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.

-2­<br />

drawing to a close with the termination of the <strong>USAID</strong> grant for the<br />

implementation of the PM&E. Upgrade activities have primarily<br />

addressed development impact issues of asset creation. While it is<br />

well known that the FFW program is diverse in project type and<br />

geographical area, previous evaluations have made no attempt to<br />

assess or analyze what this diversity means vis a vis the size and<br />

skill level of CRS staff and for program enhancement efforts along<br />

the lines suggested in the PM&E. It is now felt that an<br />

understanding of the traditional FFW management apparatus in<br />

quantitative terms, and qualitative terms may reveal ways to improve<br />

the effectiveness of programming FFW . Therefore, the current<br />

evaluation will examine the traditional FFW management apparatus,<br />

collect and analyze appropriate qualitative information on FFW<br />

selection criteria and supervision at all personnel and project<br />

levels. It is expected that this information will complement the<br />

data collected in 1979. On the basis of this analysis suggestions<br />

for further program improvement will be made.<br />

III. Issues<br />

1. Given the experience of the past three years, has the PM&E<br />

been implementabie, and if so, has it achieved its original<br />

objectives.<br />

2. Have the activities under the FFW program contributed to<br />

long-term asset creation, asset sustainability, and<br />

maintenance of the asset. Were the criteria for project<br />

selection appropriate to encouraging sustainability and<br />

maintenance of the asset for a period of time after<br />

cessation of the project itself. In other words, was there<br />

a long-term impact and what was it.<br />

3. Has CRS developec a supervisory system at the field, zonal<br />

and Headquarter level sufficient to effectively implement<br />

the FFW program.<br />

4. Is the geographical coveragE of the CRS program appropriate<br />

to its goal ano rrnagemerit capacity.<br />

5. To wriat extent are CRS project and beneficiary selection<br />

criteria re leCLet in site s lecitior, beneficiaries* and<br />

recipients- iT, , programs.<br />

*Benieficiaries are those 'rio receive asset created under a FFW<br />

project.<br />

*Recipients are those w7o do the work and receive the food wage.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!