1. Ratna M. Sudarshan, ISST

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Activities/ inputs Outputs  (eg reports, films, training)  Outcomes (short term long term)  (policies, programmes, resource allocations)

10.  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’

11.  Assessment criteria  Relevance  Effectiveness  Efficiency  Impact  Sustainability  Way forward