  administration
• To prioritize studies to be taken up
• To guide on methodologies
• To ensure quality and timeliness of evaluation
  reports
• To take steps to ensure follow-up actions.

12
Evaluation Methodology of PEO
Receipt of proposal form the Ministry/Deptt./Plan
ning Commission
Prioritization of studies by DEAC normally
meeting once/twice a year
Allocation of study to Project Director
Literature survey and preparation of Design
Pre-testing
Approval by Advisory Committee
Orientation meeting of field staff
Field Survey compilation
Data entry and compilation
Report Writing
Approval
13

• II. State Evaluation Organisation
• Each State has an evaluation Cell attached to
  Planning Unit.
• Some States have large evaluation units but most
  of them have a cell comprising of a few staff
  members.
• Some conduct a large number (20) of evaluation
  studies each year while most conduct 1-2 studies
  in a year.

14

• SEOs evaluate mostly state level schemes.
• Findings are sent to
• - State Planning Department
• - Implementing Agencies
• - PEO
• Methodologies adopted are not very scientific and
  rigorous.

15

• III. Research Organisations
• Planning Commission, Implementation Ministries
  entrust evaluation work to research institutions.
• Studies requiring special methods skill.
• Quick feedback
• Independent views.
• Such Study Reports are normally made available to
  sponsoring Agencies.

16
Weaknesses in Existing Evaluation Set up

• Evaluation Capacity of PEO and SEOs very limited.
• Very few programmes get evaluated by subject
  Ministries.

17

• No evaluation cadre in the country lack of
  evaluation expertise.
• Most of officers working in these organisations
  get transferred frequently.
• Lack of sophisticated Data Analysis tools.
• No arrangements for evaluation training.
• Limited funds for evaluation.
• Quality of reports poor.
• Longer duration for evaluation.
• Reports give emphasis on fault finding, less
  diagnostic and without problem solving perspective

18
Steps required for improvement in Evaluation
Capacity

• Senior Government Officers, who are the progrmme
  executives should be sensitized about
• - utility of evaluation to increase programme
  effectiveness and
• - the latest evaluation techniques.
• All Ministries/Departments to prepare Annual
  Evaluation Plans.

19

• The capacity of existing evaluation organisations
  to be increased by employing more manpower and
  training.
• Tenure of officers dealing with evaluation to be
  fixed
• To create evaluation expertise in the country by
  introducing evaluation courses in universities
  and academic institutions.
• To build up evaluation capacity of Research
  Institutions/Civil organisations so that gap in
  evaluation capacity can be filled.

20

• Steps taken by Planning Commission to increase
  Evaluation Capacity
• It has started a plan scheme on Evaluation. The
  scheme includes training component.
• In the first stage the officers of State
  Evaluation Organisations will be trained by
  conducting 5 Regional Workshops.

21

• In order to know the gap in evaluation capacity
  and training programmes needed for SEO, a seminar
  was conducted in September, 2006 where the
  following modules have been suggested for the
  training of state officials these are
• Concepts. Issues Trends in Evaluation
• ME Techniques
• Recent Approaches to Evaluation
• Evaluation Designs
• Report writing.

22

• The Planning Commission has set up a Steering
  Committee for Strengthening Monitoring and
  Evaluation System for the Social Sector
  Development Schemes in the Country during the
  Eleventh Five Year Plan under the chairmanship of
  Member Planning Commission.

23
The Terms of Reference of the Committee are as
under

• To review the existing machinery and systems of
  Monitoring and Evaluation in the Central
  Ministries/Departments for Central/Centrally
  Sponsored Schemes/Projects and State Plan
  Schemes
• To suggest the measures for strengthening the ME
  organisations/ capacity in the country

24

• To suggest institutional framework for linking
  ME results with planning, policy making and
  public spending and
• To suggest measures to involve the research
  institutions, universities, Panchayati Raj
  Institutions, Voluntary organisations (NGOs) to
  improve the quality of ME in the country.

25
Suggestions for UNDP Help

• International collaboration for Monitoring
  Evaluation.
• For developing common mechanism as well as set of
  standards
• Exchange of base level experiences.
• Technical cooperation and exchange of delegation
  for mutual sharing of techniques and
  methodologies.
• Capacity building of Central Evaluation
  Organisation (PEO), Evaluation Organisation of
  States/UTs and Research Institutions.

26

• Development of Independent Evaluation Regulator.
• Financial/Institutional support to SEOs.
• Development of Evaluation as a subject in
  Universities/Academic Institutions.