Assessment of Development Results - Evaluation of UNDP Contribution: India

30 May 2012


This evaluation examined UNDP’s contributions to national development goals and its relevance and strategic position within the country during the period between 2004 and 2011. It provides a set of forward-looking recommendations, with a view to supporting the country office and its partners in their continuous efforts to improve the country programme by learning from their achievements and challenges.

Assessments of Development Results (ADRs) are an independent evaluation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)’s contribution to the development results in countries where the organization operates.This ADR was launched by the Evaluation Office (EO) of UNDP in 2011. UNDP’s contribution to national development efforts was assessed against the following criteria: thematic relevance;effectiveness; efficiency; and sustainability.UNDP’s strategic position was assessed against the following criteria: strategic relevance and responsiveness, making the most of UNDP’s comparative strength, and promotion of UN values from a human development perspective.

This is the second ADR conducted in India, and it focuses on UNDP contributions to development results in India from 2004 to early 2011. The objectives of this ADR are: (i) to identify progress made towards the anticipated development results of the documents of the past two UNDP programming cycles; (ii) to analyse how UNDP in India has been positioned to add value to the country’s efforts to promote its development; (iii) to present conclusions and lessons learned with a view to the organization’s future positioning in India. The findings and recommendations of the ADR will inform the new India Country Programme Document (2012-2016).

The evaluation team used a multiple method approach, including document reviews, group and individual interviews and project/field visits. More than 200 people were interviewed at various locations in India over an extended period starting February 2011 and ending October 2011. Since the data collected are largely qualitative, the problems of subjectivity and bias, on the part of both respondents and interviewers, cannot be entirely eliminated. Of course, these were sought to be reduced as far as possible, through collection of as much supportive information as possible from a variety of sources and from a large number of different categories of stakeholders. The method of triangulation was used to make the results as objective as possible within this context.

    Download this Document