This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was 
prepared independently by DC Research. 
Foreign Agricultural 
Service, United States 
Department of Agriculture
Cambodia McGovern-Dole
Food for Education Project
Phase II
Final Evaluation
April 2017
DISCLAIMER: The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the 
United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT FOOD FOR EDUCATION PROJECT 
PHASE II
With funding support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), International 
Relief & Development (IRD) implemented the McGovern Dole Education Project - Phase 2 in
Cambodia from 2012 to 2017. The aim of the program is to improve the literacy, health, and
dietary practices of primary-school-aged children.
Agreement Number: FFE-442-2012/028-00 
Project Duration: 2012-2017 
Implemented by: International Relief & Development
Evaluation Authored by: DC Research
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT 
FOOD FOR EDUCATION PROJECT
PHASE II
APRIL, 2017
Phnom Penh 
In Samrithy, Cham Soeun 
vi | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... viii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...........................................................................ix
TABLES.................................................................................................................... x
FIGURES .................................................................................................................xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................... xii
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS................................................................. xiv
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3
1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................. 3
1.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES.............................................................................................. 3
1.3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EVALUATION................................................... 4
1.4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY................................................................................. 4
1.5. SAMPLING AND SAMPLE SIZE.................................................................................. 5
1.6. DATA COLLECTION ................................................................................................. 7
1.7. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE ................................................................................... 7
1.8. STRENGTHS............................................................................................................. 8
1.9. LIMITATIONS TO THE FINAL EVALUATION............................................................... 9
2. EVALUATION FINDINGS....................................................................................... 9
2.1. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION................................................................................. 9
2.2. RELEVANCE ..........................................................................................................12
2.2.1. ASSISTANCE FROM THE PROJECT ................................................................12
2.2.2. LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE RESPONDING SCHOOL NEEDS ...............................14
2.2.3. CONTRIBUTION TOWARD TEACHING AND LEARNING OUTCOME .................16
2.2.4. ACCOMPLISHMENT TOWARD PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................18
2.2.5. PROJECT ALIGNMENT WITH MOEYS’S POLICIES ........................................23
2.2.6. ALIGNMENT WITH EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN .......................................24
2.2.7. SCHOOL SELECTION APPROACHES ..............................................................25
2.2.8. ACCESS TO FOOD IN SCHOOL AND TAKE HOME RATION .............................26
2.2.9. APPROPRIATENESS RELATIVE TO LOCAL CONTEXT ....................................26
2.3. EFFECTIVENESS ....................................................................................................27
2.3.1. RELATIONSHIP BUILT AMONG STAKEHOLDERS ...........................................27
2.3.2. PERCEPTION ON USEFULNESS OF PROJECT INTERVENTION..........................29
2.3.3. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION MECHANISM .............................32
2.4. EFFICIENCY...........................................................................................................33
2.4.1. PROJECT INPUT/RESOURCE CONTRIBUTING TOWARD ACHIEVING OF THE 
PROJECT INTERVENTION.............................................................................33
2.4.2. EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES PROVIDED ...................................................41
2.4.3. MEASURES TO USE PROJECT RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY .............................41
vii | P a g e
2.4.4. INCIDENCE OF SICKNESS OF TEACHERS/STUDENTS AFTER HAVING 
PROJECT’S FOOD ........................................................................................42
2.4.5. IRD FOOD MANAGEMENT ..........................................................................43
2.4.6. FOOD STORAGE AND COOK CHECKING AND CONTROL SYSTEM..................44
2.5. IMPACT .................................................................................................................44
2.5.1. CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS) .....44
2.5.2. CHANGES BY THE PROJECT (OTHER STAKEHOLDERS) ................................. 45
2.6. SUSTAINABILITY ...................................................................................................45
2.6.1. CONTINUATION OF SCHOOL FEEDING .........................................................45
2.6.2. INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE SCHOOL FEEDING ........................................47
2.6.3. CONTINUATION ACTIVITIES AFTER PROJECT END .......................................49
2.6.4. IDENTIFIED STRATEGIES FOR CONTINUATION ACTIVITIES ..........................51
3. BEST PRACTICE AND LESSONS LEARNT ............................................................ 52
3.1. BEST PRACTICES ...................................................................................................52
3.2. LESSONS LEARNT..................................................................................................53
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 55
4.1. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................55
4.2. RECOMMENDATION...............................................................................................57
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................... 59
viii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the staff of International Relief and 
Development (IRD), Kampong Chhnang Provincial Office of Education, Youth and 
Sport (POE), District Office of Education (DOE) in Kampong Chhnang, and targeted 
schools for their contribution and support for this final evaluation. We especially thank 
the IRD Office staff, Mr. Son Siveth, Country Representative, Mr. Veurn Vouth, Deputy 
Program Manager and Mr. Thovy Hsandy, M&E Specialist, for providing us the 
opportunity to work together and for their invaluable input and support in the design and 
implementation of the study. We also extend sincere and warm regards to IRD field 
monitors (FMs) for their invaluable input and timeless support from the pre-test to the 
end of fieldwork, and to all participating respondents. 
Finally, we express thanks to our Research Advisor, Mr. Abelardo Cruz; Dr. Sieng 
Sokha, for his contribution and comments; the two Field Supervisors, for their well￾prepared, wonderful field supervision and arrangement with support from their 
enumerators; the two groups that handled focus group discussions (FGDs); and, our 
Data Team for their invaluable insight, keen analysis and patient editing of the 
document. We also thank Mr. Chhim Chhun for his contribution and providing support 
of statistical analysis.
DC Research 
April 2017
ix | P a g e
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 
CC Commune Council 
CDC Council for Development of Cambodia 
CFS Child-Friendly School 
CSB Corn-Soy Blend 
DOE District Office of Education, Youth and Sport 
D&D Decentralization and Deconcentration 
ESP Education Strategic Plan 
FGDs Focus Group Discussions 
FFE Food for Education 
FFW Food For Work 
FMs Field Monitors 
HQ Headquarters 
KIIs Key Informant Interview 
IRD International Relief and Development 
LSS Lower Secondary School 
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport 
MoFA Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Relations 
MoH Ministry of Health 
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation 
NEP NGOs Education Partnership 
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations 
POE Provincial Office of Education, Youth and Sport 
PTTC Provincial Teacher Training College 
RTTC Regional Teacher Training Centre 
RWHS Rain Water Harvesting Systems 
SPSS Statistic Package for Social Sciences 
SSC School Support Committee 
THR Take-Home Ration 
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
WFP World Food Programme
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
x | P a g e
TABLES
Table 1. Eight Outcome Indicators ............................................................................... xiv
Table 2. Samples Used under the Final Evaluation .......................................................... 6
Table 3. Selected Respondents by District ...................................................................... 7
Table 4. Respondents Profile ........................................................................................ 11
Table 5. Perception of Stakeholders Toward Learning Outcome as Result of 
Project Intervention ......................................................................................... 16
Table 6. Reasons Support of Relationship ..................................................................... 27
Table 7. Recipe of Food at One Week in 2015 or 2016 (Students) ................................ 29
Table 8. Reasons Support of Project Intervention.......................................................... 32
Table 9. Perception of Stakeholders with Regard to How Capacity Building 
Contributed to Overall Success of the Project ................................................. 34
Table 10. Engagement of Different Stakeholders ............................................................ 35
Table 11. Food Aid Provision ......................................................................................... 37
Table 12. Provision of School Supplies and Materials .................................................... 38 
Table 13. Improved Sanitation Facilities ......................................................................... 39 
Table 14. Provision of Transportation ............................................................................. 40
Table 15. Provision of Cook Utensils .............................................................................. 40
Table 16. Project Elements Continue to Be Applied ........................................................ 50
xi | P a g e
FIGURES
Figure 1. Perception of Stakeholders on FFE Project’s Responsiveness to School 
Needs/Issues ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2. Perception of School Director, Teacher, and DOE on FFE Project’s Success 
in Achieving its Objective to Improve the Quality of Literacy Instruction 18
Figure 3. % of Students Passing a Standardized National Grade 9 Exam ................. 19
Figure 4. Improved Student Attentiveness ................................................................. 20
Figure 5. Teacher and Student Perception on Attentiveness and Hunger (%) ........... 20
Figure 6. Stakeholder Perceptions on Improved Student Attendance ........................ 21
Figure 7. % of Student Attendance with over 80% of Class Attendance ................... 22
Figure 8. Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene ............................................ 23
Figure 9. Alignment with MoEYS’s Policies ............................................................. 24
Figure 10. Alignment with ESP.................................................................................... 24
Figure 11. Appropriateness of School Selection Process ............................................. 25
Figure 12. Relationship betweenBetween the Project and School (%) ........................ 27
Figure 13. Students Perception of Given Food ............................................................ 29
Figure 14. Beneficiaries Achieved Required Score of Safe Food, Nutrition, and 
Dietary ......................................................................................................... 30
Figure 15. Project Intervention ..................................................................................... 31
Figure 16. Materials Provided but Not Used ................................................................ 41
Figure 17. Incidence of Students/Teachers Getting Sick after Having Food Cooked at 
School.......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 18. Competency of Teachers Responsible for Food Management ................... 43
Figure 19. Changes among Teachers and Students noticed by School Directors and 
Teachers ...................................................................................................... 44
Figure 20. School Continues the School Feeding Project Activities............................ 46
Figure 21. Wanted to Continue the School Feeding Project ........................................ 47
Figure 22. Project Outcomes that have Continued After Project End, per Student 
Respondents ................................................................................................ 49
Figure 23. Discussion with CC, Parents and Community on Sustainability of FFE 
Project Interventions ................................................................................... 51
xii | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
With funding support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), IRD
implemented this Food for Education Project, Phase 2 from September 2012 to April 
2017 in seven districts of the rural province of Kampong Chhnang in Cambodia. The 
program was designed to improve both educational and quality of life outcomes for 
school-aged children at 132 targeted schools in Kampong Chhnang, mainly through 
incentive based school-meals, improved health awareness through training and 
medications, as well as sanitary conditions through infrastructure development. These 
efforts reached a total of 155,526 community members comprised of students, 
teachers, volunteer cooks, School Support Committee (SSC) members, boat operators,
and government officers. The project’s achievements were measured against four 
objectives: 
 Improved quality of literacy instruction through incentivized teacher 
attendance, better access to school supplies and materials, and increased skills 
and knowledge of school administrators; 
 Improved student attentiveness, primarily through on-site school feeding to 
decrease short-term hunger, along with other measures to improve student 
health and nutrition; 
 Improved student attendance through community awareness by mobilization 
activities, student enrollment campaigns, economic and cultural incentives, 
reduced health-related absences, infrastructural improvements, and an 
increased capacity of government institution; and 
 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices by conducting training on 
nutrition, and safe food preparation and storage practices; providing hygiene 
and sanitation practices to students, SSCs, cooks, and parents, and providing 
student access to deworming. 
This final evaluation was conducted through interviews and site observations at one￾quarter of the total schools, with the participation of 39 school directors, 173 teachers, 
1,350 students, and 115 representatives from the communities, as well as with DOEs 
and POEs. A summary of the evaluation findings follows: 
Assistance from the Project responded to school issues and needs, especially on 
improving teaching quality and learning outcomes. This was shown through improved 
quality of literacy instruction, improved student attentiveness and attendance, and 
improved knowledge and implementation of water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) 
practices. Second, the Project is aligned with the Ministry of Education, Youth and 
Sports’ (MoEYS’s) policies and education reforms programs under the Education 
Strategic Plan (ESP); it had appropriate approaches in school selection and it was 
appropriate to local context both as a response to the identified needs of beneficiaries 
and stakeholders and in the content and method of services delivery. 
xiii | P a g e
The project’s implementation was characterized by a strong relationship between 
project field staff and project beneficiaries, including school directors, POE, DOE, SSC 
and community, volunteers, and parents. This inclusiveness enabled local partners to 
share roles and resources, thereby helping to fulfill the stated objectives. The value of 
the Project’s interventions was assessed at a high rating. 
IRD mobilized local participation and resources which made the Project cost-efficient. 
Strict monitoring of the quality of goods and services delivered ensured an efficient use 
of project resources, and quality was maintained through the promotion of food safety 
standards in the school-feeding component and through construction standards of 
facilities built by the Project. The project also established a project management system, 
with information gathered from DOE structures, school directors and implementing 
actors (e.g. SSC, cooks, teachers), and IRD field staff (on matters related to food storage 
and cooking). Additionally, capacity-building activities were integral to optimizing the 
skills of key persons for managing the different project initiatives. Furthermore, all 
reportable project information was compiled by IRD’s Monitoring and Evaluation 
(M&E) system. 
The main observed changes resulting from the Project, as based on the evaluation’s field 
visits, were found to be, in descending order: improved health of students, reduced 
school absences, better attention to study, and increased rate of promotion to the next 
grade. As for teachers, their attendance rates and the quality of their teaching also 
improved. Changes were also found outside the schools with improved community 
participation, greater concern about nutrition and food safety, and increased general 
concern about children’s welfare. A comparative assessment of baseline and endline 
outcome indicators showed overwhelmingly positive change, which suggests that the 
Project has had real results.
xiv | P a g e
PROJECT PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
Table 1. Eight Outcome Indicators
The data presented in the table below was collected by IRD staff on an annual basis 
throughout the Project’s implementation. Data was drawn from responses provided by 
project informants—most of whom were teachers, school directors, students, and 
members of SSCs—to a questionnaire that the Project had designed for tracking key 
performance indicators. 
No PERFORMANCE INDICATOR Baseline FY14 FY15 FY16 Final 
Target
Final 
Result
1
% of students in target schools indicated by 
teachers to be "attentive" or "very attentive" 
during class 
77.00% 87.82% 90.83% 94.25% 90.00% 91.81%
2
Number of students in target schools who 
indicate that they are "hungry" or "very 
hungry" during the school day
8,732 
(28%)
2,199
(7%)
0 0 0 0
3
% of students in target schools who miss less 
than 10 school days a year due to illness 95.00% 97.00% 99.00% 100.00% 95.00%* 98.71%
4
% adults in target communities who agree that 
education is important to their children's future 88.00% 97.00% 100.00% 98.00% 90.00%* 98.33%
5
% of target beneficiaries (students, teachers, 
SSCs) who use appropriate hand washing 
practices
67.00% 75.03% 99.70% 100.00% 80.00%* 92.25%
6
% of students in target schools who achieved a 
passing score on a test of good health and 
hygiene practices
50.70% 68.00% 99.00% 99.67% 65.00% 89.49%
7
% of cooks and SSC members at target schools 
who achieve a passing score on a test of safe 
food preparation and storage
79.30% 98.55% 100.00% 100.00% 90.00% 99.07%
8
% of students, teachers and SSC members in 
target schools who achieve a passing score on a 
test of good nutrition and dietary practices
53.70% 83.37% 99.00% 99.69% 65.00% 93.87%
Note: * The baseline survey was reassessed part-way through the Project and resulted 
in some of the final targets being very close in value to their original baseline number.
