Social safelY net protects individuals/households from Iransient as well as chronic foodrninsecurity through different mechanisms: free distribution, public works etc. All over Ihernworld safety nets are used as a part of social protection though there are differences in therndesign and implementation issues. Ethiopia has employed different types of safety nets suchrnas Free Distribution (FD), Food-for-Work (FFW), Employment Based Safety Net (EBSN)rnand currently ProduClive Safety Net Program (PSNP) to avert problem of/ood insecurity atrnhousehold. local, and national level. This study therefore attempts to assess thernimplementation aspect of PSNP at local level (Kuyu woreda). Different issues like targetingrnprocess, mode, amount and timing of transfers, public works pelformance and communityrnparticipation in the decision making process of the program are analyzed.rnPrimary dc-'a were collected using household survey focus group discuss ion and keyrninformants in depth interview. SecondOlY dala sources were PSNP implementation manualrn(2004) and PSNP reports of Kuyu woreda. As to the analysis descriptive statistics were usedrntogether with chi- square test to see the difference between Direct Support (DS) and PWrn(Public Work) benefiCiary households view of targeting processfairness.rnOverall, the study finds Ihe presence of dilution and beneficiary lisl rolation in line withrntargeting process. In addition, poor geographical targeting within the woreda and corruptionrnduring Ihe first year targeting (2 005) are the challenges of PSNP in Kuyu woreda. On thernother hand, transfer and public work activities are rarely demand driven. There has beenrnweak institl/tionallinkage, and lack of active community involvement in the decision makingrnprocess of PSNP. Nonetheless, gradually implementing agencies at local level haverndeveloped better understanding of the program and its implementation.rnFinally, the study recommends full family targeting, periodical community need assessmentrnin line with payment and communily asset building, strong institutional coordinOlionrncommitment to wards community empowering, strong on going activities monitoringrnparticularly the public work component.