(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

- : 21 ­
holder level. Institution building, after all, should be a major goal
of development programs.
Although the team agrees with CRS representatives that further
decentralization to consignees and project holders is risky at
present, in view of the "weak links" discussed earlier, the addition
of staff with rural development skills, and further staff training,
would help build stronger local institutions, and make further
decentralization more manageable.
The issues concerning decentralization between the CRS/New Delhi
office and zonal levels were difficult to clarify by this evaluation
team primarily because the CRS'India Director's post has been vacant
since May 22, 1987. The new CRS Country Director is expected to
arrive in August 1987. The team has noticed a good deal of confusion
around decentralization on the part of zonal representatives, and ever.
a degree of inter-zonal rivalry; but this confusion and rivalry may
more likely be because there is no Country Director at this time,
rather than to issues of decentralization.
It does seem apparent, however, that decentralization does not
necessarily mean non-coordination of the FFW Program at national and
zonal levels. The zones do share information about the FFW Program on
a regular basis, a process which has been facilitated by the PM&E
grant.
One issue raised by CRS representatives at the July 1, 1987
seminar pertains to the relationship of the zonal office with USAID.
Zonal Directors see a need to interface directly with USAID/New
Delhi. This issue will need to be explored further when the new
CRS/India Director arrives in August 1987. Another issue that needs
to be addressed is: How can greater collaboration be achieved with the
Government of India if the zonal offices are operating as 3 autonomous
country programs within the same country?
2.7 The Potential for Greater Program Impact
The FFW Program in India is achieving positive development
results, Vet the potential is there for even greater impact.
In particular, much more attention paid to the following areas
would significantly incrteasu the Program's development impact:
* the encouragement of innovative project types, especially
income-generating projects;
* more community participation and attention to local
institution building (i.e. cooperatives and village
organizations);
* stronger linkages with Government support services and
programs;
* greater integration with other PVO programs; and
* the Institutionalization of program planning for long-term
integrated rural development.