This should be noted and accounted for as appropriate in the quantitative analysis 
portion of the evaluation which addresses the achievement of project indicators and 
targets.
1 | P a g e
Project components included the following interventions: improving the quality of 
teaching for better education outcomes, promoting the enrollment of schoolchildren, 
improving practices on nutrition and WASH, and providing support for the transport of 
school-related items to floating villages. IRD’s school feeding project is likely non￾sustainable because it demands donor support to make it financially manageable. This 
project cannot be turned over to MoEYS due to the current lack of ESP policies and 
budget allocations for assuming the Project’s activities. Meanwhile, the constraints of 
poor households make it unsustainable among community residents as a locally 
supported initiative. IRD attempted to identify sustainable strategies through an “exit 
workshop” which endorsed continuation, but local fiscal constraints and institutional 
limitations of MoEYS remain unaddressed. 
These recommendations are propounded on the assumption that IRD and USDA will 
turn the Project over to the government, the school, and communities, which has 
already been discussed with these stakeholders. Therefore, strategies suggested here 
address mainly the before mentioned actors, although alternate strategies may exist. 
For MoEYS and DOE 
The MoEYS has structured Child Friendly Schools as a program within its current 
education reforms for District Technical Management Teams (DTMTs) and school 
clusters. MoEYS should enhance the implementation of school reforms that include 
school facility construction and maintenance as well as sustained quality teaching for 
improved education outcomes (higher rates of school enrollment, better rates of school 
year completion and grade promotion, and reduced rates of school drop-out). It is 
recommended that: 
 DOE’s M&E unit be supported in monitoring the clustering of Child-Friendly 
Schools (CFS) through better guidelines and reporting procedures; furthermore, 
there should be a focus on inclusiveness (e.g., children with physical and 
intellectual disabilities) and incentivized student attendance, with state subsidies 
offered to poor families and extra teaching support provided to children who are 
lagging behind their peers; 
 Effective Teaching and Learning (ETL) techniques on child-friendly pedagogy 
be sustained through periodic teacher training, distribution of classroom 
learning support materials, and classroom monitoring; and 
 CFS programming be supported by UNICEF through its technical and financial 
support, inclusive of performance monitoring and program re-assessment, with 
expanded support for WASH-related initiatives. 
Prospective New NGO/INGO Development Partners 
If IRD with USDA could tap new partnering agencies with which to continue the 
Project’s initiatives, and make use of good practices and lessons learned from Phase 2 
project implementation, then future programming would be even more effective, 
especially if: 
 Project design considers not only implementation strategies but also program 
sustainability strategies, given the absence of a clear funding commitment from 
MoEYS to carry out the Project independently; 
2 | P a g e
 Collaboration is aligned more closely with the major relevant parties 
(government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs)/international non￾governmental organizations (INGOs), school administrators, and local 
communities) for a common understanding on project strategies and on various 
approaches for enhancing the potential of the Project; 
 A more comprehensive assessment is conducted of the Project beneficiaries and 
partner stakeholders (schools, communities, CBOs and support institutions) to 
ensure that the Project is designed to be more responsive to their needs while 
also more successful in strengthening their capacities to sustain the Project on 
their own; 
 Innovative approaches are piloted to more broadly seek out solutions to 
programmatic challenges and to better manage potential risks; and 
 Collaborative, integrated approaches are introduced to communities and/or 
households in order to better prepare them to assume the costs of certain project 
components, such as community-feeding. Approaches include: promotion of 
new activities to generate supplemental income and/or food for supporting 
school-feeding projects, better management of resources to sustain nutritional 
needs, transference of the school-based feeding component to a community￾based one (Positive Deviance/Hearth approach). 
3 | P a g e
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Cambodia currently ranks 143rd out of 188 countries in the 2016 Human Development
Index with an estimated 13.5% of the population living below the poverty line
according to the latest World Bank figures collected in 2014 (World Bank, 2014). The
Khmer Rouge period left Cambodia’s social institutions and infrastructure in ruins. 
While the Government of Cambodia has made significant progress in rebuilding its 
educational system, over 40% of persons aged 15-19 fail to complete primary school. 
Primary school enrollment rates are high, but 72% of children are over the age of six
when they first enter school. Although there is a declining gender gap, the opportunity
cost of keeping a child out of school still strongly affects girls. Many children repeat
grades, resulting in an average of more than 10 years for students to complete primary
school. Rates of child malnutrition are among the highest in East Asia, with 45% of 
Cambodian children demonstrating moderate or severe stunting as a result.
IRD is a non-profit organization specializing in international development and 
humanitarian assistance in over 40 countries. IRD’s mission is to reduce the suffering 
of the world’s most vulnerable groups and the provide tools and resources needed to 
increase their self-sufficiency. IRD receives funding from US bilateral assistance, 
multinational donors, as well as private foundations and individuals, to implement its 
projects. 
IRD implemented a three-year grant from the USDA to leverage food aid resources and 
$4,125,360.82 in cash funding to improve literacy of school-aged children in Cambodia 
in the rural province of Kampong Chhnang. 
The Project commenced in September 2012 and concluded in April 2017. It follows a 
prior grant from October 2008 to September 2012 in the same province, targeting 110 
of the same schools and 22 new schools. The project served 47,392 students, 1,246 
teachers, 328 volunteer cooks, 1,029 SSC members, 223 boat operators, and 30
government officers in 132 rural schools in seven districts of Kampong Chhnang 
province. 
1.2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Project sought to improve the literacy of school-age children and increase the use of 
health and dietary practices by achieving:
 Improved quality of literacy instruction through incentivized teacher 
attendance, better access to school supplies and materials, and increased skills 
and knowledge of school administrators; 
 Improved student attentiveness, primarily through on-site school feeding to 
decrease short-term hunger, along with other measures to improve student 
health and nutrition; 
 Improved student attendance, through community awareness by mobilization 
activities, student enrollment campaigns, economic and cultural incentives, 
reduced health-related absences, infrastructural improvements, and an 
4 | P a g e
increased capacity of government institution; and 
 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practice by conducting training on 
nutrition and safe food preparation and storage practices; providing hygiene 
and sanitation practices to students, SSCs, cooks, and parents, and providing 
student access to deworming. 
Additionally, the Project is improving school facilities by building wells, water 
stations, and latrines, which provide both an incentive to enrollment/attendance and 
help to reduce health-related absences caused by water/hygiene-related diseases. The 
improved water and sanitation amenities also support the health education message. 
The Project was implemented in close partnership with local School Support 
Committees, (Parent Teacher Associations), and the strengthening of their capacity was 
an important feature. In addition, the Project sought to render these gains sustainable by 
strengthening the capacity of education officials to implement and manage school 
feeding activities through training and advocacy. Specifically, the Project activities were 
coordinated as appropriate with the main stakeholders in Cambodia: the Ministry of 
Education, MoEYS, the Ministry of Health (MoH), and the World Food Programme
(WFP). 
1.3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE FINAL EVALUATION
The purpose of the final evaluation is to assess whether the Food for Education 
Project, Phase 2 project, implemented between September 2012 and April 2017, has 
achieved the expected results, as outlined in the results framework and in consultation 
with the USDA M&E Policy Manual. 
The final evaluation will serve the USDA, the Government of Cambodia, and IRD and 
its partners, through an independent party assessment of the following aspects: 
 Achievements of project objectives; 
 Soundness of the Project approach and component strategies, through analysis 
of success in meeting targeted objectives, creating a sense of project ownership 
among the beneficiaries and partners, and establishing local means for 
sustaining project results; and
 Analysis of the constraints, lessons learned, and evidence-based best practices 
for evaluating strategic opportunities upon which to re-design project activities 
for even greater impact on education in Cambodia. 
1.4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The study employed both qualitative and quantitative approaches in its methodology. 
Supplementing the quantitative data, the qualitative approach used key informant 
interviews (KIIs) and FGDs from schools, communities, SSCs, DOEs, POE, and IRD. 
Information was also gathered from relevant stakeholders who had been involved with 
the Project. 
5 | P a g e
The consultancy team led in the design of the data collection tools (questionnaires and 
forms for individual interviews and information gathering, question guides for KIIs, 
and FGDs). The tools and forms were developed based on the Project logframe and 
finalized following input and comments from IRD. After approval, the consultancy 
team conducted a one-day training for all enumerators and supervisors to ensure their 
full understanding of the questions in the individual questionnaires and forms; 
questionnaires and forms were updated based on their feedback and recommendations. 
The revised tools and forms were then piloted in one school note served by the Project 
but similar in other characteristics of size, location, and student population. 
The team conducted a pre-test where they carried out all procedures that would be done 
during actual field work in order to familiarize the enumerators and field supervisors 
with the questionnaires and forms and the protocols of their use. A feedback session 
was then held to discuss and make necessary corrections and adjustments to the 
documents. 
The qualitative tools also provided short but clear instruction to guide and enable the 
moderators to fully capture and ably collect data from the field without close 
supervision. The qualitative approach used semi-structured questions that were posed 
by enumerators who had been assessed to have stronger qualifications.
1.5. SAMPLING AND SAMPLE SIZE
Individual interviews used a combination of stratified and systematic sampling 
techniques; a selected school was considered a sampling unit, with at least 36
interviews conducted at each. 
The population was based on a list provided by IRD. The first step was to determine the 
sampling interval (N), choose a random starting point, and select every Nth member 
thereafter. This technique was used consistently to guarantee uniformity between the 
two field survey teams and to ensure overall validity and reliability. The number used 
for the random starting point of each sample was generated by an online source 
(www.random.com).
Teachers from each selected school were interviewed in groups of three; the same 
methods and techniques were applied to students—a set of three was also required to be 
gathered to respond to questions posed by an enumerator. 
The qualitative methods used sixteen FGDs, exactly two FGDs per selected district,
with five to seven participants at each FGD, and a mix of men and women who had 
actively participated in the Project. KIIs were conducted with the school directors, 
DOEs, POE, and IRD.
6 | P a g e
Table 2. Samples Used for the Final Evaluation
No. Sample Size Break Down Projection Sample 
(Female)
1 Student Survey in Group 1,320 1,350 (762)
2 Teacher Survey in Group 152 173 (82)
3 School Director 39 39 ( 3)
4 School Observation 39 39 ( 0)
5 School Support Committee (FGD) 40 31 (10)
6 Volunteer Cooks 39 40 (36)
7 Community Members (FGD) 40 44 (36)
8 Boat Operators 12 12 (10)
9 DOE/POE 8 16 ( 4)
10 IRD -- 10 ( 3)
Total Respondents 1,689 1,754 (946) 
The sample of respondents was chosen mainly from students who were considered 
primary beneficiaries of the Project, thus, sampling selection was applied to the student 
population. The other respondents were considered support groups and proportion was 
functionally supported. The random sampling technique was applied strictly—but 
purposive sampling was additionally applied to specific samples in order to support the 
finding of the study. 
The estimation formula for the sample size is: n=(z2
)(r)(1-r)(f)(k)/(p)(n)(e2
) 
The z-statistic to use was 1.96 for the 95% confident interval. The standard deviation 
value of r was set at 1.0 in order to allow for a small estimate of variance, calculated as 
(r)(1-r). The default value of f, the sample design effect, was set at 1.2. The main 
survey indicator to measure was about 10%. The non-response multiplier, k, was 
chosen to reflect the country's own experience with non-response, typically under 10% 
in developing countries; a value of 1.1 for k, therefore, would be a conservative choice. 
The parameter, p, can generally be taken from the most recent census, although a 
reasonable rule of thumb is to use 0.03 for each year of age that the target population 
represents; for example, if the target population is 1 to 6 grade schoolchildren, aged 
about 11.5 years old, p would be equal to 0.345 (0.03*11.5). The parameter, n, is often 
about 6.0 in most developing countries (Gay; Mill & Airasian, 2009)1
. For the margin 
of error, e, it was recommended to set the level of precision at 10% of r, therefore e = 
0.1r. 
n=(3.84)(1-0.1)(1.2)(1.1)/(0.1)(0.345)(6)(0.01) [n=2203]
 
1
 Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2009). Educational research: Competencies for anaysis and 
application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
 
7 | P a g e
According to the above, one-quarter of the total target schools should be sufficient in 
producing a statistically valid sample size for the purposes of this evaluation; therefore, 
a total of 39 schools were selected, comprising one-quarter of the total schools targeted 
under the Project. 
1.6. DATA COLLECTION
Data collection was carried out February 13–24, 2017. The first day consisted solely of 
study team training on the questionnaire translated into the Khmer language. During the 
second day a pre-test was administered in Kralanh primary school, Kampong Tralach 
District, Kampong Chnnang Province; after completion, a reflection and feedback 
session was held with the school at the provincial level to involve all related DC Team 
for further comments, revisions, and suggestions. After their inputs, comments, and 
suggestion, a final version of the questionnaire was developed to be used in field work. 
The sampling techniques and sample selection as well as other protocols were applied 
exactly as planned in practical field work so as to ensure that enumerators become 
familiar with real circumstances and well-prepared in handling the field work. 
Table 3. Selected Respondents by District
DISTRICT
# OF 
SELECTED 
SCHOOLS
# OF 
SELECTED 
STUDENTS
# OF 
SELECTED 
TEACHER/
DIRECTOR/
DOE/POE/IRD
# OF 
SELECTED 
COOK/SSC/
COMMUNITY
Kampong Tralach 3 133 18 3
Samaki Meanchey 3 132 21 4
Toeuk Phos 7 202 53 39
Boribo 3 113 20 13
Rolea Phear 8 271 50 41
Kampong Leng 6 199 43 6
Chilkiri 9 312 22 9
POE/IRD - - 11 -
TOTAL 39 1,362 238 115
1.7. DATA QUALITY ASSURANCE
In order to achieve the day-by-day planned targets, Supervisors guaranteed the quality 
of work by the team by applying four different layers of quality control, as cited below: 
1. Quality checks and supervision were carried out through on-the-ground 
observations of enumerators, many of whom had previous experience with 
interviews and survey work led by DC Research; 
8 | P a g e
2. Cross-checking between enumerators as pairs to help each other and assure that 
the completed entries were done in the correct manner, as had been specified; 
3. Daily checking of all completed questionnaires; meetings were organized with 
enumerators every evening to revise, update, and correct detected data errors; 
Supervisors also advised enumerators of the work to be done over the next few 
days and, each morning, a short review of research and quality control protocols 
was provided to refresh their understanding; and 
4. Some of the individuals interviewed were seen a second time by a different 
member of the survey team in order to reinforce the confidence of the data 
gathered from them. 
For the qualitative information, data specialists grouped the responses from FGDs, and 
KIIs into themes, which were then encoded into a matrix table. Analysis and synthesis 
of responses from group discussions provided findings for this report, some of which 
substantiated the survey data, and some provided insight into themes that emerged 
independent of survey data responses. 
