18.01.2013 Views

(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Purpose and Method<br />

- : I : -<br />

EXECUTIVE SUMIARY<br />

The purpose of this evaluation is threefold:<br />

to assess the ability of CRS and its counterpart agencies<br />

to manage the Food for Work Program in India;<br />

to assess the development thrust of the program,<br />

particularly in project selection, beneficiary selection<br />

and recipient selection; and<br />

* to evaluate the 3-year F W Planning, Monitoring and<br />

Evaluation (PM&E) Grant, which ends on Septe<strong>mb</strong>er 30, 1987.<br />

The team's overall approach to this evaluation was a collaborative<br />

approach. The intention was to ensure thot CRS and its counterparts<br />

felt a sense of participation in and ownership of the evaluation<br />

recommendations.<br />

A major aspect of this approach was the briefing of CRS zonal<br />

office staff and consignees at the rtart of each visit, and a<br />

debriefing at the conclusion of each visit. Following the team's<br />

field investigation, a 1-day seminar was held for 12 representatives<br />

of CRS headquarters and zonal offices, the purpose of which was to<br />

arrive at a common understanding of FFW program issues, and at<br />

appropriate measures to address them.<br />

Food for Work Program in India<br />

The 1987 FFW program budget is $7.3 million, representing 33% of<br />

the CRS Title 11 assistance budget.<br />

A total of 2189 projects were implemented in 1986 with the<br />

assistance of CRS FFW commodities. The majority of these projects<br />

were low-cost houses, wells and land clearing and leveling.<br />

F ind inr s<br />

The CRS FFW Program in India is a very functional program.<br />

Over the last 2 years in particular, CRS has been striving fur<br />

greater development impact in the program; it has been emphasizing<br />

integrated community development; and there has been much more<br />

dialogue between CRS and counterparts regarding development<br />

objectives. This CRS policy shift away from supporting "individual"<br />

projects and towards supporting projects which are intended to create<br />

.community" assets is resulting in the application of stronger, more<br />

community- based criteria for the selection of FFW beneficiaries and<br />

recipients.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!