Dear Editor,

A large number of rehabilitation programmes exist in different parts of India, carried out by the government and the non-governmental organisations that function as not-for-profit organisations. Many of these organisations have been in existence for the last few years and have received substantial funds and attention from within and outside the country. However, many of them gain recognition and are funded, because of their activities rather than their achievements. A closer look at these programmes shows that they are often merely a set of activities which lack a common goal or long term viability. They are usually cost-intensive and rarely cost-effective, which makes them continuously dependent on donors, and makes it difficult to replicate the programmes, especially if the donors were to stop funding them in the middle of the programme. In most instances the original programme plan does not have mechanisms for determining the outcome of activities and their costs, or a system of regular monitoring and evaluation based on some quantifiable values. This anomaly exists largely because many of the programmes are fund driven rather than need driven. They fulfil the unexpressed needs of the donor to have his offer of charity endorsed publicly. Such a programme however, becomes counter productive to the cause of development of rehabilitation services in the long run. At the most it supports the people associated with a programme that has little long term viability. In a few instances it has resulted in a ridiculous situation where the professed goals of the programme shifts from one ideology to another according to the shift in the priorities and attitudes of the donors, because the organisation cannot survive without the donor's goodwill. Failures of this nature, when repeated several times, reduces the confidence of the consumers in the effectiveness of welfare activities.

In the early stages of initiation of a programme, it raises expectations among the consumers that are far beyond what it can achieve, because the planners have not planned for quantitative measurements of outcome, and have not estimated the expected achievements in a unit time. Instead the programme remains as a set of activities without any clearly identifiable vision, mission or objectives, which at a superficial glance, appear to be very appealing to a casual reader. In the course of time these activities are enumerated once again to prove the point that the outcomes were in fact 'very good', quoting a few biased qualitative examples of 'good' outcome. The danger here is that the consumers do not accept them as easily as the donors, and they believe only in tangible results which are seldom 'very good'. This leads to a situation where consumer acceptance of the programme diminishes in course of time and the programme becomes entirely donor driven, ultimately closing down as soon as the donors leave.

This brief introduction illustrates the rationale for viewing programme planning as a vital component of any welfare activity, however small it is. It does not mean creativity has to be curtailed, but emphasises that creativity has to be channelled effectively. It is important to recognise that unplanned activities are seldom successful, more often unaffordable and many times counterproductive. In a country like India, the insufficiency of programme planning is primarily due to ignorance on the part of the project personnel as well as their donors.

There is really no harm in initiating a programme around a successful or a needy action. However, when it is translated to an ongoing programme, it is necessary to determine its goal (vision), and its mission to achieve this goal. The vision and mission are timeless, concise and brief explanations of what the programme stands for. The objectives, derived out of the vision and mission are certain medium term directions for the programme to follow in the next few years. Once decided, it is essential for the programme to strive for the fulfilment of the objectives, with periodic evaluations to change directions if necessary. The vision, mission and the objectives are the different components of the 'policy' of the organisation, and are generated in a democratic and participatory manner by all stake holders. It is essential that the entire organisation, its donors, the consumers and its other associates are clear about the policy at all times.

The common difficulty with most programme plans is the tendency to include almost all the ideologies as objectives, whether the programme is likely to implement them or not. Hence at the end of a period of programme activity one finds that many objectives are not even initiated. These false statements out of ignorance on the part of the programme implementers leads to considerable disillusionment amongst the consumers. Secondly, there is little differentiation between an executive plan of 'action' and an 'objective'. An objective is a policy matter, a medium term direction and need not be quantifiable, while an 'activity' is a short term event, needs to be described in quantifiable terms to make outcome measures easy, and is an executive function.

Activities are generally planned by the executives of the programme and are a guideline for them to function efficiently and to achieve the goals that are the target for the year or any other such unit of time. Hence activities need to be frequently measured to estimate the efficiency of programme achievement. For this reason activities need to be described precisely and require to be quantified. It is important to plan at the outset a method to measure the 'outcome' resulting from these activities on a regular basis. The common problem faced by most programme monitoring exercises is the error of enumerating the activities in the mistaken notion that all activities will essentially lead to the most successful outcome. However, many activities fail and others succeed. If there is no measurement of outcome, it is impossible to know if a programme has been in fact effective.

There are many other areas in planning that are overlooked quite commonly by programme planners in India. They are areas such as needs assessment, activity designated budget, monitoring and evaluation, planned introduction of new activities, cost effectiveness and cost assessment, plans for resource generation and such others. Proper training in these methods will save enormous funds, increase the credibility of the programmes and provide better opportunity to sustain them beyond the availability of external support. In order to promote sustainable development, it is very essential to train programme implementers, who are often weak in management, in the essential principles of planning right from the outset.

ASIA PACIFIC DISABILITY REHABILITATION JOURNAL (VOL.9, NO.1, 1998)

Produced by:
Shree Ramana Maharishi Academy for the Blind
3rd Cross, 3rd Phase, J.P. Nagar
Bangalore - 560 078, India
Tel : 91-80-6631076, Fax : 91-80-6638045
Printed at:
National Printing Press
580, K.R. Garden
Koramangala
Bangalore - 560 095, India
Tel : 91-80-5710658