1.8. STRENGTHS
The total sample size for this final evaluation (Table 2 and 3, above) of 1,754 would, 
theoretically, be of sufficient magnitude for a national study; accordingly, the selected 
survey subjects are considered to be representative of all project beneficiaries and their 
responses are believed to be statistically significant.
IRD and all actors (POE, DOE, SSC, schools, and communities) were actively involved 
with, and supportive of, DC Research at every step of the field work. All related 
documents and necessary needs were supplied promptly. Although there was a short 
period in finalizing the related tools and forms, field work schedule, and sampling, 
work was carried out smoothly and was completed on time. Without IRD’s positive 
support and involvement, the field work and the entire final evaluation process would 
have encountered huge difficulties and challenges. 
All field teams strictly followed the field work instructions, based on the information 
given to them by the DC Research Team. They were consistent in using the same 
sampling techniques for all chosen samples and selected schools in order to avoid bias 
and to ensure high quality and consistency in data collection. 
Another strength was the advance planning and training of enumerators, which allowed 
for sufficient time to have detailed explanations provided on each question plus tips and 
guides on interviewing. Part of the training was the pre-test to try out the questionnaire 
and to enable enumerators to practice in the field. The feedback sessions also provided 
a chance to fine tune the questionnaires and address issues that could arise in the field. 
The field team’s excellent teamwork and commitment helped them achieve the given 
plan. The team was composed of a total of 17 members, seven of whom are women. 
The enumerators were carefully selected and trained before going into the field; they all 
have good knowledge and skills in data collection for such a study and many have at 
least five years of related experience. 
9 | P a g e
IRD’s FMs and their school partners made good advance preparations, including 
providing listings of all selected students, teachers, community members, and SSCs 
ahead of time to the Project team. Additionally, the scheduling of interviews with 
respondents was early enough to ensure their availability, which enabled the team to 
gather the data without much difficulty or delay. 
1.9. LIMITATIONS TO THE FINAL EVALUATION 
There were no major limitations found with the data collection since IRD was well￾prepared and had well-informed survey respondents. The small challenges and issues in 
the field work related to previous teachers not being interviewed because they moved to 
other schools; teachers and students being absent during interview days; and, selected 
schools requesting a change in the date for interviews due to schedule conflicts. IRD 
and DC Research Field Teams promptly resolved such matters, either replacing missing 
respondents or using additional time to return to locations to conduct interviews with 
the originally-selected respondents. 
The total number of respondents interviewed was just below the projected number, as 
based on sampling calculations; this was due to revisions made to the design and 
sampling procedures after discussion with IRD, given its understanding of the reality of 
working with the specific groups of respondents. However, the quality of collected data 
was maintained. The number of teachers, communities, and SSCs decreased from one￾half to one-quarter of the overall totals expected to be studied. The target number of 
primary beneficiaries (students) to be interviewed was achieved, as was the original 
number of selected schools (39) for this final evaluation. Overall, sample sizes were 
relatively high for a study covering one province. 
Furthermore, from the point of view of the intent of this study and its very design, 
given the cost and time constraints, the findings from this final evaluation were not 
intended to attribute a level of project effect on beneficiaries; instead, it was conducted 
to show a correlation between project interventions (distribution of food/other items, 
improvements in sanitary health practices and conditions) and research subject 
performance (student and teacher attendance rates, display of student attentiveness in 
the classroom and teacher work commitment, student promotion to next grade). Indeed, 
it was conceived as a way to appraise the strategies of the project and the effectiveness 
of its array of interventions, and in this regard, the project can be regarded as highly 
successful. 
2. EVALUATION FINDINGS
2.1. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
The overall number of respondents was 1,715 people, and included students, teachers, 
school directors, SSC, community members, DOE, POE, and IRD. Girls/women 
represented a majority of the participants in the study, about 55.2% of all those 
interviewed. Students constituted more than three-quarters (78.1%) of all respondents. 
Proportionality of respondents by government district, with regard to students selected, 
10 | P a g e
were not far different from what would have been obtained from sampling that had 
been weighted by overall district population, since the number of schools per district 
roughly corresponds to population density. 
Students from primary school (grades 5 and 6) were dominant, representing the largest 
proportion of all students participating in the survey (76.2%) with a near equal split 
between the two grades (39.0% and 37.2%, respectively). This was also the case for 
schoolchildren from grade 8 and grade 9, who nearly composed the remaining balance 
of all students surveyed (11.5% and 10.2%, respectively). Representation of students in 
grade 7 was nearly negligible, since many who had gone to primary school within the 
Project coverage area subsequently enrolled in junior high schools outside the Project’s 
scope; matriculation of students from primary to junior high schools in Cambodia does 
not require remaining within the same district.
There are a number of factors which account for the above distribution of respondents. 
First and foremost, the majority of students under the Project were enrolled in primary 
schools (through grade 6). As such, most schools selected for conducting this 
evaluation were likewise primary schools. That said, students in grades 5 and 6 were 
identified as the most suitable primary school candidates for survey, due to their longer 
exposure to the project’s interventions, as compared to their peers in lower grade levels. 
The proportion of students from grades 8 and 9 included in the evaluation survey is 
representative of their proportionate share of all students who have benefitted from the 
project. Another factor influencing the sub-sample sizes of students defined by school 
grade can be attributed to the complete absence of students of a certain grade at the 
time of the survey, as was the case for those in grade 7.
School directors and teachers were also survey respondents of the evaluation. Directors 
from all selected schools replied to the survey questions specifically designed for them. 
Teachers were asked to both complete individual forms and take part in a focus group. 
There were only three women among the 39 school directors, however there were 
almost as many women (47.4%) as men (52.6%) among the total 173 teachers. The 
level of education among teachers generally (90%) met the national standards of having 
completed at least high school; more specifically, 62.4% had only a high school 
diploma, while 25.4% had an advanced degree (whether an associate, bachelor’s or 
master’s degree).
All interviewed teachers attended pre-service training at either the Provincial Teacher 
Training College (PTTC), the Regional Teacher Training Centre (RTTC), or both (see 
table below). Pre-service is universally required of new teachers as a means to better 
ensure quality of instruction and responsiveness to the educational needs of their 
students.
The survey team was impressed to learn that nearly one-half (47.4%) of the teachers 
had more than ten years of professional experience, while about one-third had four to 
nine years of experience and one-fifth one to three years of experience at the time of the 
evaluation. This should be seen as a good sign in terms of students having experienced 
11 | P a g e
teachers; on the other hand, it is also an indication of slow movement within the 
system, as old teachers are not being replaced by the more academically trained young 
teachers. The majority of teachers were found to reside in communities/villages 
surrounding the schools (67%).
The 39 school directors surveyed were almost evenly divided among the three 
categories of length of school leadership experience: less than six years, seven to ten 
years, and more than ten years. As per MoEYS’s protocols, all of these officials need to 
have attended pre-service training, although it is not compulsory for them to have 
completed post-graduate studies. As such, only one-third went to college. Of particular 
importance, however, is their understanding of the administrative functions, such as 
providing guidance and leadership for their schools to improve their performance and 
to gain community support.
SSC membership was also explored by this study. The overwhelming majority of its 
members were found to be working farmers, with only one individual working in 
public sector service. The function of the SSC is to support and assist the school with 
undertaking functional improvements, fund raising, expense monitoring, preparing 
reports for the POEs and DOEs, and serving as a bridge between the school community 
and local authorities. The potential of members to adequately fulfill their roles cannot 
be assessed on the basis of occupation and educational background. Similarly, for 
volunteer cooks and participating community members, most of whom were women, 
their level of schooling hardly matters to their functional performance.
Table 4. Respondents Profile
Students Teachers
Education N % Grade N % Specialization2 N %
Primary 1,029 76.22 5 524 38.81 Khmer 129 24.25
Secondary 321 23.78 6 505 37.41 Math 121 22.74
Total 1,350 100 7 28 2.07 Physic 12 2.26
Gender N % 8 155 11.48 Chemistry 12 2.26
Male 588 43.56 9 138 10.22 Biology 15 2.82
Female 762 56.44 Total 1,350 100.00 Social Study 130 24.44
Total 1,350 100 Scientific Study 113 21.24
 
2
 Due to teacher shortage, especially at Lower Secondary Schools, a teacher is normally asked to teach more than one subjects. At 
pedagogical school, teacher trainees are normally asked to choose a major subject and an minor. For data collection purposes, 
teachers were asked to designate all subjects that they teach, not only their main subject. This is why the number of teachers 
presented here add up to more than the 173 teachers surveyed for this final evaluation. 
12 | P a g e
Teachers
Gender N %
Experience 
(year) N % Pedagogy N %
Male 91 52.6 1-3 yrs 37 21.39 PTTC 107 61.85
Female 82 47.4 4-6 yrs 21 12.14 RTTC 59 34.10
Total 173 100 7-9 yrs 33 19.08 Both 7 4.05
Education N % 10 yrs+ 82 47.4 Total 173 100.00
Primary 3 1.73 Total 173 100.01 Voluntary Cooks
Lower Secondary 18 10.40 Housing N % Gender N %
High School 108 62.43 Nearby Villages 116 67.05 Male 4 10
Associate 8 4.62 Outside 57 32.95 Female 36 90
Bachelor & above 36 20.81 Total 173 100 Total 40 100
Total 173 100.00 Education N %
Community Members None 2 5.00
Gender N % Education N % Primary 22 55.00
Male 8 18.18 None 5 11.36 LSS 10 25.00
Female 36 81.82 Primary 23 52.27 Above 6 15.00
Total 44 100 LSS 14 31.82 Total 40 100.00
Occupation N % Above 2 4.55 School Support Committee
Farmer 38 86.36 Total 44 100.00 Occupation N %
Garment Worker 1 2.27 School Support Committee Farmer 30 96.77
Day Laborer 3 6.82 Male 21 67.74 Public Staff 1 3.23
Charcoal Seller 2 4.54 Female 10 32.26 Total 31 100.00
Total 44 100 Total 31 100.00 School Directors
School Directors Experience (yrs) N % Education N %
Gender N % >6 yrs 13 33.33 LSS 4 10.26
Male 36 92.31 7-9 yrs 13 33.33 High School 23 58.97
Female 3 7.69 10 yrs+ 13 33.33 Above 12 30.77
Total 39 100.00 Total 39 100.00 Total 39 100.00
2.2. RELEVANCE 
2.2.1. ASSISTANCE FROM THE PROJECT 
Unanimously, all relevant stakeholders interviewed reported that they had received 
assistance from the project. According to them, the assistance provided to them 
included: food for breakfast/snack and take-home rations (corn-soy blend (CSB), 
vitamin A-fortified vegetable oil, canned fish, lentils), sport materials (volleyball and 
net, football and net, metal rod for football, shuttlecock, tennis rackets and balls, 
climbing and jumping ropes, stop watches, bowling pins and balls, sport uniforms for 
competition, and whistles), instruction books for teachers and textbooks for students 
(grade 1-3), and kits for sanitation (brushes, brooms, soaps for cleaning toilet, and 
soaps for hand washing).
13 | P a g e
All stakeholders and actors (IRD, POE, and DOE) ranked by order of relevance the 
following activities that were undertaken by the Project: 
 School feeding, including take-home rations (THRs); 
 School health, including de-worming, good health and nutrition, MCH and girl 
study tours, food safety and storage; 
 School water constructions, such as latrines and tube wells with OM training 
and RWH in line with MoEYS’s standards; and 
 Local capacity building to provincial and district education officials and SSCs 
on local resource mobilization for supporting school development plans.
School feeding was designed as an incentive for students and teachers to reduce short￾term hunger and to increase class attendance and attentiveness. As such, its provision 
was done in a number of ways: 
 Daily school meals to students and teachers; 
 THRs for parents of children with timely grade 1 enrollment; 
 THRs for students who completed grade 6 and matriculated to grade 7; 
 THRs for students with at least 80% class attendance; 
 THRs for teachers with 100% teaching attendance; 
 THRs for teachers with the highest number of students passing the national 
exam at grade 9; 
 THRs for teachers living in remote areas; 
 Food for Work (FFW) for boat drivers who transport students to schools; and 
 FFW for school cooks. 
School health services had numerous components: 
 De-worming and the prevention and control of soil-transmitted helminthes 
(parasitic worms); 
 Educational sessions on good health/hygiene and nutrition through youth-led 
drama/puppet shows; 
 Training for students, teachers, and SSCs on safe food preparation and storage 
practices; 
 Training for adolescent girl students on maternal and child health; 
 Study tours for adolescent girl students on recommended practices for breast 
feeding and supplementary feeding of infants; 
 Construction/rehabilitation of Rain Water Harvesting Systems (RWHS), tube 
wells and latrines, in accordance with MoEYS’s school health policy; and 
 Distribution of shoes, personal care kits, sport materials, and mebendazole 
(deworming medicine). 
Literacy improvement was promoted in a number of ways: 
 Awareness-raising campaigns with community members on the benefits of 
education; 
 Community drives to encourage timely enrollment of children in grade 1; 
 Distribution of textbooks, instruction books, and school kits; 
14 | P a g e
 Capacity-building training for provincial and district education officials on 
management of school feeding programs; and 
 Capacity-building training for SSCs on local resource mobilization for 
supporting school development plans.
Altogether, the deliverables of the Food for Education II project fall into two 
categories: 
 Materials: school meals and THRs, school and library materials, WASH 
materials; and 
 Trainings, on topics such a: WASH, good health and nutrition, de-worming, 
MCH, food safety and storage, latrine and tube well construction, RWHS, local 
resource mobilization for supporting school development plans.
2.2.2. LEVELS OF ASSISTANCE RESPONDING TO SCHOOL NEEDS
School directors, teachers, DOE, and POE highly appreciated the response of the 
Project toward their schools’ needs/issues. As reported in the graph in Figure 1 on the 
following page, 68% of the school directors (26 of 39) reported that Food for Education 
(FFE) Project interventions were considerably responsive to the needs of their schools 
(particularly those of teachers and students). Among the remaining school directors, six 
(16%) viewed project interventions as having been either moderately or fully 
responsive to the needs/issues of the school. 
A majority of the teachers (141 out of 173, 82%) felt that project assistance was 
considerably responsive to their schools’ needs, while 19 (11%) thought that the 
assistance was fully responsive, and 12 (7%) moderately responsive to their needs. 
Surprisingly, the eight DOE and POE representatives were unanimous in assessing 
project interventions to have been fully responsive. 
Figure 1. Perception of Stakeholders on FFE Project’s Responsiveness to School 
Needs/Issues 
Key informants from IRD, POE, and DOE mentioned that all activity targets of the 
FFE Project were met and overall objectives achieved. School directors, teachers, 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Not responsive
at all
Little
Responsive
Moderate
responsive
Considerably
responsive
Fully
responsive
0 0
6
26
6
0 1
12
141
19
0 0 0 0
8
School directors Teachers DOE
15 | P a g e
students, and community beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with FFE Project 
interventions, as all activities responded to the needs of students. It appears that all 
actors—school administration, parents, and SSCs—appreciated IRD’s interventions 
since they involved themselves in the Project’s implementation.
