The productive safety Net Program is the compollent of the larger food security program in Ethiopia. Thernprogram (PSNP) has two key oNectives namely preventing household asset and creating communityrnassets through public works. It is practiced in the rural parts of the major regions of Ethiopia. The studyrnwereda, Lanforo, started to benefit from the program since 2005.rnThough there are reporls for the contribution of the program to asset protection, there are also observedrnproblems particularly on the public works. These include poor quality of public works, maintenancernproblem, work burden on female-headed households, low participation of both beneficiaries and no~ -rnbeneficiaries in the community work. Taking these problems into consideration, this paper aimed atrnassessing the PSNl' with particular emphasis on the public works.rnThis research is expected to shed some light on the PSNP particularly on the public work. It is importantrnto ensure the effectiveness and the sustainability of the public work that is the core component of thernprogram. This can be achieved by giving inpul to concerned bodies who work for the improvement of thernprogram. Furthermore, it can be a baseforfill'ther research work.rnThe research was conducted in Lanforo wereda taking two kebeles namely Lanforo Geblll}{/ and TararnKikoTll. They are taken as representative kebeles since they are located in one of the two agro- ecologicalrnzones in the wereda. Moreover, these kebeles practice intensive public works. From these kebeles 125rnsample households, which is 13% of the total beneficiaries, was taken for the study.rnThe major findings of the research include that PSNP program has contributed 10 the protection of assetsrn(household assets, productive asset, and livestock assets) and creating community assets. Nonetheless, thernsludy made on Ihe public works of the program especially on soil and water conservation practicesrnindicated Ihat there are challenges of the public work Ihat can threaten the sustainability of the work.rnAccording 10 the survey result, most of the households were not involved during the selection of the publicrnwork. They also reported that they did not regularly participate in the maintenance work and in therncomll1unity work. In addition 10 the beneficiaries, the participation of the non-beneficiaries to Iherncommunity work is lo .... v.rnMost of the respondenls also indicated that they fixe problems like lack of equipments and lack of trainingrnand follow up, absence of child heallh care, lack of first aid service. Since there is weak support given tornfemale-headed households, they are forced to shoulder work burden that have created problem inrndomestic work and childcare. The sludy also revealed that most of the household, stated payment reiatedrnproblems like late payment, low amount compared to the public work. Besides, the existing type of thernpayment (cash only) is also a problem for most of the respondents.rnIn general, the study shows that the PSNl' has registered a positive result in asset protection and building.rnNonetheless, these results can be reversed unless measures are taken to solve the problems. Regarding thernpublic works, 1II0st of the works do not go in line with the principles and procedures of the programrnimplementation manual.