Mr. Ravi Kumar will present his APS as per the detail below:

Date: 30th December 2022

Time: 1530 - 1630 hrs.

Venue: Conference Room No.1, CTARA Office

Title: Systems approach for Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes

Supervisor - Prof. Bakul Rao

External Supervisor - Dr. K M Godbole 

RPC Member - Prof. Anand Rao, Prof. Venkata Santosh Kumar

Analysis of Rural Housing Schemes of Maharashtra, both Central and State sponsored, reveal that the M&E mechanism is same for the both. They differ however, in terms of intended beneficiaries and fund allocation. The State schemes focus more on backwardness of different communities while the central schemes focus on houseless people. The beneficiary selection criteria has changed of late, especially after the launch of PMAY-G emphasising more on economic backwardness, houseless people and relied primarily on SECC 2011 house deprivation data and applied certain compulsorily excluded and compulsorily included criteria.

Due to huge financial outlay for centrally sponsored schemes for rural housing with 60% fund contribution to the States, many States have taken advantage of the opportunity to fulfil their obligation to provide rural housing. There are however, several factors, which need to be monitored and evaluated in terms of assessing the physical and financial progress of the rural housing schemes.

As far as Maharashtra is concerned, the Government is implementing both PMAY (G) as well as several State sponsored Schemes. The State has formed State Management Unit – Rural Housing (SMURH) exclusively to monitor and evaluate the rural housing schemes in the State.  As per the data of SMURH, State sponsored rural housing schemes have performed better than PMAY (G). Also Targets, sanctions and completion stages have not achieved the expected results - Completion of PMAY-G houses is 71.32% of the Target and about 85% of the sanctioned houses. What are the existing M&E mechanisms for the State and Central Rural Housing Programmes, their differences in M&E approaches in these two sponsored programmes and the hurdles faced in the course of implementation?

General connotation is that adequate monitoring and evaluation of a programme and timely intervention by the implementing agencies at appropriate stages might help in realising the objectives of the programmes and the expected outcomes. This raises concerns on the performance of existing monitoring and valuation mechanism, and their contribution in the implementation. The causal forces and feedback loops that facilitate or prevent implementation processes need to be analysed and understood for identifying the gaps and for solutions.

Key words: Monitoring and Evaluation, Rural Housing Schemes, implementation