Furthermore, school teachers claimed that hunger had been reduced among their 
students who were consequently enabled to fully concentrate on their learning; they 
said that this was especially true during the project implementation period (from May 
2013 to July 2016), when meals were prepared at schools and take-home rations 
provided. This observation was consistently offered, and it aligns with data gathered by 
the Project, as shown by the results gathered annually for the second performance 
indicator, as displayed in Table 1, found above in this report, whereby children were 
noted to not have been especially hungry at school since Fiscal Year 2015. It should be 
noted that the food provided by the Project contained high nutrients and vitamins. 
There were other, positive results in school conditions for students as a result of the 
Project. Shoes were distributed annually (for prevention of hookworm infection), and
WASH facilities were constructed (with separate latrines for girls, boys, and children 
with disabilities; pump-wells; hand washing stations; and rain water containers). 
Children were encouraged to go to school regularly because of other, project-supported 
incentives, such as food package awards for outstanding attendance and on-time student 
enrollment. In addition, for children living in villages that were subject to seasonal 
flooding, boat transportation was provided to them to get to and from school. Overall, 
the Project was effective in working with schools at the primary as well as lower 
secondary level. 
16 | P a g e
2.2.3. CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARD TEACHING AND LEARNING OUTCOMES
Regarding specific references to project results on teaching and learning outcomes, 
school directors, teachers, SSC, POE, and DOE who were interviewed collectively 
agreed that the Project did improve learning achievement of students. Table 5 below 
displays the perception of these stakeholders: 
Table 5. Stakeholders Perception on Learning Outcomes as Result of Project Interventions
Stakeholders Perceptions on contributions toward teaching and learning 
outcome
School 
Directors
 Students and teachers had textbooks and some school materials.
 Teachers came to teach and students came to learn regularly.
 Students paid attention to their studies and their learning outcomes
improved.
 Absence, repetition, and drop-out rates decreased.
 Promotion rates increased.
Teachers  Attendance rates increased.
 Students paid more attention to their studies.
 Student learning outcomes improved.
 Students had enough textbooks.
 It was easy to teach compared to before.
SSC  Food aid incentive package for outstanding student attendance 
helped increase student attendance rates to match or exceed the 
qualifying school feeding target of 85%.
 Student absenteeism reduced, students came to school with greater 
spirit to learn.
 Student attention and interest in their studies increased.
 Rates of students dropping out of school or repeating grades 
decreased; rate of school enrollment of children dramatically 
increased.
 Teachers came to work regularly and showed more motivation to 
teach and monitor student performance.
POE/DOE  Increase in learning outcomes of students.
 Reduction in absenteeism throughout the academic year.
 Reduction in dropout rates, increase in promotion rates.
17 | P a g e
Stakeholders Contributions
IRD  School feeding and THRs; school health programming, including 
instruction on good health, nutrition, MCH, girl study tours; 
training in food safety and storage; de-worming; construction in 
line with MoEYS’s standards of school latrines, tube wells, hand
washing stations, and rain water collection systems; capacity 
building of local, education officials at provincial and district 
levels; technical support to SSCs on local resource mobilization in 
the creation of school development plans.
 Food as an incentive for both students and teachers in order to 
reduce short-term hunger and increase classroom attendance and 
attentiveness, including daily school meals for students and 
teachers; THRs for parents of children with timely grade 1 
enrollment; THRs for students who completed grade 6 and 
matriculated to grade 7; THRs for students with a class attendance
rate of at least 80%; THRs for teachers with a 100% attendance
record; THRs for teachers with the highest number of grade 9
students who have passed the national exam; THRs for teachers 
living in remote areas; FFW for boat drivers who transport students 
to schools and for school cooks.
 School health including de-worming and the prevention and control 
of soil-transmitted helminths (parasitic worms); educational 
sessions on good health/hygiene and nutrition through youth-led 
drama/puppet shows; training for students, teachers and SSCs on 
safe food preparation and storage practices; training for adolescent 
girl students on maternal and child health; study tours for 
adolescent girl students on recommended practices for breast 
feeding and supplementary feeding of infants; construction/ 
rehabilitation of rain water harvesting systems, tube wells, and 
latrines, in accordance with MoEYS’s school health policy; 
distribution of shoes, personal care kits, sport materials, and 
mebendazole (deworming medicine).
 Literacy improvement through awareness-raising campaigns with 
community members on the benefits of education; community 
drives to encourage timely enrollment of children in grade 1; 
distribution of textbooks, instruction books, and school kits; 
capacity-building training for provincial and district education 
officials on management of school feeding programs; capacity￾building trainings for SSCs on local resource mobilization to
support school development plans.
18 | P a g e
2.2.4. ACCOMPLISHMENT TOWARD PROJECT OBJECTIVES
a. Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction 
Most of the stakeholders interviewed for this section strongly believed that the Project 
objective of “improved quality of literacy instruction” was achieved. Figure 2 shows 
that the majority of school directors (89%) reported that the Project had either 
considerably or fully achieved its objective. The rest, 10%, believed that the objective 
was moderately achieved. 
Similarly, a majority of teachers surveyed agreed that the objective of “improved 
quality of literacy instruction” was fully achieved. Only 11% viewed a moderate 
achievement. The DOE highly appreciated the accomplishment of this project objective 
with all citing FFE’s considerable or full achievement with regards to this particular 
objective. 
Figure 2. Perception of School Director, Teacher, and DOE on FFE Project’s Success in 
Achieving its Objective to Improve the Quality of Literacy Instruction 
The POE and DOE reported as well that the Project contributed to improving the 
quality of the school’s literacy program, with responses likewise varying between 
considerably and fully. They cited the value of FFE Project’s school contributions of 
multi-functional calculating machines and library materials (dictionaries and 
textbooks), as well as updating and improving of the school libraries. 
IRD cited the following FFE Project components as being especially effective in 
contributing to the improved quality of literacy instruction offered at the schools: the 
much improved attendance of teachers, spurred by the Project’s offer of THRs; the 
distribution of school instruction books to teachers and text books to students; and
improvements that made libraries more functional as reading centers. The impact was 
seen in the high number of students that passed their grade 9 exams, even from the 
remote schools. However, there remains insufficient support from MoEYS in educating 
the children of Cambodia, which falls short on a number of issues, including enhancing 
the instructional capacity of teachers, assigning teachers to unfilled school posts at 
remote locations, enforcing teachers to put in full hours in the classroom, and 
0
50
100
150
Objective not
at all
achieved
Objective
minimally
achieved
Objective
moderately
achieved
objective
considerably
achieved
Objective
fully achieved
0 0 4
30
0 0 4
19
132
22
0 0 0
6 8
School Directors Teachers DOE
19 | P a g e
distribution of teaching and other learning aids. Students cited that what helped 
increase class attendance and improve class attentiveness the most were daily school 
meals to reduce short-term hunger; and THRs to parents of children with timely grade 1 
enrollment, students that completed grade 6 and matriculated to grade 7, and students 
with regular attendance. Students also noted that what helped promote reading and 
competition amongst students to excel the most were the distribution of textbooks to 
improve reading and mathematics skills, as well as the previously mentioned 
improvements made to school libraries. 
Figure 3. % of Students Passing a Standardized National Grade 9 Exam 
 Sources: Mid-Term Review and annual school performance reports
Before going into detail of the analysis, it is important to note the difference between 
the baseline figure (91.59%) and the target (90%). In accordance with the evaluation’s 
TOR, the baseline survey was reassessed part-way through the program and resulted in 
some of the final targets being very close in value to their original baseline number. 
This should be noted and accounted for as appropriate in the qualitative analysis 
portion of the evaluation, which addresses the achievement of program indicators and 
targets. 
The program intervention was very successful at improving the “quality of literacy 
instruction,” as the program’s achievement surpassed the set target. In accordance with 
Figure 3, the percentage of students who passed a standardized national grade 9 exam 
increased as a result of program interventions, from 91.59% (baseline) to 97.53% (final 
result). 
b. Improved Student Attentiveness 
The school directors, teachers, and DOE felt that the Project objective of improving 
student attentiveness was greatly achieved. Figure 4 shows that a majority of 
responding teachers (94%) reported that the Project objective of “improved student 
attentiveness” was considerably or fully accomplished, with very few saying it was 
only moderately achieved. Among school directors, 92% thought it had been 
considerably or fully achieved, while only three directors cited moderate achievement. 
All 14 DOE representatives unanimously agreed that the objective was fully achieved. 
91.59
90.00
97.53
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
Baseline Final Target Final Result
20 | P a g e
Figure 4. Improved Student Attentiveness 
FGDs with stakeholders confirmed the assessments from individual surveys. For the 
DOE, the high achievement was enhanced by the provision of food to students to help 
with their attentiveness. They believed that the Project was correct in associating higher 
attendance and attentiveness, supported with supplemental food, to better 
comprehension in the classroom and better learning outcomes. 
Figure 5. Teacher and Student Perception on Attentiveness and Hunger (%) 
Sources: mid-term evaluation and annual school performance reports 
Students and teachers had similar views with regard to attentiveness and hunger. Based 
on the baseline survey conducted in 2013, 77% of the teachers interviewed felt that 
their students were attentive or very attentive during class as they were not hungry; 
while 28% (or 8,732) of the students engaged in the survey then expressed that they 
were hungry or very hungry. For teachers, the percentage of the students who were 
“attentive” or “very attentive” during class increased gradually after the Project was 
implemented for 1 year, i.e. from 77.0% in FY2013 to 87.8% in FY 2014, to 90.83% in 
FY2015 and 94.3% in FY2016, with a final result of 91.81%. The percentage of the 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No
contribution
Less
contribution
Moderate
contribution
Considerable
contribution
Full
contribution
0 0 3
31
4 0 1
9
140
23
0 0 0 0
14
School directors Teachers DOE
77.00%
90.00% 91.81%
28%
0.00% 0% 0%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
Baseline Final Target Final Result
% of students "attentive" or "very attentive" (teacher)
% of students "hungry" or "very hungry" (student)
21 | P a g e
students stating they were “hungry” or “very hungry” during class decreased from 28% 
in FY 2013 to 7% in FY 2014 and to 0% in FY 2015 and 2016. 
 
c. Perception of Stakeholders on Project’s Contribution to Improved Student 
Attendance 
School directors, teachers, and DOE also affirmed the achievement of the Project 
objective on improved student attendance (Figure 6). The majority of school directors 
(92%) reported that this project objective was favorably achieved and only one director 
said that it was only moderately achieved. As for teachers, a majority of teachers (79% 
and 17%) assessed considerable and full achievement, respectively; only 3% claimed a 
moderate achievement. Again, all DOE respondents cited total accomplishment.
Figure 6. Perception of Stakeholders on Project’s Contribution to Improved 
Student Attendance 
The cited reason by DOE respondents for the great success in improving student 
attendance were the incentives for food provision to students, stronger enforcement of 
regular attendance of students, information campaigns in the community that promoted
the value of a school education, school enrollment drives, and heightened community 
engagement to support their schools. 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No
contribution
Less
contribution
Moderate
contribution
Considerable
contribution
Full
contribution
0 0 1
35
0 0 2
6
137
30
0 0 0 0
14
School directors Teachers DOE
22 | P a g e
“The completion rate [successful completion of a school grade] has increased from 87% in 
FY13 to 100% in FY16. I’m very proud of that result.” At Klung Popor Secondary School, 
the numbers are very high because more students began to attend school regularly following 
implementation of the school feeding program. 
A 16-year-old student passed the grade-nine exam at Klung Popor Secondary and is now
continuing her education in grade 10 at Teuk Phos High School. She expressed her deep 
gratitude for the IRD intervention, saying that “my parents motivated me to go to school 
since I was in grade seven because they knew about IRD’s school feeding at this school. I’m 
so glad to have received a daily meal and take-home rations from grade seven to nine. Since 
then, I’ve never missed my take-home ration eligibility.” She added that “my family depends 
most on rice farming as livelihood which is insufficient. During my time in primary school, 
my study was not satisfactory at all. I was always absent from school to help my parents with 
housework activities. In addition, I always went to school on an empty stomach in the 
morning. This made it difficult to pay attention to my teacher’s lessons.” Her life was in very 
difficult circumstances as she was transitioning from primary to secondary school. She said, 
“My study in secondary school was much better because the school feeding and take-home 
ration programs helped increase my focus...” (Case Study Collected by IRD).
Figure 7. % of Student Attendance with over 80% of Class Attendance 
Student attendance rate also increased gradually as a result of program interventions. 
The above figure shows that the base rate of student attendance rates disaggregated by 
gender also gradually increased when compared to the baseline figures, and ultimately 
surpassed their respective targets. Based on the baseline survey the attendance rate for 
girls were just 87.38% and boys were 83.72% in baseline. After project 
implementation, the figure increased to 93.57% for girls and 91.27% for boys, 
surpassing both targets of 92% for girls and 90% for boys.
d. Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene 
Overall, the Project’s achievement of the objective on “improved knowledge of health 
and hygiene” was high. Figure 8 below shows that much had been accomplished, when 
baseline data is compared to end-line data. Generally, findings from the endline 
evaluation showed improvements in desired behavior, with the percent of beneficiaries 
using appropriate hand washing practices rising from 67% to 92.25%, and students 
with passing scores on tests of good health and hygiene practices increasing from 
50.7% to 88.49%, surpassing their respective targets of 80% and 65%. 
87.38
92 93.57
83.72
90 91.27
80.00
82.00
84.00
86.00
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
Baseline Final Target Final Result
Girls Boys
23 | P a g e
Despite these successes, this evaluation did make note of one downward trend 
regarding a decrease in scores between FY16 and project end. This could be the result 
of a number of phenomena, including the Project’s withdrawal of certain schools at the 
end of that fiscal year, especially higher-performing ones, whose data does not figure in 
the endline evaluation. 
Figure 8. Improved Knowledge of Health and Hygiene 
2.2.5. PROJECT ALIGNMENT WITH MOEYS’S POLICIES
All school directors, teachers, and DOE commonly agreed that the FFE Project was 
aligned with MoEYS’s policies and priorities. While many could not cite the name or 
title of the policies by which project interventions were aligned, DOE did refer to the 
ESP. They also elaborated that the Project had mobilized school enrollment of children 
through promotional campaigns and that it had helped to reduce the dropout rate and 
encouraged good practices related to WASH. 
Probe questions were raised on which project activities were aligned with the above￾mentioned policies. Respondents said activities in alignment with ESP were those that 
supported teacher postings at remote, underserved areas; enhancing teachers’ 
instructional capacity; and improved access to water and sanitation facilities on school 
grounds through the construction of rain water containers, pump wells, latrines, and 
hand washing stations. Teachings on recommended WASH practices also correspond to 
national education priorities. Likewise, regularly organized enrollment campaigns, 
distribution of textbooks, and provision of teaching aid supplies and library 
improvement materials were all seen to be aligned with the ESP. 
