(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

More documents

Recommendations

Info

- 14: - It must be recognized that the FFW Program is only one of many programs that the consignee manages. In addition to the CRS Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Program, and CRS funded projects, most consignees visited during the field investigation were implementing projects funded by other donors. Moreover, in addition to these external resources, the consignees were also managing Church resources. The number of project holders per consignee and their geographical distances from the consignee centers also restricts the consignee's role as FFW Program monitor and development promoter. One consignee noted during the field investigation that even for those project holders located 20 kilometers away, he could only hope to visit their project sites once a year. This particular consignee had 6 project holders. In some areas, particularly in the hill regions of northeast India, projects may be 400 kilometers, and even farther away, from consignees. The average number of project holders per consignec- in the Bombay zone is 7; in the Calcutta zone, it is 13; and in the Madras zone, it is 18. At the project holder level, the "weak link" - seen during the field investigation - resulted from one of two possibilities: * the project holder was disengaged from the FFW activity (usually a parish priest in these cases); or the project holder, though interested in doing development activities with FFW, lacked the skills, confidence and staff to carry out effective community development projects (usually a paris|; priest or Catholic nun in these cases). Where the parish priest was disengaged from the FFW activity, the evaluation team saw evidence of employment objectives overriding development objectives, or the FFW resource not being applied in adhruncc to CRS policies. Ex amp1 At one completed project site, though the primary objective stated on the project application was to provide drinking water, tic water was vtsibly at the bottom of the well. The project wa,, documented as "completed" by the project holder. The evalu;iLion teair member was at the site because he wanted to see a project application which was still in the planning stage. I 1was only on reaching the site that the story unfolded that the same well had been deepened - and "completed" - six months earlier. The project was considered completed because the allocated mandays were finished, not because water was reached. Community members said that the parish priest hadn't visited the site; the parish priest wasn't available for comment.
- 15: - It should be emphasized, however, that the evaluation team saw these cases as exceptions. More common was the second possibility cited above that many project holders, though very interested in doing FFW activities, lacked the skills, confidence and staff to carry out effective community development activities. Examples At one community site, a Catholic nun was implementing several FFW well deepening projects. When asked why she was concentrating on well deepening projects, she said that well deepening was the only project type she felt comfortable doing. She was interested in doing other projects with FFW particularly income-generating projects but she was afraid that they might fail. When asked what outside assistance she needed most, she replied: encouragement - if someone with rural development skills could visit her every 2-3 months to give her project ideas, and to let her know if she's approaching the project appropriately, she would be able to take mor. risks in initiating projects. One project holder (a parish priest), when asked why he only did well deepening projects, said that they were relatively simple to manage and implement. He added that he would be interested in doing other types of projects, but that he felt he lacked the technical skills to do so. * Another project holder, a nun, was carrying out a program of teaching tailoring to poor women, but was concerned about the fact that the skill did not necessarily give the beneficiaries adequate incomes. When asked why she could not explore the possibilities of giving them training in other skills with better income earning potential, she replied that she was not aware of such possibilities, and that she would welco,::, any asii star-ct, in this regard. * Another project holder, a nun with several years of experience with FF, was carrying out six FFW assisted projects simultaneously. Although she was viewed by the cons,"nce and CRS as an effective FFW project holder, she herself acknow] edged that she didn't have the tne to adequately supervi se each i,'rk site. For this supervi sion, sh said, she relied prim:jrily on local comnmunity volunteers. When asLed what outside assistance she required most, she stated that she needed training for her work site supervisors and an assistant with good community development ski ls.
Page 1 and 2: o 0TWM - :80 D. AC IVITYA ro ect W,
Page 3 and 4: A.I.D. EVALUATION SUMMARY PART II J
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: - 4 CRS In4Jd i aware that :th6efoo
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?