CRS/ID Title II programs : food for work and health -- final evaluation report

480, Title II Food for Work and Health programs implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS)/Indonesia and counterpart (CP) NGOs over the period 1993-95. The Title II program's health and agricultural activities have provided many tangible, lasting, and at times empowering contributions to many poor and isolated communities. Community participants reported significant benefits ranging from reduced infant and maternal mortality rates to substantial increases in farm income and agricultural production. CP organizations reported numerous institutional benefits such as standardized systems and improved staffing skills. However, the complexity of the program probably preempted alternative efforts by both CRS and its CPs to address other important issues. The program greatly taxed the abilities of CPs and placed little emphasis on participatory development practices. Also, in response to USAID requirements, CRS managed the CPs tightly, which generated resentment. Some effects were potentially negative, possibly placing communities in jeopardy of outside exploitation. Lastly, the program apparently focused on immediate and short-term goals, and focused little effort toward consolidating gains or addressing long-term sustainability. While food aid was an important and much appreciated component of the program, in almost all cases community members reported they would have participated in projects even without food aid. Hence, the transition to non-food supported programs (Title II food assistance to Indonesia formally ended in December 1995) should be possible for all CPs. The critical issue for each CP will be its ability to apply participatory community development methods in partnership with client communities. The CPs still represent good potential partners for new programs in agriculture and health, but vary in their abilities and needs. While they could continue to exist without CRS support (though at lower staff and program activity levels), all CPs appear enthusiastic about continuing such programs with CRS support. CRS will have to be clear and discerning in the kinds of projects to support, based on close negotiations with each partner. The opportunities for new health and agriculture programs are very good, but CRS will have to define these programs and build its own internal staff capabilities to deliver the programs, as well as the capacities of CPs and communities.