67.0%
75.0%
99.7%
100.0%
80.0%
92.25%
50.7%
68.0%
99.0% 99.7%
65.0%
89.49%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Baseline FY14 FY15 FY16 Final Target Endline
% of target beneficiaries use appropriate hand washing practices
% of students passing score on a test of good health and hygiene practices
24 | P a g e
Figure 9. Alignment with MoEYS’s Policies 
2.2.6. ALIGNMENT WITH EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN
Since the stakeholders did not specifically cite MoEYS’s policies, the research team 
raised specific questions about the Project’s alignment with ESP as it is the main sector 
policy in Cambodia. Based on Figure 0, the perception of the stakeholders about the 
alignment was very high. For school directors, the majority (71%) thought the Project 
was considerably aligned and 18% thought it was fully aligned with the sector policy; 
some 11% thought it was only moderately aligned. The majority of teachers thought it 
was considerably aligned (79%) or fully aligned (20%); only 2% thought it was 
moderately aligned. Responses from DOE staff were split between 64.3% considerable 
alignment and 35.7% full alignment. 
Figure 10. Alignment with ESP 
Stakeholders’ assessment of the alignment of project interventions to ESP policy 
supported their contention relating to their schools’ specific objectives for achieving 
ESP indicators and administrative reforms, mainly to ensure equal access to educational 
services, to improve quality and efficiency of educational services, and to develop 
institutional capacity for educational staff for decentralization. As such, joint planning, 
0
50
100
150
200
School directors Teachers DOE
38
173
14 0 0 0
Yes No
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
No
alignment
Low
alignment
Moderate
alignment
Considerable
alignment
Full
alignment
0 0
4
27
7
0 0
3
136
34
0 0 0
5
9
School directors Teachers DOE
25 | P a g e
improved quality of school materials, and schoolchildren enrollment campaigns, were 
important contributions for fulfilling ESP reforms. These approaches indeed matched 
MoEYS’s policies and priorities. Moreover, the provision of food and other essential 
materials students (e.g. shoes and school supplies) were vital for ESP 2014-2018
priorities, as these interventions helped to attract children to school and retain them. 
These were undertaken mainly as initiatives of a pilot WFP food program and of New 
Generation Schools, and the distribution of these supplemental provisions is being 
promoted separately by private donors and by other benefactor mechanisms, like IRD’s 
Food for Education Project. These initiatives, however, cannot be scaled-up yet to the 
national level on a routine basis.
2.2.7. SCHOOL SELECTION APPROACHES
Stakeholders were made aware that IRD had conducted a study, in collaboration with 
DOE and POE, on rates of student absenteeism, grade repetition, and dropout rates. The 
study included household surveys to study the reasons for schoolchildren’s difficulties 
with pursuing an education. 
IRD’s selection of schools for this study was seen by the stakeholders as having been 
appropriate and relevant to the research objective. Figure shows that nearly all school 
directors (97%) and teachers (96%) considered IRD’s approach appropriate. There was 
unanimity with interviewed members from the SSC that the approach was appropriate. 
Figure 11. Appropriateness of School Selection Process 
The reason they thought it appropriate was that the process for selecting schools for 
inclusion in this project was based on considerations for those that are serving the 
educational needs of especially poor schoolchildren living in areas that are relatively far 
removed from schools.
IRD mentioned that its selection was appropriate due to the active participation of 
schools and communities, which led to their high levels of satisfaction when their needs 
had been met. The selection process was conducted in a transparent manner. 
Provincial/district education, school administration, and SSCs were involved in the 
process, with cooperation at the community level. POE and DOE said the selection 
criteria had been applied fairly, inclusively, and with collaborative approaches, as 
0
50
100
150
200
School
directors
Teacher SSC
37
166
1 7 6 0
Yes No
26 | P a g e
decisions had been made jointly by stakeholders and community members rather than 
unilaterally by IRD. 
2.2.8. ACCESS TO FOOD IN SCHOOL AND TAKE HOME RATIONS
As recorded by the project in December 2016, the cumulative number of school-aged 
children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) was determined to be 
43,786 (as this enumerator was accounting for unique students, not total overall), with 
non-unique annual subtotals as follows: 31,187 (FY13), 31,411 (FY14), 27,191 
(FY15), and 16,729 (FY16). In terms of SFP implementation, it was found that 
participating schools strictly adhered to instructions and guides provided by the project 
for proper implementation, including scheduling of distribution, quantity of school 
meals cooked at school, all tracked against the total numbers of qualifying students. 
Additionally, take home rations were regularly followed up via interaction with 
recipients to ensure the volume and period of usability met the beneficiaries’ specific 
needs. 
Since Kampong Chhnang is one of the provinces where different groups of ethnic 
Cambodians live, the research team tried to find out if the Project had responded 
appropriately to the dietary habits and needs of the diverse groups—representing 
various cultural and religious backgrounds—among the Project beneficiaries who 
received food rations and school meals. According to 10 school directors (25%), their 
schools need to better accommodate their Muslim students. School directors and SSC 
unanimously agreed that they raised awareness in advance that the food provided at 
school and given as THRs would need to be acceptable for followers of Islam 
(“haram”). 
2.2.9. APPROPRIATENESS RELATIVE TO LOCAL CONTEXT
School directors absolutely agreed that the Project intervention approaches were 
appropriate to the socio-economic and cultural context of rural Cambodia. With regard 
to the current social situation, school directors emphasized that the Project encouraged 
communities to engage in different activities on behalf of the school. According to 
them, the community contributed some money, labor, utensils, and cooking spices to 
the FFE Project. This was important for the success of project implementation. 
Additionally, community members engaged in school enrollment campaigns, and 
encouraged each other register their school-age children at school in a timely manner. 
On relevance to the current economic situation, the school directors claimed that the 
Project not only helped reduce family expenditures for breakfast for their children, but 
also added to their food supply for other meals, as some families got food rations when 
they registered their children for school on time. Furthermore, if their children 
maintained a certain rate of school attendance, they also received food packages. This 
incentive was effective in encouraging students to go to school. 
Regarding the current cultural context, school directors reported that the Project 
strengthened the knowledge of students and their families on the importance of 
sanitation and hygiene. Most students adopted the practice of washing their hands 
27 | P a g e
before eating and after using the toilet. Local products and local appropriateness was 
strongly considered and applied. For example, WASH stations, pump-wells, and 
rainwater containers were manufactured with local materials/equipment and by local 
labor. 
2.3. EFFECTIVENESS 
2.3.1. RELATIONSHIP BUILT AMONG STAKEHOLDERS
Most school directors and teachers expressed the relationship of the FFE Project and 
their schools as having been either very good or excellent (63.2%); just above one￾quarter of them (26.3%) put it at only a “good” level and about one-tenth (10.5%) cited 
a “poor” relationship. “Very good” ratings from teachers were much higher than those 
from school directors (76.3% versus 50%). 
Figure 12. Relationship between the Project and School (%) 
The POE and DOE respondents also rated their relationship with the FFE Project as 
“strong.” They cited that the FFE Project collaborated in a number of ways: project￾related information was exchanged; project activity reports were regularly and timely 
submitted; existing mechanisms and procedures within MoEYS and education systems 
(POE, DOE, school directors, teachers, SSC) were regularly used; institutional and 
supervisory levels within their institutions were respected; advice from DOE and POE 
was followed; and scheduling of meetings and activities with DOE and schools was 
clearly and timely communicated. 
The SSC and community members also shared a positive view of their relationship with 
the FFE Project. They said that IRD provided support based on their requests and 
needs, including the promotion of good hygiene and sanitation practices, improvement 
in livelihoods, promotion of school studies, child growth monitoring, provision of food 
to schoolchildren, promotion of school enrollment, and their own active participation in 
FFE Project implementation. 
The SSC and community said that the Project promoted co-responsibility (to maintain 
food, ingredients, equipment). The FFE Project invited local people to attend their 
regularly scheduled meetings and enhanced their close collaboration and partnership 
through joint organization, planning, and participation of and in project activities. 
Furthermore, the Project provided support most needed by local people, including the 
provision of scholarships; construction of latrines; promotion of improved hygiene and 
0.0
10.5
26.3
50.0
13.2 0.0 0.6
76.3
23.1
No
Relationship
Poor
Relationship
Good
Relationship
Very Good
Relationship
Excellence
Relationship
School Director Teachers
28 | P a g e
sanitation practices among parents; and family support through food aids (THRs) when 
their children had come to school regularly. 
The project collaborated with local communities to address other challenges including 
environmental hygiene, collective sharing of scarce household needs (e.g., firewood, 
sugar), and advocacy to government institutions on other community school matters. 
All these initiatives encouraged children to attend school regularly, to adopt 
recommended WASH practices, and supported their nutritional well-being. 
Table 6. Reasons for Describing Project Relationship as Supportive
Cited Examples of FFE Project Actions
(multiple responses allowed)
Teachers
All = 173
School 
Directors
All = 39
N % N %
IRD’s Field Monitors supported and closely worked with school 75 43.3 18 46.2
Conducted regular follow ups and spot-checks 43 24.9 16 41.0
Provided the needed materials, as per requests 18 10.4 13 33.3
Provided food rations as incentives 1 0.6 4 10.3
Provided relevant training to all pertinent stakeholders 1 0.6 3 7.7
Improved school health curriculum, promoted WASH practices 44 25.4 - -
IRD’s own view of the relationship was that it was excellent and mutually engaging 
throughout the implementation of the Project. The education authority, local 
authorities, school directors, teachers, students, parents, and communities mobilized 
local resources such as sugar, kitchen utensils, fuel for cooking food, and volunteer 
cooks to contribute towards implementation of school feeding activities. Communities 
offered means of transportation to facilitate participation of their members at school 
enrollment campaigns, which community members played an active role in running. 
They also coordinated and cooperated with other project implementation activities, and
took part in problem solving meetings held with school administration and SSCs. 
Community members very much appreciated the intervention of provincial/district 
education officials in providing capacity building training to local school administrators 
on the management of the school feeding component, in clarifying the 
roles/responsibilities of the SSC, and in improving their competencies for monitoring 
school feeding activities. Similarly, there was appreciation of the SSCs, which had 
mobilized the local communities to contribute local resources (such as, sugar, firewood, 
cooking utensils, and household kitchens) to support school feeding activities and to 
provide a means of transportation for those having difficulties travelling to school 
enrollment campaigns.
29 | P a g e
2.3.2. PERCEPTION ON USEFULNESS OF PROJECT INTERVENTION
Student respondents were familiar with IRD’s food support to students, even when the 
FFE Project was over at the time of their interview. The students appreciated this 
support at a very high percentage (95.5%). Students at primary and lower secondary 
schools (LSSs) felt that the school feeding had significantly contributed to their diets. 
An overwhelming high rating was given by students on the likeability of food and 
amount adequacy, 98.0% and 95.0%, respectively. More than three-fourths said the 
THR was enough in meeting their needs, while also adding to the diet of other family 
members and helping to reduce some household food expenses. There was also an 
overwhelmingly positive high rating for the food received that was cooked daily 
(89.0%) and the CSB snack that were provided (98.0%). Overall, the food provision 
services were well received.
Figure 13. Students Perception of Given Food
Table 7. Recipe of Food at One Week in 2015 or 2016 (1,350 Students Interviewed)
Items N %
CSB 1,288 95.5
Vitamin A&D-Fortified Vegetable Oil 1,174 87.0
Sugar 673 49.9
Do not remember/do not know 34 2.5
Most school directors, teachers, and volunteer cooks said that the food provided by the 
FFE Project was regularly delivered with no delays, and that it provided the target 
schools with quality food in the proper amounts to meet the needs of their
schoolchildren. They believed that what was offered filled existing dietary gaps, which 
would have been difficult without IRD support. The data (Figure 15) indicates that the 
food provided by the FFE Project was regarded as “useful” and “very useful” by nearly 
all respondents interviewed at the target schools. 
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Get
snack
(corn
powd
er)
(%)
Daily
cook
(%)
Take
Hom
e
Ratio
n (%)
Enou
gh
for
eatin
g (%)
Like
given
food
(%)
98.0
2.0
88.7
11.3
76.4
23.6
95.0
5.0
98.0
2.0
30 | P a g e
It must be emphasized that the Project had been well prepared to clearly assess the 
needs of the schools and communities before the launch of the FFE Project. This was 
due to the Project’s close collaboration with key actors -- especially the POE, DOE, 
school administrators, and the SSC -- along with cooperation of the local communities, 
who lent support through co-organization of events and local contributions to the 
school-feeding component.
Figure 14. Beneficiaries Achieved Required Score of Safe Food, Nutrition, and 
Dietary Practices 
POE and DOE also responded that the Project aligned with the existing mechanism and 
policies of MoEYS. 
The benefits of the FFE Project were enumerated: 
 Lessened family expense for food; 
 Reduced incidence of gastro-intestinal and hook-worm-related diseases, through the 
promotion of WASH activities and distribution to students of shoes and deworming 
medicines; 
 Reduced dropout rates, especially among girl students; 
 Improved access to functional latrines that were clearly labeled for girls, boys, and 
disabled persons; 
 Promoted the construction of pump-wells, rainwater containers, and wash stands 
and provided hygiene materials and supplies—filling gaps in what schools could 
not fund on their own, leading to a substantial positive change in adoption of 
recommended WASH practices among students; 
 Reduced hunger among students through the school feeding component, enabling 
them to fully concentrate on school learning and boosting their dietary intake of 
vitamins and minerals; 
79.3%
98.5% 100.0%
100.0%
90.0%
99.1%
53.7%
83.4% 99.0%
99.7%
65.0%
93.9%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
Baseline FY14 FY15 FY16 Final Target Endline
% of cooks and SSC members passing score on a test of safe food
preparation and storage
% of students, teachers and SSC members passing score on a test of
good nutrition and dietary practices
31 | P a g e
 School attendance improved through the distribution of food rations as an incentive; 
and
 Exchange visits between teachers and administrators were facilitated at the local 
and provincial levels.
Figure 15. Project Intervention 
The SSC and the community commonly believed that the Project had increased 
knowledge on WASH; provided valuable supplemental food for schoolchildren; 
reduced expenses for families; and improved health among schoolchildren. POE and 
DOE supported these observations and added that the Project promoted school 
attendance and inclusiveness (supporting means of boat transport to poorer students 
living farther away in flood-prone areas). Teacher attendance was also bolstered. POE 
and DOE also noted that the FFE Project improved livelihood and agriculture skills, 
and that, overall, family welfare was improved and community harmony was 
strengthened. 
