(PDF, 101 mb) - USAID

-:32:
studies sothttevrwelming'-majority 'of recipie'nts
(aboute pecn eemmes: r8 of Scheduled 'Tri
bes,
Schedu6led, Castes an ter backward c assesal
referredtoofficiall _LbyteGIa the-ekrscins
ofIndian Soiety~:groups'-targetted by- 0 steneis
in te rms .of econiomic ad .social development assi's't'ance.
~4 7 No Reli ious Bias.
From 'the sample~ studied, there appeared to be nxo religious
bias in the selection o~f benef iciaries, -and recipients. PVO' and
pari sh, initiated community projects we re -secular in thi
S:approach an rcs fipeetn hi program,.
4.8 Th Seeto rcs
#Different processes'of- selection of beneficiaries were A
~observed by the teamn.-< ­ -
In tile case~of many individual projects, it~was observed 1
~that those who knewi that FFW was available approached the
~project~holder to get the benefit.Ui
Incsswer Vswr prjc hlders, selection
themibeescomposed ovilgran/r project' staff select
teonfcais Ths omite appeared, to accept the''
In two icases it was' noticed that the -local' Gove rn'me nt
of ficial1s took up7 the responsibility of selecting, the'
beneficiaries, ,following the Government- a norms',of-giving:'
preference to thie most disadvantaged targeted groups.
In certaini other cases, it was noted-that 'the: vi.llage
Pancliayats had been eit r~Usted with
selectr
'the.,' ni
-rspns p iPty cif
se1etng~the boeneficiaries., InilI cases 'where beneficiari'es
were sele~cted by a committee or 1lcl group, t'he selection was
done not byfaiindivu 'bu by an e'nt i're group.
Therewerealso instnces whre~ the groups seece ,a
n-op indiidua detohrreasons which weg'd Wt
tw.For exa'p e;{n tw~o cases the vilg comite ha -
selected awidowi as a benficiary fo l an~d clarn and'
lo-ost hose -because she had no one els to loo ,after
heri~ Thle entire group, in suc~h daes i n
9, Recipient Selecti on
-Itwa snot anoject e of iev-a-o so
ad ti~h sf,'i a on misioto doav
tn, pporunty to' di6 aer
-