(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HEV ATIOAS C do * a p ed hG 'e C e foe y fe r g ~ e aJF s o v r g 2 0 Ic evel o o e au i ie es of tdf~~ eee no - spt s aaa z elsy aa a d t e e1 g a18 ese a o - utro:e e, ildIl ear 2 Gmuc;alhuh any ar also b g I pleeeted D oa /Os.I S~ is1ev lu Was o uce b.a3 pers o sul -an team b e-sRf iis o S Zo all o "'0 s, to t_~c u n ar t oTa* at ns ~ e - m ea no: eig 1 consig nees) one Zn uave,,,. be esrin o rae e lpet matI ogt - Te prgrawekes mjo Th~Vakauaetchia, i atNRe co aae si n ean ndav6omn pre-hodrlels lac spfficlent mcot e en siaryip ts an suc Gtyas as t aing a era aNa The T CFFW Program he proje aier s'r r fetlewee a, ies r lu it I strona oe~ inerstinF ie sapoo a r undest of co inung r,;:gra evoom t.,,ev,]:pmn 4 II - Tte ~~esandresp~i ii~-ies f C-S e: e pa rea i I' Rev s e i, ie asnnot succee e n mleen n aPaESy CR5gap. major of pro wete cjv ctg ie- i mis i n in ~ incom-gen a a d s, -±1 c1a-Wl deo -n ee p oje:s. - C S s~ u d a e,,-a'e,' in6 - Wi"vT donors% , en u e ev es 'e I'e s -y shouaRS e t isth )asuI s wigmtGov, r qe te sr ner eadfes and imgok~ leme a Ionya psoacgodps f Inc- '-i rfo uat Tea,0 VE6va no K M ~~~~ G- ~ S edehr eso rce 15-0 J.6rrj' Gde -350uKe-roce S 1 Ju",8, "" e elin r8-8e--O~ 19i-6nVit * p. ina ars an 860 uni 9-0 e 1 0- 16-0 pmei , 746"'ro eso a-d s i FiedR 3ep50 0' -Gie e ess re,,ua J q gy n, haS dA ,m m in aPI &4Y so psme e6tScea PAGE 2
A.I.D. EVALUATION SUMMARY PART II J. SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Crynot to exoed the 3 papes provloed) Adress the followinp hems: * Purpose of activity(ies) evaluated * Principal recommendations * Purpose of evaluation and Methodology used " Lessons leamed Findings and conclusions (relate to questions) Mission or Office: <strong>USAID</strong>/India Dale this summary prepared: March 15, 1988 Title and Date of Full Evaluation Report: Evaluation of CRS Food for Work Program in India PAGE 3 1. Purpose of the activity (i) the generation of employment opportunity July 1.5, 1987 especially for the poorest; (ii) the enhancement of their income through agricultural/economic and community development activities; (iii) Improvement in their quality of life. 2. Evaluation purpose and methodology The goals of the evaluation were (i) to assess the management aspect of the FFW Program (ii) to evaluate the 3 year FFW Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PH&E) grant. The methodology used consisted of field visits to all the CRS zones (except Cochin which does not have FFW Program), observations on a nu<strong>mb</strong>er of FFW Projects, and interviews and discussions with relevant CRS staff and a sampled CRS counterpart agencies' personnel viz. 17 consignees & 26 project holders who were selected based or. criteria such as geographical coverage, type & size of projects, type of consignees & project holders. Survey form to collect descriptive data at the zonal level, and interview schedules for various categories of interviewees were prepared. The sources of data consisted of recoras at the CRS H.Q./Zonal Offices, and consignee offices, group discussions with the zonal personnel, and private interviews with CRS staff (specially with the zonal airectors, and field reviewers & evaluators) & interviews with the 17 consignees ano 26 project holders. 3. Findings and Conclusions - The CRS FFW Program is a very functional program: CRS zonal offices are striving for greater development impact; in the last 2 years, the emphasis has been on long-term planning with an integratea community development approach; there has been increased dialogue between CRS and its counterparts regarding the development objectives of the program; and the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (P,&E) Grant has contributed positively to all of the above. - The major program weakness is at the consionee and project holder levels. They lack adequate technical, management ana aevelcpment skills; and they also lack sufficient complementary inputs, such as training, materials and cash. - The FFW Program is lore effective where: the project holder is a private voluntary organization (PVo), and/or wnere the project holaer is a Priest or Nun with strong interest in FFW, ano understanding of community development.
Page 1: o 0TWM - :80 D. AC IVITYA ro ect W,
Page 5 and 6: * CRS should take more initiative w
Page 7 and 8: EVALUATION OF CR3-I OOD FOR WORK PP
Page 9 and 10: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Evaluation Mis
Page 11 and 12: Purpose and Method - : I : - EXECUT
Page 13 and 14: - :3: 4.1 The remaining PM&E Gra
Page 15 and 16: - :5: 6. RESOURCE INTEGRATION ..