0.0 0.0 2.6
86.8
10.5
87.3
12.7
2.5 2.5
35.0
60.0
None Useful Less Useful Moderate Useful Useful Very Useful
School Director (%)
Teachers (%)
Cook (%)
32 | P a g e
Table 8. Reasons Supporting Successful Intervention 
Cited Examples of FFE Project Actions
(multiple responses allowed)
Teachers
All = 173
School 
Directors
All = 39
N % N %
More attention paid to teaching and learning
(within school and by community members) 
90 52.0 28 71.8
Attendance of teachers and students strengthened 33 19.1 21 53.8
Improved use of WASH practices and hygiene facilities 109 63.0 15 38.5
School needs addressed 26 15.0 4 10.3
Food rations provided as successful incentive 1 0.6 2 5.1
More successful school enrollment campaigns - - 3 7.7
Reduced expenses on basic needs for families 3 1.7 2 5.1
IRD affirmed the same views as those held by the above key informants, believing that 
it planned and implemented all of its FFE Project activities in accordance with the 
expressed needs of the communities and schools. This included its interventions in 
school feeding, school health education, de-worming, promotion of school sports, 
construction of school hygiene facilities, local capacity building, and incorporation of 
in-kind donations from the community. IRD said that the FFE Project had gained 
positive responses and had fostered stakeholder ownership to sustain these outcomes. 
2.3.3. PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION MECHANISM 
FFE Project data collection was carried out in several stages to ensure its ongoing 
progress and to respond promptly to performance shortcomings. Project data was 
collected weekly, monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, and annually. While all school 
directors who participated in the survey consistently recognized that data had been 
collected and consolidated on a monthly basis, they did not realize that the compilation 
of this information would be used for quarterly, semi-annual, and annual reports.
Data collection was principally done by IRD’s FMs using specially-designed forms, 
and their reports were jointly prepared with the schools and signed off by both parties, 
after verification by the FMs. The reports were then compiled and sent to the FFE 
Project’s M&E Unit, which also received food usage reports, attendance records, and 
training/meeting reports. Before transcription of data into database applications, the 
M&E Unit carried out a second verification of the consolidated field reports; Excel, 
Access, and Statistic Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) programs were used to 
compile and analyze project data for ongoing monitoring of school requests for project 
contributions and monitoring their fulfillments, as well as achievement levels of 
activities planned and undertaken, and attendance results. 
33 | P a g e
Data findings on the eight main performance indicators were presented at monthly 
meetings and collectively assessed for their conclusions and for recommended courses 
of action to be taken. 
These periodic assessments on project progress also served as the basis for 
recommended changes to the Project’s work plan, which was disseminated in written 
form to IRD Headquarters (HQ) and to government partners (Council for Development 
of Cambodia (CDC), POE, MoEYS, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and 
International Relations (MoFA)). 
Since its launch, the FFE Project and its activities were revised a couple of times. There 
was a re-scheduling of activities due to delays in the import of certain food items for 
project distribution, and due to the lack of groundwater initially found when 
constructing tube wells for rainwater harvesting systems. Recommendations from the 
findings of the Mid-Term Review were mostly followed in order for the FFE Project to 
meet its targets, although the donor did not concur with the suggestion of modifying 
certain activities for literacy instruction. 
In particular, several recommendations regarding strengthening Project performance 
indicators and M&E systems were thoroughly addressed through a modification to the 
award, which included revised indicators, definitions and targets, as well as a series of 
trainings for M&E staff, the agenda for which included a thorough review of the 
Project’s database as well as methods for measuring and reporting on indicators. In 
support of refining Project interventions, IRD implemented a number of 
recommendations from the mid-term evaluation, a few which were: improved 
messaging to parents on child nutrition; linking the nutritional benefits of locally 
available food to tangible health outcomes; providing school feeding units with an 
established monitoring tool and training on its use for their routine school monitoring 
visits; mobilized external resources for child-sized life vests provided by World Vision 
to those children in flood-prone school zones. 
For school directors, there were data on only a few common informational items for 
them to regularly collect, verify, and analyze; they would then submit to the FFE 
Project Monitors their reports on: monthly or periodic project activities completed; 
rates of student attendance and absences; and food and materials/equipment request and 
receipt confirmation forms. All these data, which reported on the Project’s performance 
on behalf of the schools, were then submitted to their supervising institutions, such as 
the DOE. IRD HQ likewise received these reports, which also served as content for the 
FFE Project’s Annual Report. The schools reported that the Project’s M&E system 
operated consistently throughout the life of the Project. 
2.4. EFFICIENCY
2.4.1. PROJECT INPUT/RESOURCE CONTRIBUTION TOWARD ACHIEVING 
PROJECT INTERVENTION GOALS
To ensure successful implementation of the Project, different interventions were 
planned to include a) capacity-building training; b) ongoing engagement with different 
stakeholders during project implementation; c) provisions of food aid; d) provisions of 
34 | P a g e
school supplies and materials; e) construction of WASH-related facilities to improve 
school sanitation facilities; f) arrangements for modes of transport for students to and 
from school who live in flood-prone areas; and g) distribution of cooking utensils. The 
following points will discuss how these provisions contributed to the overall project 
success, as based on the perceptions of different stakeholders.
a. Capacity Building
Table 9. Perception of Stakeholders with Regard to How Capacity Building 
Contributed to Overall Success of the Project
Stakeholders Contributions from the Project’s Capacity Building Activities
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Teachers, students, and cooks were made well aware of the 
importance of WASH.
 Teachers, students, and cooks were made well aware of diet and 
nutritious foods.
 Students were able to raise awareness on WASH and nutritious 
foods with their families and communities.
 Teaching and learning improved in the classroom due to food 
packages distributed as incentives and due to the school feeding
component.
Teachers
 Teachers and students improved their knowledge on WASH and 
their schools provided better hygiene/sanitation conditions.
 Management skills of school directors, teachers, and SSC were 
strengthened.
 Awareness of communities about their role in being engaged with
their schools improved.
 Teaching and learning improved due to the reduction of sickness 
among students.
 Greater attention paid by teachers on their teaching and their 
promotion of learning.
 Improved capacity of teachers to raise student awareness of 
recommended WASH practices.
SSC
 Hand washing practices better known and adopted.
 Improvement in knowledge of conserving rainwater.
 Improved skills on school performance reporting.
 Experience gained from co-sharing some project responsibilities 
with IRD.
 Knowledge and skills gained in advocating for schools in the 
communities where they serve.
 Knowledge gained proper storage of cooked and uncooked foods.
 Conscientiousness gained in upholding best practices and closely 
35 | P a g e
following provided instructions.
 Confidence gained on food stock management and storage.
 Improved project management capacity of SSC from their 
collaboration with IRD.
 Overall improved self-confidence.
Stakeholders Contributions from the Project’s Capacity Building Activities
to Promote the Project’s Success
DOE
 Full understanding gained of the importance and necessity of each 
piece of equipment and materials.
 Knowledge gained in sourcing local materials and labor to have
hand washing stations constructed.
 Correct standards and procedures introduced into practice to 
effectively attain and maintain quality.
 Skills taught and their use guided to better ensure effectiveness at 
work.
IRD
 Training on SOP enabled POE and DOE to manage and oversee the 
operations of the school feeding component.
 SSC's ability to mobilize local resources to support school 
development and school feeding activities enhanced by training on 
their roles and responsibilities. 
 Rationale for timely enrollment of children in school better 
understood by parents and ability to organize school enrollment 
campaigns by SSC was enhanced through project instruction.
 Improved capabilities of provincial/district educators to provide 
capacity-building support to school directors and teachers for
running and overseeing school feeding activities.
 Better coordination between SSC and school administration 
officials in the organization of school enrollment campaigns.
 School directors and teachers trained on SOPs of school feeding 
component.
 SSC trained on their roles and responsibilities.
b. Engagement of Different Stakeholders
Table 10. Engagement of Different Stakeholders
Stakeholders Contribution from the Engagement of Different Stakeholders
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Good cooperation between school and the community.
 Promotion by SSC of greater awareness in community about school 
feeding component, WASH, and need for mobilized resources to 
support school feeding component.
 Community contribution of some cooking spices (sugar) and
36 | P a g e
firewood.
 Community encouraged to have their children go to school and 
apply themselves more to learn their school lessons.
 Community more actively engaged with activities of their schools
and helping to fill unmet needs, as in providing volunteer labor and 
some funds.
Stakeholders
Contribution from the Engagement of Different Stakeholders
to Promote the Project’s Success
Teachers
 Smooth implementation of school feeding component, with
community contributions in the form of labor, utensils, cooking 
spices, and some funds.
 Encouragement of closer collaboration between schools and the 
community.
 Greater attention paid to schools by the community and education 
authorities.
 Heightened community awareness on the importance of WASH.
SSC
 Majority of SSC members (60%) in attendance at meetings and 
actively involved.
 Smooth project implementation.
 Students encouraged to attend school.
 Money and firewood for the school feeding component provided 
through community contributions.
 More community participation at school-related meetings open to 
the public.
 Better dissemination of school related concerns in the community.
DOE/POE
 Clear understanding gained about the Project.
 Transparency and inclusive participation as project principles of 
engagement with its stakeholders, along with project material and 
technical contributions.
 Study visits organized to build good networks and relationships
among communities in order to provide further mutual support on 
behalf of their schools.
IRD
 Implementation of project activities resulted in higher attendance 
rates, lower drop-out rates, higher enrollment rates of school-age 
children, as well as more efficient mobilization of local resources to 
support the schools.
 Good coordination with MoEYS, CDC, and Customs for 
importation of project-related commodities with tax-free 
exemption.
 Good engagement by provincial/district education officials, school 
directors, and SSCs in all stages of project implementation 
especially in the decision-making processes for school selection,
37 | P a g e
and organization of efforts to mobilize local resources from the 
community.
 As a member with NGOs Education Partnership (NEP), IRD joined
to improve the practice of ESP and education policy. Ex. textbook 
policy survey. There was good cooperation between partners at all 
132 schools and the 8 ODE and POE.
c. Food Aid Provision
Table 11. Food Aid Provision
Stakeholders Contribution from Food Aid Provision
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Students liked the food provided to them and they looked healthy 
after having nutrient-enriched food.
 Students seemed to enjoy coming to school (they now come to 
school regularly).
 Food aid reduced household expenses of students’ parents (parents 
had usually given some money for their children to buy something 
to eat at school).
 THRs reduced teachers’ household expenditures.
 Hunger of students reduced.
 Attention improved for both students and teachers (since they had 
eaten breakfast).
 Student learning outcomes improved and rates were reduced for 
student absenteeism, grade repeating, and dropping out of school.
 Teachers encouraged to come to school more regularly to teach and 
their rates of absenteeism reduced.
Teachers
 Food aid reduced the household expenses of students’ parents.
 Students were much less likely to be hungry at school and they 
could pay better attention to their studies.
 Rates were reduced for student absenteeism, grade repeating, and 
dropping out of school.
 Students looked healthier and livelier.
SSC
 Project interventions led students to be encouraged to attend classes 
regularly.
 Project received support and endorsement from community and the 
schools.
 Food aid reduced the household expenses of students’ parents.
 Students looked healthier.
38 | P a g e
DOE/POE
 Schools have increased their effectiveness in educating children.
 Project interventions have reduced some burden from students’ 
parents, incentivizing them to send their children to school and 
affording them more time/means to pursue their own work or 
business.
IRD
 Project’s school feeding component resulted in students no longer 
remaining hungry at school and their class attentiveness and 
performance accordingly improved.
 School attendance rates of students rose.
 Gender balance of enrolled students improved.
 Attendance rates of teachers at schools rose.
 Increase in the number of students who passed grade 9.
 Increased numbers of school-aged children have enrolled and have 
enrolled on time, even among those from minority groups.
 Improved rates of students graduating successful from primary 
school for promotion to LSS.
 No students indicated having hunger while attending class, 
suggesting that they were more attentive to their studies.
 Improved nutritional content of diets among schoolchildren.
d. Provision of School Supplies and Materials 
Table 12. Provision of School Supplies and Materials
Stakeholders Contribution from the Provision of School Supplies and Materials
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Learning facilitated with students from grades 1 through 3 provided 
a sufficient number of textbooks and school instruction facilitated 
with teachers provided with their own guidebooks.
 Students were attracted to go to school because their schools had 
been provided with different sports materials and food rations, and 
equipped with functioning toilet facilities.
 Learning materials supplied to school enabled students to learn 
more effectively.
 School supplies contributed to increased interest in school by
students, whose rates of absenteeism, repeating of grades, and 
dropping out were all reduced.
SSC
 Students received learning materials for their schooling.
 Photo sessions of recipients.
 Reducing absenteeism among students.
 Good relationship forged between IRD and community.
 Operational costs of schools reduced.
 Sufficient quantities of materials distributed to students.
39 | P a g e
DOE/POE
 Students encouraged to come to school regularly.
 Project interventions in alignment with MoEYS’s policies and 
priorities.
Stakeholders Contribution from the Provision of School Supplies and Materials
to Promote the Project’s Success
IRD
 Distributions of textbooks and instruction manuals and the 
rehabilitation of libraries improved means by which improvements 
in rates of literacy, numeracy, and schoolwork performance were 
gained.
 Sport materials that were donated helped to strengthen the physical 
appearances of students, which was furthered by greater nutritional
value offered by the school meals.
 In-kind donations such as shoes, footballs, calculators, school kits,
and personal care kits were additional means of incentivizing 
students to be enrolled and remain in school; they were also 
recognized as means for reducing household expenditures.
e. Improved Sanitation Facilities
Table 13. Improved Sanitation Facilities 
Stakeholders Contribution from the Provision of Improved Sanitation Facilities
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Improved sanitation facilities led to improved student health.
 Students knew when to wash their hands and had places to do so.
 Students knew how to use toilets and keep them clean.
SSC
 Scheduling of students to clean latrines daily.
 Instruction on personal hygiene.
 Promotion of good WASH practices among students (latrines and 
hand washing) and in the community.
 Encouragement of changes in practice in students and schools
regarding health and hygiene.
DOE/POE
 Reduction in illness related to poor hygiene and sanitation.
 Project interventions in alignment with MoEYS’s policies and 
priorities.
 Improved student learning outcomes.
 Ability to respond to students’ request for improved sanitation 
facilities.
IRD
 Construction of separate latrines for boy and girl students 
encouraged girl students to attend school more regularly.
 Project constructed tube wells and RWHS and supplied water filters 
to ensure student access to clean drinking water, which resulted in 
40 | P a g e
reduced incidence of water-borne diseases and improved health of 
students to attend schools more regularly.
 Project provided tippy-tap and latrine cleaning supplies to ensure 
proper maintenance of sanitation facilities in schools.
f. Provision of Transportation
Table 14. Provision of Transportation
Stakeholders Contribution from the Provision of Transportation
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Students better able to arrive at school on time.
 Students who are boat operators were encouraged with food ration 
packages to transport their fellow students.
SSC
 Number of students in attendance at schools and their rate of daily 
attendance increased.
 Reduction in accidents related to travels to and from school.
DOE/POE
 Project intervention in alignment with MoEYS’s policies and 
priorities.
 Students have better learning outcomes when they have been able 
to attend school more regularly due to support with transportation.
 Ability to respond to students’ request for assistance in traveling to 
and from school.
IRD
 Increased ability of students from poor households to attend classes 
regularly.
 Strengthened students solidarity in helping classmates to attend 
schools, bolstering community values.
