SPP1 Impact evaluation with explicit reference to RBA S.P.PAL

SPP2 Presentation Explore: Can we increase effective demand for evaluation through reference to RBA Framework in evaluation results? India spends large sums on evaluation each year. But, no effective demand & inadequate follow-up on even good evaluation. What is RBA?

SPP3 Features of RBA 1. Normative framework for design and implementation of policies & programs- ENTAP. 2.Legal & institutional basis for respecting, protecting & fulfilling rights. 3. Process of realising RB goals through prioritization, participation in a time bound manner.

SPP4 RBA Framework & duty bearers RBA makes the duty bearers responsible and accountable for realisation of HR. The primary responsibility,however, is with the national govt. to design and implement policies, enact laws, create institutions for respecting, protecting and fulfilling HR. This means:

SPP5 Duty bearers- respect, protect & fulfill rights Frame & implement policies/programs. Allocation of adequate resources. Putting in place an appropriate delivery mechanism. Ensure people’s participation. Transparency and accountability in development administration.

SPP6 Duty bearers-respect, protect & fulfill (contd.) Legal and institutional arrangement to empower poor. Phasing & sequencing implementation for progressive realization of rights in a time bound manner. Putting in place an M&E system to track outcome, impact & move towards MDGs. Are duty bearers doing duty? Let us see.

SPP7 Design of policies & RBA-relevant questions Are there anti-poverty policies? Are anti-poverty policies targeted to the disadvantaged groups (E,N)? Is policy making process participatory(P)? Analysis of development strategy and survey of evaluation reports suggest:

SPP8 Anti-poverty Policies formulated Policy making process seems to follow development thinking-from growth & general provisions of social services to more and more targeted policies to rights based policies. All anti poverty programs-employment/income, PDS, health, education-became specifically targeted to disadvantaged groups/areas from late 1970s. Of late, NREGA, RTI, RTE in RBA Framework alongside general programs to improve infrastructure and access.

SPP9 Policy making is participatory(?) Participatory? Representatives of poor participate in planning and policy making process. With 73 rd /74 th Constitution Amendment there is provision for participation in local level planning & implementation too. But, does it happen? Is participation meaningful?

SPP10 Are policies implemented effectively? Anti-poverty program formulation-first step: -identify attributes of poverty; -identify population groups having these attributes. Lack of clarity & saddled with significant targeting errors- loss of welfare, wastage & leakage of allocated resources; Debate more academic; not problem solving oriented.

SPP11 Evaluation of anti-poverty programs - Resource allocation & delivery mechanism Too many programs in an area of social concern-employment, education; Thin spread of resources; redundant administration; Inappropriate delivery mechanism; Leading to: -high cost of delivery; -low benefits. Of late, convergence of fragmented programs being attempted.

SPP12 Implementation & Duty bearers Lack of a scientific approach in program formulation-repetition of past mistakes; Uncertainty in flow of funds; consequent inadequate planning at grassroots and sub- optimal outcome; Finance rules too stringent-emphasis on compliance, not outcomes; reforms Too much involvement of bureaucracy in development administration, but it is not adequately trained to handle.

SPP13 Implementation & Duty bearers(contd.) Absence of transparency & accountability in spite of RTI(2005); internal/upwards not to people; People’s institutions (PRIs) constitutionally empowered, but not given resources, freedom & importance in planning and implementation-made dependent on govt. agencies.

SPP14 Implementation & Duty bearers(contd.) M&E system - not manned by trained staff; - engaged in routine data collection, mainly on financial flows, activities and in some cases outputs; no mechanism to verify veracity of data; - data gathered not so much for problem solving, but for watchdog agencies; - long delay in availability of M&E info to be of any use.

SPP15 Summing up Motivation: Follow up action on evaluation findings; no incentive/compulsion to act on findings; We propose, actors be identified and brought to account by fixing responsibility through reference to RBA. In India, evaluators alone can do little to change the situation;

SPP16 Summing up By referring to RBA evaluators can draw attention of not only policy makers and planners, but also a number of other stakeholders (PUCL,PIL) and widen the base to pressure duty bearers to act, reform institutions for development effectiveness. However, evaluators too have to improve quality of their product, set standards for themselves. Capacity development in both public & private sectors.