There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation

(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science

Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.

There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation

(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.

There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation

(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.

There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation

(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.

There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation

(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.
There were two evaluations, one by the Programme Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) of the Planning Commission, and the other by Social Science
Institutions, called Concurrent Evaluation. The PEO reported that the scheme
did not provide employment to the extent expected, as the average number of
days for which a person got employment was 11.44 days during 1989-90, 15.68
days during 1990-91 and 12.81 days during 1991-92. Moreover, adequate
attention was not given to the maintenance of assets. Finally, contractors were
engaged by some of the Gram Panchayats for execution of some works,
although the scheme bans their involvement.