 Students who are boat operators were encouraged with food ration 
packages to transport their fellow students.
g. Provision of Cooking Utensils
Table 15. Provision of Cooking Utensils 
Stakeholders Contribution from the Provision of Cooking Utensils
to Promote the Project’s Success
School 
Directors
 Schools supplied with enough cooking materials to prepare meals
for students and teachers.
 In-kind contributions from community members allowed for their 
engagement with the schools.
IRD
 Strengthened community involvement with school development 
activities and the school feeding component.
 Stronger community sense of ownership and responsibility for 
school operations.
41 | P a g e
 Project provided FFW to those community members who enlisted 
to cook for the students while they are at school.
2.4.2. EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES PROVIDED 
Food and other materials that had been provided by the FFE Project reached the 
intended beneficiaries. Based on Figure 16 below, nearly 90% (or 34 of 39 school 
directors) and 100% of teachers reported that none of the resources provided by the 
Project were left unused. In further discussion with school directors 11% said that the 
Project resources that had not been used were those that arrived broken/damaged or 
were considered not relevant to the needs of the schools. Those broken/damaged 
materials included: footballs, three water filters, rainwater catchment materials, and two 
tube wells. After making an assessment, IRD replaced and repaired these
broken/damaged items. Furthermore, one SSC group reported that some shoes were 
found to be bigger than any child’s foot size. For cooks (around 10%) reported that 
some resources were not used because of minor issues in taste or quality. Overall, there 
was efficient usage of resources, as they responded to the needs of the school and its 
beneficiaries. 
Figure 16. Materials Provided but Not Used 
2.4.3. MEASURES TO USE PROJECT RESOURCES EFFICIENTLY 
Measures to ensure efficient use of project resources were required to be taken up by 
school directors; for example, the amount of food sent to the cook each day had to be 
based on the actual number of teachers and students present that day. School directors 
tried their best to follow the IRD guidelines that they had agreed to follow, and they, in 
turn, assigned some responsibilities to others. Teachers and students were assigned to 
clean and maintain the sanitation facilities each day. In collaboration with the SSC, 
some of the broken materials were sent to relevant community members for repair. 
Additionally, regular meetings were conducted between the school and SSC to discuss 
daily school operational matters, as well as school development strategies. 
The findings from this evaluation were in total agreement with what had been cited by 
the Mid-Term Review, which reported that project resources had been used efficiently. 
 
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
School
directors
Teachers SSC Cook
34
173
5
35
4 0 1 4
No
Yes
42 | P a g e
The question about the appropriateness of the use of project resources was also raised 
during the final evaluation. It seemed that school directors were strict on ensuring this 
and had enforced different measures. Some school directors made daily observations on 
the school grounds, checking on the upkeep of the sanitation and WASH facilities (to 
see if cleaning supplies that had been provided by the Project were still being used), 
and some monitored the record of uncooked food received and cooked food prepared, 
eaten, and left over. For this latter concern, certain persons were assigned to be 
responsible for food storage and delivery. Moreover, school directors counseled 
children to take great care with the materials given by the FFE Project, and both 
students and teachers were assigned rotating turns in tracking new materials received 
by the school.
2.4.4. INCIDENCE OF SICKNESS OF TEACHERS/STUDENTS AFTER HAVING 
PROJECT’S FOOD 
In order to further understand the quality of food and food management, the research 
team checked with some stakeholders to learn if they had seen or heard someone who 
had gotten sick from the food provided by the Project at a school. The results showed 
that nearly every stakeholder interviewed expressed their opinion that the food was safe 
to eat, as based on 97% of responses by school directors, 98% by teachers and 93% by
cooks. Through the FDG, none of SSC mentioned any problems with food-related 
sicknesses among students or teachers from food eaten at a school. 
Figure 17. Incidence of Students/Teachers Getting Sick after Having Food Cooked 
at School 
The research probed in detail if food provided had caused any health issues for 
beneficiaries. All students reported not having heard or seen such a case. Asked on 
what health problems the food may have caused for a student or teacher, no one could 
mention any mishap, as there were no reported cases they could recall. 
According to the surprising account of one school director, the provision of food by the 
project may have increased the incidence of diarrhea, as reported to him by 20 students 
at his school. Further investigations with the project on the type and quality of the food 
0
50
100
150
200
Yes No Sometimes Often Always
Students/teacher get sick Frequency
1
37
3 1 0 0
170
0 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0
37
0 0 0
School directors Teachers SSC Cooks
43 | P a g e
items in supply for that school at that time suggest there was some other cause for the 
gastro-intestinal problems of these affected students. 
2.4.5. IRD FOOD MANAGEMENT
Asked whether a specific person was assigned to manage the food provided by IRD, all 
school directors reported that a teacher was assigned to do so. Interviews with teachers 
affirmed this, revealing that 39 teachers from 39 target schools were selected to manage 
the food provided. This teacher was responsible for keeping records of food, regularly
monitoring food stocks, producing reports on food, keeping and maintaining all 
materials received, and making requests for refills for food in low supply. 
Figure 18. Competency of Teachers Responsible for Food Management 
School directors felt that the competency of teachers responsible for food management 
was high. This was echoed by the teachers themselves. In accordance with Figure , 
most of school directors and teachers (31 out of 37 school directors or nearly 84% and 
34 out of 39 teachers or 87%) believed that their competency was good, followed by 3 
school directors and 4 teachers who said that the competency was very good. 
Because of this high perception in competency, the research team asked if the school 
directors and teachers responsible for food management were trained. Both school 
directors and teachers (including teachers responsible for managing the food) reported 
they had attended training courses. Through these courses, they learned about food 
management, preparing records of incoming and outgoing food, food health and 
sanitation, and incident reporting, all of which they applied accordingly. 
Following this training, different activities were completed by school directors and 
teachers to ensure that the Project implementation was successful. Activities included 
periodically raising student awareness of health and sanitation concerns and routinely 
advising cooks to maintain cleanliness in food preparation areas and to cook food 
carefully. With regard to additional skills they still needed, school directors informed 
that they wished they had learned how to promote health education messaging, 
gardening, animal raising, report writing, and techniques for preparation of food for 
large groups. 
0
20
40
Very
poor
Poor Fair Good Very
good
0 0
3
31
3 0 0 1
34
4
School directors Teachers
44 | P a g e
2.4.6. FOOD STORAGE AND COOK CHECKING AND CONTROL SYSTEM 
School directors showed strong commitment to ensure school meals were carefully 
cooked maintaining high standards of food sanitation. When asked about the frequency 
of their visits to the food storage location and cooking hall, most of the school directors 
(84%) reported that they had visited these two places every day, a few (11%) had gone 
once every three days, and two (5%) had visited the places but once a week. Their visits 
were done to monitor how food was stored, check records of food ingredients that had 
been received, inspect the state of cleanliness of the cooking utensils, and observe food 
preparation and handling practices. 
The SSC had lesser monitoring on the food storage and cooking process. Based on 
group discussion with them, two groups reported having inspected the cooking places 
weekly, two other groups had visited every two weeks, an additional two had gone on a 
monthly basis, and one group stopped by quarterly. During their visits, they normally 
checked the quantities and storage practices of cooking oil, beans, rice, canned fish, and 
firewood, and they inspected the cleanliness of cooking utensils and the quality of 
water being used for cooking. Additionally, they provided some counsel on 
recommended practices on food hygiene before and after cooking. 
2.5. IMPACT 
2.5.1. CHANGES RESULTING FROM THE PROJECT (TEACHERS AND STUDENTS) 
School directors recognized a high instance of change among both teachers and 
students resulting from project implementation. Nearly 80% of school directors 
confirmed the change in teachers and students. The highest indicator was improved 
health, followed by reduced absences, better attention to study, and an increase in 
transitional rates. On their part, teachers’ perception was equally high with regard to 
changes for themselves and the students due to the Project’s intervention. Surprisingly, 
none of the changes were lower than 90%. 
Figure 19. Changes among Teachers and Students noticed by School Directors 
and Teachers 
0
100
200
Reduce absents
Pay more attention to
their teaching
Improved reading and
calculating ability
Improved health
Reduced drop-out rate
Reduced repetition rate
Pay more attention to
their study
Increase promotion rate
Increase transitional
rate
For teachers For students
37 34 30 38 35 34 36 35 22
170 168 163 172 173 169 170 169 167
School directors Teachers
45 | P a g e
Not surprisingly, these sentiments are corroborated by numerous program 
achievements. Data collected by IRD demonstrates a marked increase in student 
attendance and in-class attentiveness as the project progressed. The number of students 
regularly attending project schools (80%+ attendance rate) increased from a baseline of 
26,612 to 29,334 by project end. Further broken down by gender, the percent of boy 
students with regular attendance increased from a baseline of 83.72% to 91.27% as the 
final achievement, while similarly, girl students increased from 87.38% regularly 
attending at baseline to 93.57% as the final achievement. Not only did the program 
succeed in increasing student attendance rates, students were also paying more attention 
while in school; based on periodic surveys conducted with school teachers, student 
attentiveness increased from a baseline of 77.0% to a final achievement of 91.81%. All 
of these program achievements well exceeded their expected targets. 
In further support of the above table, there are a number of areas in which the project 
data supports school director and teacher sentiments about improved student health. At 
the start of program implementation, a baseline study revealed that only 31% of target 
schools had access to clean water and sanitation facilities. Over the course of the 
project, IRD constructed 326 latrines and rehabilitated an additional 38, likewise 
constructing 37 tube wells and 61 RWHS, rehabilitating an additional 42 and 4 
respectively. Accounting for the installation of bio-sand filters, the Project 
constructed/rehabilitated 164 water systems in total, ultimately providing 100% of the 
132 target schools with access to clean water sources and functioning sanitation 
facilities. 
To maximize the opportunity afforded by this infrastructure, IRD facilitated 215 
community sanitation awareness training sessions (WASH), providing a total of 1,828
SSC members and school directors from all 132 target schools with the essential 
knowledge and skills to then be imparted upon the students. Indeed, these efforts were 
undertaken with great success, as the percentage of students achieving a passing score 
on tests concerning good health and hygiene practices increased from 50.7% as the 
baseline, to a final achievement of 89.49%. 
2.5.2. CHANGES BY THE PROJECT (OTHER STAKEHOLDERS) 
Changes did not only take place inside the school but also transpired outside the school. 
According to school directors, changed practices were seen among the cooks and SSC 
in terms of improved participation, higher concern about nutrition and food safety, and 
general concern about children’s health. Changed behavior among children’s families 
were noted in their increased encouragement of children to attend school, their greater 
initiative in registering their school-aged children in school, and their contributions of 
labor, materials and budget to the school projects. 
2.6. SUSTAINABILITY 
2.6.1. CONTINUATION OF SCHOOL FEEDING
When asked about the likelihood of school feeding programs continuing following the 
program’s close, most teachers (87.9%), believed that such programs could not 
continue after phase out without first obtaining further, external support. Teachers 
brought out two primary reasons on possible non-continuation: budget constraints by 
46 | P a g e
the schools, and economic constraints of the community and poor families. As these 
first two factors are unlikely to change in the near future, teachers ultimately cited the 
need for concrete external funding or direct NGO support as a prerequisite for 
continuing similar initiatives. 
On the other hand, a majority of school directors (78.95%) indicated that their schools 
could continue implementing school feeding programs through new partners and local 
community support. Though, similar to school teachers, directors did acknowledge the 
need for continued external support, while another stressed local community support 
through co-sharing and co-contribution of basic ingredients. 
Figure 20. School Continues the School Feeding Project Activities 
Interesting to note, the continuation of transportation to school for children living 
further afield or in flood-prone areas generally received positive responses from boat 
operators (students). They affirmed that they would continue transporting other 
schoolchildren routinely in order to support their friends and classmates in accessing
school. 
Additionally, DOE and POE are considering the possibility of increasing the capability 
of each school to promote local support and co-sharing between the school and 
communities to enable continued community support for rice, basic materials, and 
equipment to schools. 
Consistent to the above, IRD maintains that economic constraints are a compelling 
reason for continuing the school feeding project as a collaborative approach among 
certain communities. Separately, WFP may also consider supporting school feeding 
activities at certain schools that IRD will phase out at the end of the Project. The ESP 
2014-18 mentioned nothing about school feeding. To ensure that school feeding 
components function by community initiative, Cambodian Government support is 
required to develop national or provincial guidelines and establish mechanisms through 
which the purchase of school food stocks can be undertaken by way of legal bidding. 
Also, there should be a budgetary allocation for managing school feeding activities, 
although MoEYS’s Program Budgeting (PB) does not currently allocate any funds 
towards sustaining such activities. Moreover, there is not even a budget line for this 
Yes No
Yes
No Teachers (%)
School Directors (%)
12.1
87.9
78.95
21.05
47 | P a g e
type of expense, and funds cannot be transferred across line items, meaning that there is 
no possibility of financial support with the current budgeting process, posing a major 
challenge to school feeding’s sustainability. 
2.6.2. INTENTION TO CONTINUE SCHOOL FEEDING
An overwhelming number of students, teachers, and school directors would like the 
Project to continue (99.7%; 93.1% and 100%, respectively). DOE and POE have 
discussed with local communities the advantages of sustaining the school feeding 
component so as to encourage local people to contribute some basic materials (i.e. rice 
and firewood). The discussion was also held at multi-level bodies, which agreed that 
the most important actors were the local communities. If the communities understood 
and believed in the improvement and significant contribution to their children and 
community, then they would agree to contribute and participate in the feeding 
component’s continuation. However, such contribution should be voluntary, and not 
compulsory.
Figure 21. Wanted to Continue the School Feeding Project 
There are few changes that can be instituted by the school directors themselves, since 
they and their schools are dependent on the government system for funding school 
operations. They have little autonomy in securing and managing resources or in 
implementing activities that are proposed and supported by the local communities. 
Indeed, the directors are subordinate to the DOE, POE and MoEYS, and they are 
mandated to not seek or negotiate external funding support or partner with bilateral 
agencies, private donors, or charities for improving the performance of their schools. 
Some directors do take the initiative to engage with their communities in order to raise 
funds or to solicit work-in-kind contributions but these undertakings still need to be 
coordinated with the DOE, especially if they involve formal arrangements with other 
bodies.
As such, school supervisors are tied to mandated management tasks that must take 
priority over supplemental ones. Accordingly, school supervisors have not seriously 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Yes No Yes No Yes No
Students (%) Teachers (%) School Directors (%)
99.7
0.3
93.1
6.9
100
0
48 | P a g e
considered how to continue future activities that have been introduced by the FFE 
Project. Nevertheless, the school directors, as well as DOE and POE generally agree 
that demand for these activities is high and needed by the students and their 
communities. In the end, school directors are willing to participate as technical support 
for the communities served by the schools and will await their superiors for further 
action. At this point, school directors cannot decide on new initiatives, but can endorse 
background efforts. This poses a challenge for the sustainability of school feeding 
components after the Project’s end. 
