The Quick Evaluation of IEC Programmes was conceived by the Union Ministry of Rural Development in October 1999 as part of the mid-term review of seven programmes for poverty-alleviation and rural development. A survey was conducted in 128 districts, 461 blocks and 2,305 villages across the country, and covered 10,359 beneficiaries and 2,220 non-beneficiaries. The reference period of the survey was three years, viz., 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99.

The main purpose of the survey was to assess the efficacy of existing means and channels of communication in informing and educating BPL families about the various schemes on wage employment, self-employment & entrepreneurship development, skill enhancement, social assistance and special area development being sponsored by the Union Ministry of Rural Development. As information is a vital prerequisite to educating and motivating persons and families to diversify their skills and enhance their income-generating opportunities, IEC is the fulcrum upon which the government’s efforts to uplift the socio-economic status of nearly one-third of the population currently living below the poverty line revolves.

The study assessed the extent to which individual beneficiaries of six schemes (being evaluated simultaneously) – Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY), Development of Women & Children in Rural Areas (DWCRA), National Social Assistance Programme (NSAP), Watershed, Supply of Improved Toolkits to Rural Artisans (SITRA) and Training of Rural Youth for Self-Employment (TRYSEM) – were empowered through the IEC programme. The information was canvassed through a set of District, Village, Beneficiary and Non-Beneficiary Schedules.

The main findings and recommendations from the survey are as follows:-

1. In each of the 128 districts in which the survey was conducted, the DRDAs received funds for awareness-creation in all three years of the survey period, viz., 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 (Table 2).
2. The village panchayats of as many as 95 districts out of a total of 128, were involved by the DRDAs in the awareness campaigns (Table 8). Thus, attempts were made for meaningful community and people’s participation.
3. Panchayat participation was made meaningful by allowing 42% of the panchayats to conduct the awareness campaigns in their respective villages. Overall, 56% village panchayats felt the IEC campaigns were intensive enough to reach the target beneficiaries (Table 12).
4. Attempts at gender equality were made in the selection of beneficiaries. Overall, the gender ratio – male (54%) and female (46%) – was found to be quite satisfactory (Table 13).
5. Care was taken to reach out to the depressed sections among BPL families, as a result of which the selection of beneficiaries was weighted in favour of SCs (31%) and STs (23%) (Table 13).
6. The study found that the elected representatives and officials in closest contact with the people, such as the Gram Panchayat (86%), Gram Sabha (81%), and Block officials (65%), were the principal sources of information for beneficiaries of BPL households (Table 28-A).
7. Most of the JRY beneficiaries were aware of the scheme’s target groups, special weightages, the panchayat’s role in the scheme, and the minimum wage norms (Table 15-B).
8. Over half the DWCRA beneficiaries knew the selection procedure and the principal salient features of the programme (Tables 16-A,B,C).
9. The majority of NSAP beneficiaries were aware of the principal benefits to be derived from the various sub-schemes under the programme (Tables 17-A,B).
10. Most Watershed beneficiaries were aware of the programme’s objectives and the methodology of its execution (Table 18).
11. SITRA beneficiaries were highly aware of the programme’s objectives, the benefits to be derived therefrom, and the executing agency (Table 19-A).
12. TRYSEM beneficiaries were well informed about its objectives, the areas of training and eligibility norms (Table 20-A).
13. Even among the BPL non-beneficiaries, the study found that the elected representatives and officials in closest contact with the people, such as the Gram Panchayat (86%), Gram Sabha (78%) and Block officials (62%), were the sources most relied upon for information (Table 40-A).

1. Only 66% districts (84 districts) made IEC interventions in the period of the survey; 41 did not. Three districts did not give any information in this regard (Table 2).
2. Only 63% districts (80 districts) extended the awareness-creation activities to the villages, where the actual beneficiaries of rural development programmes reside (Table 3).
3. Only 23% districts (30 districts) felt that the awareness campaigns were every effective in disseminating information to target beneficiaries (Table 8).
4. Only 61% DRDAs (78 DRDAs) were aware of the Ministry of Rural Development’s weekly radio programmes – Gaon Vikas ki Ore and Chalo Gaon ki Ore. Only 59% (75 DRDAs) knew that the programmes were broadcast in all regional languages (Table 10).
5. Most DRDAs themselves felt IEC should be done by sensitizing DRDA staff, and through Panchayats and Gram Sabhas (Table 10).
6. Most DRDAs felt that effective IEC required more financial support, more information to target beneficiaries, intensified reach to connect to the poorest of the poor, involvement of local opinion leaders and local NGOs (Table 10).
7. A little over a quarter of the beneficiaries ranked radio (33%) as a good source of information on rural development programmes; while less than a quarter relied upon television (18%) or newspapers (16%) (Table 14-A).
8. Less than a quarter of the beneficiaries ranked printed materials (17%), folk media (7%), opinion leaders (22%), or NGOs (10%) as good sources of information on rural development programmes (Table 14-B,C).
9. A majority of 70% beneficiaries felt the information given was not adequate to learn the salient features of the programmes. As many as 49% beneficiaries sought more information from other beneficiaries, panchayat members, block officials and others (Table 21-B).
10. Less than half the beneficiaries’ had access to radio (46%), television (27%), newspapers (20%), and Government literature (27%) (Table 22).
11. Less than a quarter of the beneficiaries (22%) were aware of the Ministry’s weekly radio programmes on rural development, viz., Gaon Vikas ki Ore and Chalo Gaon ki Ore. Only 19% had heard the programmes (Table 23).
12. Less than a quarter of the beneficiaries (16%) had seen television programmes on rural development (Table 24-A).
13. The majority of beneficiaries (81%) said they needed more information to benefit from rural development programmes (Table 24-B).
14. More than half the beneficiaries considered radio (66%) and television (69%) coverage of rural development programmes inadequate, and felt these should earmark more time for rural development programmes (Table 25).
15. Beneficiaries felt the timings of the broadcasts and telecasts were inconvenient, and that more suitable timings should be chosen (Tables 25,26,27).
16. Over half the non-beneficiaries (59%) also felt the information given was not adequate to learn the salient features of the programmes (Table 37-B).
17. Less than a quarter of non-beneficiaries (20%) were aware of the weekly radio programmes on rural development (Table 38).
18. Less than a quarter of non-beneficiaries (17%) had seen television programmes on rural development (Table 39-A).
19. The majority of non-beneficiaries (81%) felt more information was needed to benefit from rural development programmes (Table 39-B).

