(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

- 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.