Page 17 and 18: 1. INTRODUCTION - :7: This first
Page 19 and 20: 1.3 The Team's Itinerary - :9: T
Page 21 and 22: 190 AEbRe -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- -
Page 23 and 24: - 4 CRS In4Jd i aware that :th6efoo
Page 25 and 26: - 15: - It should be emphasized, ho
Page 27 and 28: - : 17 attracting resources from
Page 29 and 30: - :19: - Project beneficiary sel
Page 31 and 32: - : 21 holder level. Institution
Page 33 and 34: - : 23 assets." Funds are obliga
Page 35 and 36: Cas'e Studies6 Fi ye case- studies
Page 37 and 38: - :27: - no funds were provided
Page 39 and 40: - 29: counterparts having agreem
Page 41 and 42: - :31 - n tepshetndency had been. ,
Page 43 and 44: - : 33: levels, including some r
Page 45 and 46: - :35: - stipulation builds up pres
Page 47 and 48: - 37: developmental momentum. Wh
Page 49 and 50: The' integrat Ion of re so rcs $sid
Page 51 and 52: - :41 7.4.2 The scope of their w
Page 53 and 54:
- :43: to discuss evaluation fin
Page 55 and 56:
AFGiANISTAN V.S.S.R. 0 00 J AMU A X
Page 57 and 58:
-4 h. Describe origin/amount of c
Page 59 and 60:
-2 drawing to a close with the te
Page 61 and 62:
-S - thsJauto.heeoe eouenai htfo fr
Page 63 and 64:
VI iCoIsltion' of the Ttam A.i n te
Page 65 and 66:
- 9 3. Submission of the Report:
Page 67 and 68:
isr'Wh., i. our, overlal ±pesi of'
Page 69 and 70:
VVtt Who i. c~1eins ~ .ee in I-,,ha
Page 71 and 72:
4. Ce ",CDITY DITTT.ON 5 4.1 Are yo
Page 73 and 74:
Tota]2 Co oii fo0r, e ac y'vea r -
Page 75 and 76:
FIELD REVIEWERS in addition to appr
Page 77 and 78:
2.1 Wh~t are -our primarv res-onsib
Page 79 and 80:
'2: 2.2 Ae o ab'le- o 1 eve r e .,
Page 81 and 82:
: 4 : 6. PROJECT MkIN'"EN,- NCE/SUS
Page 83 and 84:
: 2' "hicof t ~ e resource~~e qe lo
Page 85 and 86:
4 6.2 In what ways are projects pla
Page 87 and 88:
TCE CRS SEMINAR July 1, 1987
Page 89 and 90:
Sub Group II - Decentralization * H
Page 91 and 92:
APPENDIX D LIST OF INTERVIEWEES
Page 93 and 94:
CONSIGNEE - TIRUCHIRAPALLI MULTIPUR
Page 95 and 96:
CRS CALCUTTA ZONAL OFFICE 1. Ms. Vi
Page 97 and 98:
Beneficiary - Mr. Chainanalk, Jalal
Page 99 and 100:
PROJECT SITE - Vase Bhil Adivasi Sa
Page 101 and 102:
APPENDIX E CRS FFW ZONAL PROFILE OF
Page 103 and 104:
APPENDIX F COMMUNICATION TO CONSIGN
Page 105 and 106:
RELIEF SERVICES. U.SCC,'!I CotnuanS
Page 107 and 108:
s44: y ic sisto be usod Fo 1N:_ ,pr
Page 109 and 110:
,To: 1e.oCL/1 O/v86/D ,CATjHLIC; RL
Page 111 and 112:
74 -3 4.44 rT i
Page 113 and 114:
11 1C CONT. LIfJ OF POOR FAMILIES :
Page 115 and 116:
Cs~ 'F 'F ' I-, 'F F' ~4 F F F 4"''
Page 117 and 118:
HEALTH EDUCATIONA H ~ E____LTH___ L
Page 119 and 120:
I-)- o -- 2, 44 U) C)zt P41- I
Page 121 and 122:
kr . . f~ . . . . 1 ~~~I1, r ) 0 1
Page 123 and 124:
. Ration rates are followed. 1 2s c
Page 125 and 126:
CRS Viewpoint: The Characteristics
Page 127 and 128:
The Food Resource Itself: Food is a
Page 129 and 130:
E~~r~t ~ 0o- r,; C4 CA E-tol N- -
Page 131 and 132:
V' , A.OJECTMS 01' j.o r~1~ T IrI(C
Page 133 and 134:
tIcall e ccolumn 1a to b~e used f o
Page 135 and 136:
'Pach~round Iformaticn *,~ Cunsigno
Page 137 and 138:
Dakrmu Ifrtion ±. d I nf t'ro r. b
Page 139 and 140:
I i.t$jl 1 AWAI CATIHOLIC DIOCESE O
Page 141 and 142:
to) C) 1 4) o r(6) 63 AJYS C) n 'MA
show all

(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?