1 / 16

Building Effective M&E Systems Case of India

Building Effective M&E Systems Case of India. S.P.PAL Development Evaluation Society of India Former Adviser(Evaluation) Planning Commission, India. Plan. Quick review of past experience in ECD.

galia
Download Presentation

Building Effective M&E Systems Case of India

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Building Effective M&E Systems Case of India S.P.PALDevelopment Evaluation Society of India Former Adviser(Evaluation) Planning Commission, India SPP

  2. Plan • Quick review of past experience in ECD. • Propose a framework for a diagnostic analysis of the evolution of M&E systems in India. • An assessment of India’s current M&E capacity using the framework. • Suggest strategies for effective and sustainable ECD in India. SPP

  3. Overview • ECD in developing countries not a new idea. Many countries set up M&E capacity in the past. • India/Malaysia established government-wide M&E systems in the 1950s/60s. Initiatives came from planners/policy makers. India, in particular, had elaborate M&E set-up across States/ Ministries. By & for Public Sector. • Indonesia/Philippines/SL/Nepal/Thailand/China/S Korea /Bangladesh too established M&E institutions generally with ECD inputs from donor agencies[Khan,2000; WB; UNDP]. • Socio-political/development paradigm changes as also the inability of the M&E institutions to respond to new challenges rendered them less useful now. Hence, search for new systems. SPP

  4. Lessons from past experience • Available country reviews[WB, UNDP] point to weaknesses on both demand & supply side. Role of various demand/supply side factors varies across countries. Not enough. VOPEs/Marco. • Any fresh attempt to build national eval. capacity must:-make a diagnostic analysis of the evolution of the national evaluation system;-identify the factors that contributed to the decline of evaluation capacity;-lessons from such reviews and those already documented in literature must be fed into future efforts to build sustainable national evaluation architecture. SPP

  5. Analytical framework • What is required is an analytical frame to carry out this diagnostic analysis. The building blocks of this analysis may be different for each country. • In Indian context, this framework must take into account:1. Development fund-flow mechanism & Primary stakeholders;2. Info needs/role/characteristics/behavior of major stakeholders in the fund-flow chain;3. Capacity and characteristics of suppliers of evaluative info; SPP

  6. The framework(Contd.) 4. Systemic rigidities/weaknesses in governance and its impact on the behavior of seekers and suppliers of evaluative info; 5. Interaction between various factors and its effect on: • Stakeholders; • ECD; • policy impact of development evaluation research; • development effectiveness. SPP

  7. Development Fund Flow & Stakeholders-I SPP

  8. Info Needs & Suppliers of Evaluative Info-II SPP

  9. Characteristics of the Demand side of M&E information in India 1. General appreciation of need for M&E info at the policy/planning level to learn lessons, for mid-course corrections.2. Users dissatisfied with evaluation info supply: -quality, quantity & timeliness, uncomfortable findings;3. Some fund-using agencies initiate evaluation themselves due to (3). A larger part of evaluation fund is controlled by line ministries; self-praise. Not a healthy trend; SPP

  10. Demand Side 4.Examples of limited follow-up actions exist; more because of some favorable findings & enlightened policy makers/planners (champions?), not so much due to institutionalized mechanisms. 5.Not much appreciation of systemic reforms for development effectiveness. Attempt to introduce Outcome Budgeting from 2005-06 has been unsuccessful-lack of appreciation/implementation of the type of reforms required to make it operational.6. Low demand for evaluation for lessons/use. High for satisfying funding/watchdog agencies. SPP

  11. Major suppliers of evaluation information in India • PEO • State Evaluation Agencies • MOSPI/ MORD/ MOHFW and some other Ministries. • Research Institutions & NGOs. • C&AG of India. SPP

  12. Supply side of M&E information 1. In-house capacity for ‘M’ info in most ministries. Systems not oriented to performance management. Emphasis on too much data collection & not analysis/ problem solving.2. Public sector dominance in evaluation initially. PEO, SEOs-once strong; now weak-manpower, infrastructure, no investment in human capital. Quality, quantity & timeliness are major issues.3. RIs/Consultants/NGOs: Lack of quality & trained manpower, data quality issues. Inadequate knowledge of program operation. Quantity & timeliness ok-quality(?). SPP

  13. Why evaluation capacity not strong-some observations -I 1. A very large part of evaluation funds controlled by line ministries. Evaluation generally to satisfy funding/ watchdog agencies, less for self learning; 2. Inadequate linkage between allocation and performance;3. Accountability, transparency missing in development administration (RTI?);4. Public evaluation institutions are now manned by generalists and credible alternatives outside govt. yet to emerge; [Contd. To next slide] SPP

  14. Why evaluation capacity not strong -II 5.System of outsourcing studies by public agencies non-transparent, hinders quality & also capacity development of RI: - insufficient time/funds, insensitivity to methodological issues, interference in evaluation process/outcome.6. General lack of confidence in B-C ratio of evaluation. [Contd. To next slide] SPP

  15. Why evaluation capacity not strong -III 7. Most important factor responsible for decline/ ineffectiveness of M&E is the weakness in governance. Coordination in implementation is almost impossible. • Centre Vs. State development/fund use agenda; • Bureaucracy – coordination in implementation:- Centre Vs. State;- different cadres – accountable upwards within Cadres;- dependence of implementing agency on several line ministries over which it has no control. SPP

  16. Strategies for effective & sustainable evaluation architecture • Promote effective demand for evaluation in public sector. Emphasis on eval. culture, systemic reforms – not building elaborate systems. • CSOs, eval. associations, media need to raise voice on transparency & quality of public spending, evaluation processes/fund use, follow-up on evaluation findings through RTI, PIL, annual reports, research/publications. • Do a capacity audit of RI/NGOs/academic institutions to identify gaps on supply side and evolve strategies to fill the gaps. • Involve RIs, universities in capacity building of evaluation professionals/institutions; • Strengthen national associations for advocacy, setting eval. standards, monitoring and rating supply quality of NGOs/RIs. SPP

More Related