1. There is an urgent need to improve Panchayat’s access to Radio if effective IEC is to be done through radio broadcasts. At present, Panchayats in two States have no access to radio at all. Overall, as many as nine States/UTs have less than 50% access to radio broadcasts and only one State has cent per cent access (See Chapter II, page 7).
2. Panchayat’s access to Television also needs to be augmented if television is to be an effective medium for IEC of rural development programmes. At present, Panchayat in five States have no access at all, while 13 States/UTs have access below or upto 50% (See Chapter II, page 8).
3. There is an urgent need to review and revise the conventional approach towards IEC, as there is considerable divergence between the findings of the survey and the views of officials. For instance, most DRDAs expressed a preference for radio, television, and newspapers for IEC campaigns on rural development, though Panchayats of as many as 18 States/UTs had less than or upto 50% access to newspapers, and access to radio and television was also inadequate (See above). In fact, the DRDAs themselves realized that the media campaigns were not as effective as desired for reasons ranging from poor organization, insufficient funding, and inadequate reach among target beneficiaries.
4. The critical role of the Panchayat and/or Gram Sabha in serving as the primary and even sole source of IEC for rural development programmes in the villages needs to be adequately appreciated and strengthened. Over 50% beneficiaries in 28 States/UTs favoured the Panchayat for information about the programmes, while over 65% beneficiaries in 22 States/UTs relied on the Gram Sabha (See Chapter II, page 19 & 20).
5. Government officials at the Block level play a critical role in keeping the Panchayat/Gram Sabha informed about schemes available, and facilitating beneficiaries who wish to benefit from the programmes. More than 50% beneficiaries in 25 States/UTs favoured IEC by Block officials (See Chapter II, page 21). As meaningful development at the grassroots level can only take place through a proper synergy between Block officials and the Panchayats and target beneficiaries, Block staff should be provided basic facilities such as telephones and vehicles to regularly visit the remote villages and assess the progress of various schemes. Funds should also reach them on a timely basis, as field investigators and monitors found this to be a major constraint.
6. In practice, it has been observed that IEC is what the Sarpanch learns when he visits the Block. Hence, the District authorities need to be more pro-active in reaching information to the villages and target beneficiaries. Over 50% beneficiaries in 29 States/UTs stated that they needed more information about the rural development programmes. In future, all material relating to Rural Development schemes could be sent to each Panchayat for disseminating information to all interested persons.
7. A common complaint among villagers was that the village Sarpanch often indulged in favouritism while apportioning the benefits of rural development programmes in the village, as a result of which needy persons would often be overlooked. There is therefore an urgent need to ensure that the entire village Panchayat – and not just the Sarpanch – has a role in the selection of beneficiaries and a say in programme implementation.
8. It would be advisable to ensure that basic information about each scheme (benefits, eligibility norms, how to apply) be given to each BPL family for its personal record. This will have an empowering effect on the beneficiaries and make the developmental process truly participatory. Lack of literacy of the Head of Household need not be an inhibiting factor, as efforts to spread literacy to all families are proceeding simultaneously.
9. The timing to radio and television broadcasts was found to be an inhibiting factor for beneficiaries wishing to access information through radio or television. Most beneficiaries preferred either early morning broadcasts on radio or mealtime telecasts, and there was a uniform rejection of broadcasts or telecasts after 9 p.m. This fact needs to be factored in when electronic media are used for awareness-creation (See Tables 26 & 27).
10. District authorities/DRDAs may be directed to maintain records of funds received and expenditure incurred under various heads properly, as almost all 33 field agencies canvassing schedules across 30 States/Union Territories experienced difficulties in canvassing the District Schedules, particularly in eliciting information about the budget received for IEC (whether consolidated or separate for each RD programme, and the details thereof), and the expenditure incurred.
11. In some districts, the DRDAs were unable to provide details of BPL households. This is a serious lacuna that needs to be rectified as all programmes of the Union Ministry of Rural Development are aimed at poverty alleviation and upliftment of BPL families. If States and DRDAs do not maintain proper records of the same, meaningful interventions cannot be made for poverty alleviation, social assistance, wage employment or other rural development schemes.
12. In many States, monitors and investigators received complaints of political interference and tampering with the BPL List, as a result of which non-deserving persons cornered benefits intended for BPL families while the truly needy and deserving were left out. It would therefore be advisable if the Yellow Card given to BPL persons were given on the basis of actual numbers of BPL in each state, rather than on the basis of percentage quotas fixed in state capitals. In this manner, needy persons would not be excluded.
13. Notwithstanding the stipulations in the guidelines, in many places complaints were received that the BPL list was not prepared keeping the elected Panchayat fully informed. It is therefore felt that the Panchayat and important groups, such as Youth and Women, should authenticate the List before it is sent to the District so as to eliminate the chances of political manipulation later. Copies of the BPL List should be available with the Panchayats as part of their records.

*