120 likes | 202 Views
Ratna M. Sudarshan, ISST. Evaluation of UNDP-Planning Commission partnership on Human Development. Outline of presentation. Evaluations have been carried out at the end of Phase I and towards the end of Phase II; brief review of key issues raised through these evaluations
E N D
Ratna M. Sudarshan, ISST Evaluation of UNDP-Planning Commission partnership on Human Development
Outline of presentation • Evaluations have been carried out at the end of Phase I and towards the end of Phase II; brief review of key issues raised through these evaluations • Outline of the approach proposed for the current evaluation
Previous evaluations • State HDRs in India, (Shahrbanou Tadjbakhsh) 2005 • Evaluation of national HDR system, UNDP Evaluation Office 2006 • GOI-UNDP project on SSPHD, (Shri B.K.Bhattacharya) 2008 • Documenting the policy impact of HDRs in India, (Pia Lindström) 2010 • UNDP India Mid-term review of the Country Programme Action Plan 2008-2012 (kalyani Menon Sen and A.K. Shiva Kumar) 2010 • Project results assessment 2010
Key issues from previous evaluations • POSITIVES: • The programme has contributed to enhanced awareness, has had an influence on policies and programmes, and on financial allocations • Capacity for analysis has been strengthened within and outside the government
Key issues from previous evaluations • CHALLENGES • Danger of ‘report fatigue’: • However, value in having deeper analysis around priority concerns and in re-visiting important themes • Human development gets seen as synonymous with 3 sectors (health, education, livelihood) – intra sectoral and agency approach missing
Key issues from previous evaluations • Dissemination weak (taking the message to the people and follow up strategy to preparation of reports) eg • - contribution of reports to policy debate and public action • - generation of a range of outputs for different audiences • - screening of films
Key issues from previous evaluations • Community level participatory monitoring tools, engagement with CSO’s on HD • More State cross sharing activities would help • There has been some gap between expectation from resource institutions and their understanding of their role
Looking ahead • Evaluation confirm the value of the HD approach, and its continued relevance • While mainstreaming of the approach is essential, sometimes mainstreaming can lead to invisibility and hence there may be need for continued ‘championing’ of the approach
Approach of the on-going evaluation • Activities/ inputs Outputs • (eg reports, films, training) • Outcomes (short term long term) • (policies, programmes, resource allocations)
Approach of the on-going evaluation • Data collection: • Review of a sample of the reports and films • Visit to 5 states (Kerala, Himachal, Rajasthan, MP, WB) • Interviews with all stakeholders including representatives of • UNDP and Planning Commission • State Government officials in charge of the programme • Resource agencies – national, state, district level • Researchers, NGOs, media • ‘Bystanders’
Approach of the on-going evaluation • Assessment criteria • Relevance • Effectiveness • Efficiency • Impact • Sustainability • Way forward