(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

- :20: ­
question whether field reviewers can simultaneously wear the two hats
of "auditor" and "promoter". Can the same individual effectively
combine both roles?
Given the two "weak links" in the FFW management structure
discussed earlier, the team endorses the recent decision of two zonal
offices to concentrate its staff and other resources on a limited
number of consignees (5 in one zone, and o in another) who have
demonstrated good management performance. Furthermore, the team
believes that the FFW Program with these consignees would be
strengthened considerably if staff with technical and development
skills, and experience in rural development, were employed to carry
out the project promotion functions.
2.6 Decentralization of CRS/India
CRS/India decentralized in January 1986. The intention of this
move was to give the zonal offices the autonomy of separate country
programs.
At the July 1, 1987 CRS Seminar, one small group was asked to
address the question: How is decentralization being defined? Their
flipchart response was as follows:
* Transfer of control over program activities from Headquarters
to zonal offices.
The FFW Program, however, has traditionally
been controlled by zonal offices.
* Further decentralization - i.e., from zonal offices to
counterparts - is desirable.
This decentralization has already been
initiated with the planning process.
CRS/Madras has moved one step further, and
* Advantages of Decentralization:
decentralized the project approval process.
Greater incentive for development.
Those consignees having greater potential for
development can be identified and encouraged.
* Disadvantages of Decentralization:
Complete decentralization could lead to poor
management (improper selection of projects).
The evaluation team supports in principle the goal of greater
decentralization of the FFW Program to the consignee and project