Mr. Ravi Kumar will present his APS as per the detail below:
Date: 3rd April 2023
Time: 0930 – 1130 hrs.
Venue: CTARA Conference Room No.1
Title: Systems approach for Monitoring and Evaluation of Rural Development Programmes
Guide: Prof. Bakul Rao
RPC Members : Prof. Anand B Rao, Prof. Venkata Santosh Kumar Delhi
Analysis of Rural Housing Schemes of Maharashtra reveals that the M&E mechanism is the same for both the Central and State. 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. After the launch of PMAY-G, beneficiary selection criteria have changed, giving more emphasis to economic backwardness, homelessness, relied primarily on SECC 2011 house deprivation data, and applied certain compulsory exclusion and inclusion criteria. Rural housing is a State subject. However, because of huge financial outlay for rural housing by the Center with 60% fund contribution to the States, many States have availed the opportunity to fulfil their obligation to provide rural housing. As far as Maharashtra is concerned, the Government is implementing both PMAY (G) and several State Sponsored Schemes. However, several factors require monitoring and evaluation to assess the physical and financial progress of the rural housing schemes in the process of their implementation. The State has formed the State Management Unit-Rural Housing (SMU-RH) exclusively to monitor and evaluate the rural housing schemes in the State. As per the data of SMU-RH, State sponsored rural housing schemes have performed better than PMAY (G). At the same time Targets, sanctions and completion stages have not achieved the desired 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, differences in their approaches and the hurdles faced in 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 realizing the objectives of the programmes and the expected outcomes. This raises concerns about performing existing monitoring and valuation mechanism, and its contribution to implementation. The causal forces and feedback loops that facilitate or prevent implementation processes need to be analysed and understood to identify the gaps and for solutions. Key words: Monitoring and Evaluation, Rural Housing Schemes, implementation--