Whither Title II : a contribution to food for peace, PL-480 Title II; evaluation

480 Title II Food for Peace (FFP) Program. Special evaluation (dated 10/80) consists of documents covering: the economic and social welfare aspects of food aid; A.I.D. policies and practices; A.I.D. evaluation methods; and the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) FFP program in Kenya. No methodology is mentioned. The first document identifies economic and social welfare issues that should regulate international food aid, concluding that reference to these principles has been lacking in A.I.D. evaluations of Title II country programs. Food aid for nutritionally vulnerable groups, school children, welfare institutions, and famine victims is discussed; the limitations of the Food for Work (FFW) concept are described; and the real costs of food aid are considered. It is suggested that of all recipient groups, poor households can be most developmentally affected; suggestions are made for expanding developmental food aid. The second document critically reviews A.I.D. policies and practices regulating the programs of the sponsors and distributors of Title II foods. It is suggested that the A.I.D. policy stipulating that food supplements be consumed only by the targeted household member is unrealistic, for families will always share food. Further, the developmental role of food aid is highly questionable; unless A.I.D. provides adequate funding as well as commodities, it cannot expect sponsors and distributors to use Title II resources for developmental goals. The third document briefly reviews external evaluations of Title II programs, showing that because A.I.D. policies and regulations are based on erroneous assumptions, evaluations are similarly flawed. In addition, evaluators often fail to understand the goals of food aid and the role of the sponsor. The final document provides a response to a 7/80 special evaluation of the CRS FFP program in Kenya. Attention is directed to the evaluator's poor sample selection and misunderstandings regarding maternal/child health and FFW programs; it is concluded that the evaluator's misinterpretations of CRS and local distributors' policies and activities, reflect, again, a failure to analyze the principles of food aid beyond the limits of A.I.D. policies and regulations. Appended are a review of CRS sub-Saharan programs and related documents.