IRD has the same strategy. In areas where the local economy is good and the 
communities are willing to provide support, the school’s managerial role is still 
decisive. The lack of a national school feeding policy and the lack of independence 
accorded to school directors in school programming are inter-related issues. However, 
there is a New Generation School Project pilot in Siem Reap that could be promoted for 
adoption elsewhere in Cambodia. Also, during the project close-out meeting with 
beneficiaries, participants raised the concern that the THR distribution organized by the 
community itself (food scholarships) might not be feasible. On the other hand, school 
meals could be supported using the mobilization of local resources to provide food-for￾work for cooks and food storekeepers. However, if this were not possible, then there 
would remain the recourse that parents improve the dietary content of home meals for 
their school-age children. 
The project had promoted knowledge on good health and nutritional practices to 
schoolchildren and parents. Pagodas and SSCs have played an important role in 
extensively disseminating these practices to parents during Buddhist ceremonies and 
other village events. Therefore, parents know and have access to locally available food 
resources and can provide their children with breakfasts and/or pack school lunches and 
snacks that are more nutritious. This was emphasized when IRD conducted the exit 
workshop on August 12, 2016 with POE, DOE, school directors, and SSC members. 
There was general agreement at that meeting that parents would be crucial in 
maintaining the good nutritional well-being of children through their home-feeding 
strategies, even if the Project were to end. 
Aligned to the Decentralization and Deconcentration (D&D) Policy, the Commune 
Council (CC) could play a very crucial role in sustaining the school feeding initiative. 
However, POE and DOE informants were not so positive of the possibility of this, 
because the CC has a limited, annual budget, with allocations pledged for numerous 
other activities described in the Commune Development Plan. Given its limited budget, 
the CC is unlikely to be able to support a school feeding component. Moreover, the CC 
budget is developed at the national level with mandated expenditure lines that cannot be 
re-adjusted. The reality is that while Communes have been prioritized to serve as de￾centralized administrators of government services, policies and regulations are still 
established at the national level, and appropriations for Commune operations have not 
been adequate to meet their direct and indirect costs in community development. Also, 
the CC has a limited understanding of specific development programming, and their 
operations are linked to the concerns of political parties whose influence is significant. 
49 | P a g e
IRD also agreed that the limitation of CC in both their fiscal resources as well as their 
managerial capacity poses a big challenge. Without a national policy to legally and 
financially support school feeding components, grass-root institutions would be hard￾pressed to operate such initiatives on their own.
2.6.3. CONTINUATION OF ACTIVITIES AFTER PROJECT END
Based on the students’ own responses (n=1,350), they are consistently following 
practices that had been promoted by the FFE Project—especially those relating to 
improved nutrition and WASH, such as trying to have a good breakfast to start their day 
(85.9%), washing hands with soap (97.4%), and using latrines (82.6%).
There is a considerable challenge for parents and local communities to provide food 
and fruits on a regular basis for children to take with them to school. Only a little more 
than half of them have been able to do so after the Project’s end. This implies long-term 
limitations of households to ensure good nutritional diets for their schoolchildren. 
Figure 22. Project Outcomes that have Continued After Project End, per Student 
Respondents
According to teachers (n=173), sanitation and hygiene practices are the top practices 
maintained by students, even after the Projects end (63.0%). Responses by school 
directors are consistent with this observation (66.7%). The maintenance of WASH 
facilities is a practice that has been upheld by schools, as cited by a majority of both 
sets of respondents (48.6% and 71.8%, respectively). In a self-assessment, 44.5% of the 
teachers thought they as a group retained their attentiveness to teaching and the 
promotion of learning; in contrast, only 28.2% of the school directors thought they had 
done so. 
From teacher and school director responses, it appears that some of the learned 
practices and skills from the Project are being continued. This is a very good sign and 
an improvement compared with the general stagnant performance of schools outside 
the Project. This shows that the Project has nurtured some practices that might be 
sustainable, with continued, routine, and independent implementation by the schools. 
0 20 40 60 80 100
 Washing hands with soap
Sanitation and hygiene practices
Continue to get de-worming tablets
Continue to pay attention to study
Still come to school on time
Encourage children to have breakfast
Defecate in toilet
 Help teach children
Understand nutrition
Prepare fruits and cake for children to school
97.4
94.2
91.9
91.3
90.0
85.9
82.6
82.3
82.1
55.8
50 | P a g e
Table 16. Project Outcomes that have Continued After Project End, per Teacher 
and School Director Respondents 
Elements Continue
Teachers School Directors
N % N %
Maintaining pump-wells, WASH facilities 84 48.6 28 71.8
Sanitation and hygiene practices 109 63.0 26 66. 7
Enrollment campaign 33 19.1 16 41.0
Pay more attention to teaching and learning 77 44.5 11 28.2
Continuing sport activities 25 14. 5 10 25.6
De-worming tablets - - 8 20.5
Using existing textbooks and story books 16 9.3 4 10.3
Maternity and child health 9 5.2 3 7.7
Performance trained leadership/skills 26 15.0 2 5.1
Strengthening teachers & students 
attendance 31 17.9 2 5.1
Perceptions of the sustainability of appropriate practices in the schools were also asked 
of SSC members of the SSCs. They responded by stating that there would be 
continuation of: 
 Assignment of roles and responsibilities established by the FFE Project in 
managing some of the introduced interventions; 
 Use of teaching and learning materials that had been provided by the Project; 
 Transportation to and from school of students living farther away; 
 Availability of safe and clean drinking water at the schools; 
 Promotion of WASH practices in the schools; and 
 Organization of school enrollment campaigns with community support. 
They also acknowledged the need for some support for WASH materials and 
equipment and they spoke of their interest in continuing the promotion of home 
gardening with students. 
Information from volunteer cooks also affirmed continued WASH practices linking to 
hand washing (before eating, after using the latrine, before cooking, before giving food 
to children and babies) and continued attention to safe cooking techniques. They 
thought that schoolchildren would be encouraged to have a good breakfast, that schools 
would regularly maintain the latrines, hand washing stations, and systems for 
harvesting rainwater for potable water that had been constructed by the FFE Project. 
School grounds would also be kept clean, they added. 
51 | P a g e
Responses from the community FGD confirmed these observations: maintenance of 
hygiene and sanitation facilities and of their use as related good practices, promotion of 
learning and studying in children. Furthermore, the community members cited their 
willingness to continue with the school feeding program through their own, 
independent support. 
2.6.4. IDENTIFIED STRATEGIES FOR CONTINUATION ACTIVITIES
Figure 23. Discussion with CC, Parents and Community on Sustainability of FFE 
Project Interventions 
When asked whether teachers and school directors had engaged in discussions on 
Project sustainability with community actors, a majority of those surveyed responded 
negatively. As such discussions amongst Project beneficiaries was commonplace 
throughout implementation, the responses received may be more indicative of a lack of 
productive discussions producing tangible results. In support of this conclusion, the 
following must be taken into consideration. 
Prior to Project phase out, IRD conducted a project close-out meeting with key actors 
(except the CC) to find collective considerations and ways of building sustainability 
after the Project ended. At this gathering a number of approaches and strategies were 
brought up. The common sentiment was that the stakeholders are committed and will 
actively attempt to continue the Project interventions introduced by IRD. 
In addition to the close-out meeting, most schools held meetings and discussions among 
key players, including communities and the CC, to advocate for continuation of project￾related activities, such as the school feeding component. Most school directors and 
teachers endorsed the value in sustaining these activities, which had resulted in benefits 
and positive changes, notably high attendance by school teachers and students over a 
four year-period, high enrollment of school-aged children, SSCs improved skills in 
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Teacher School Director
5.8 7.9
94.2 92.1
Yes No
52 | P a g e
creating school development plans, improved nutrition in schoolchildren, and the 
uptake of recommended WASH practices.
There are several suggestions by schools superiors (DOE and POE) to ensure project 
sustainability. First, schools and communities must have a clear future plan before 
approaching new partners and donors, which should include a rationale for needed 
support and commitment by schools and parents to join in active partnership. Second, 
other local authorities (CC, DOE, and POE) should have already defined and prioritized 
activities, with plans developed through community consultations. Third, moving 
forward, it would make sense to pilot test the sustainability of new interventions at a 
few select schools before scaling up. Endorsement and support for this approach by all 
stakeholders, including the national MoEYS, is necessary. 
MoEYS itself should consider its role and responsibility in this endeavor, including 
allocating a national budget line item to support some priority school-based activities. It 
could also provide technical support to sub-national levels of ministry to draft policies 
and guidelines on behalf of these activities, and champion their piloting at select 
schools. A similar effort had been made in Siem Reap in partnership with WFP, which 
could serve as an example for school systems elsewhere in Cambodia. 
3. BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED
3.1. BEST PRACTICES
The communities had an excellent opinion of the WASH facilities, including latrines, 
handwashing stations, and rainwater harvesting equipment that had been constructed or 
given by the FFE Project. The facilities were inclusive, since their design and 
construction had considered differentiated usage by boys, girls, and children with 
disabilities. There was undeniable success in changing schoolchildren’s behavior and 
practices related to personal hygiene, as had been introduced by the Project. They 
became so widely accepted by students that they, in turn, asked their families and 
communities about having local sanitation conditions improved. In some cases, this led 
to families constructing their own household latrines.
This initiative may also have influenced an improvement in school attendance and 
grade completion rates, especially among girl students. Community behaviors have 
changed towards girls receiving the same benefits as boys in education. While an 
annual school enrollment campaign had been instituted before the Project started, it was 
not well organized and did not attact broad participation. IRD’s innovations were to 
establish clear and well-understood objectives of success; broaden the target range of 
its audience to ensure wider participation; and to heighten its appeal by making it a 
festive, community-building event. As a result, the enrollment campaign has been 
transformed into a collaborative, mutually-reinforcing school and community activity. 
There are model approaches introduced by the FFE Project that have been adopted by 
the local communities to continue to promote school attendance and attentiveness of 
teachers to instruction and students to learn, so that all children successfully attain at 
53 | P a g e
least a basic education. An example are the schools in remote and flood-prone areas 
which continued to transport their students and teachers in cooperation with local boat 
operators. In fact, the local communities there said that they would sustain this 
initiative even after the end of the Project. This serves as a good model of cooperation 
and collaboration among families in a community. This project has brought about 
positive outcomes related to the education of schoolchildren that can be furthered using 
the techniques introduced by IRD. 
In closing out this section on best practices, it is a given that monitoring and evaluation 
of a project are essential aspects of project management from which evidence-based, 
decision-making can be made to more assuredly foster achievement of planned 
outcomes and impact. Besides the impact indicators that were built into this project, 
measurement of education-related outcomes—specifically, school enrollment rates of 
eligible children in a community, grade completion rates, school graduation rates, and 
student drop-out rates—could have worked as annual measures to substantiate project 
outcomes. 
The CFS indicators that have been recently developed into a checklist for mandatory 
reporting by schools in Cambodia could also be important means for measuring levels 
of teaching and learning performance. IRD missed out on the opportunity to 
incorporate these indicators in its own work of monitoring the project or in having the 
project evaluated by them. While this evaluation explored key areas of project 
relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency, such quantitative data could have provided, in 
retrospect, more substantial input for measuring the impact of the Food for Education 
Project, and help confirm the findings drawn from the qualitative data, upon which this 
evaluation relied, admittedly to a significant degree. 
One would like to add, although not as an excuse, that a thorough study of education￾related outcomes and/or the CFS indicators would have required additional time for 
data compilation at the 39 schools sampled for this evaluation. However, the terms of 
reference for the consultancy of the external evaluator accorded only eight days for 
field work, although six days of desk review were also scheduled, but only for reading 
and familiarization of project-generated documentation. 
3.2. LESSONS LEARNED
PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES EARLY AND SYSTEMATIC PLANNING 
The transition to sustainability of a project that initially has the backing of external 
resources but eventually relies on local stakeholders is never quick or easy. The 
findings of this final evaluation on the sustainability of FFE Project initiatives, despite 
successes in gaining local school and community support, suggest there are numerous 
challenges in light of the limitations of MoEYS, POE, and DOE. Furthermore, school 
directors are hampered by institutional and financial constrictions to undertake 
experimental approaches for improving school infrastructure and supplies. These 
hindrances of tight budgets and centralized administrative powers similarly affect sub￾national government bodies, like Communes and District governments. The 
54 | P a g e
commitment to sustain and expand the Project’s initiatives may be strong—with local 
communities especially eager to partner—but external funding support still remains 
crucial. 
It would be unreasonable to assume that other development agencies would assume this
responsibility for continuing the work of IRD; WFP, as a possibility to serve as a 
succeeding, implementing agency, has its own limitations and priorities. Therefore, if 
there had been an intention for the entire project or some of its initiatives to be 
sustained after the Project’s end, then IRD as the lead agency should have sought out 
future partners early on in the Project. 
It would also have been important to identify which project initiatives have the highest 
chance of continuation if they were to be managed by the schools and community 
themselves; the findings of this evaluation do suggest the viability of WASH practices 
and the use of teaching skills by teachers themselves. In this way, those other initiatives 
that would be harder to sustain could be the focus of support by other prospective 
agencies; the school feeding component is a likely candidate for external financial and 
technical support. 
Any project with many components should have developed a separate plan for 
sustainability for each of them, and individualized strategies for piloting and scaling up. 
Overall, a project requiring more resources and undertaking a wider range of initiatives 
will pose greater challenges in replication, especially if undertaken with little or no 
guidance and financial support from external sources. 
PROJECT INNOVATIONS SUCCEED BEST WITH SUSTAINED SCHOOL-AND 
COMMUNITY-LEVEL OWNERSHIP AND SUPPORT 
The overall good performance by this project indicates the immeasurable value of 
active participation by the Project’s beneficiaries. This project highlights the need for 
innovations that are introduced by an external actor (IRD) to be linked to the local 
context and firmly planned out with local actors—the schools, the educational 
institution, the community, parents, students, and volunteers. The project’s emphasis on 
this resulted in activities that were “contextualized” and achievements that were 
“owned.” It was essential that the FFE Project’s initiatives were adapted to local 
contexts and supported by a broad base of local stakeholders concerned with education. 
In this way, new knowledge and practices would be more assuredly promoted, and 
outcomes and prospects of sustainability more likely gained. 
However, such an inclusive approach also comes with challenges, although IRD 
correctly proceeded by conscientiously linking up with their beneficiaries and 
mentoring them, while also monitoring and following up on project activity 
implementation. Identifying appropriate, education officials and advocates at local and 
higher administrative levels and encouraging them to support project initiatives are 
essential for sustainability. 
55 | P a g e
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
4.1. CONCLUSION
Relevance 
Based on several indicators, assistance from the Project was relevant in terms of 
responsiveness to school issues and needs, especially on improving teaching quality 
and learning outcomes. This was shown by the improved quality of literacy instruction, 
improved student attentiveness and attendance, and improved knowledge and practice 
of WASH initiatives. Secondly, the Project aligned with MoEYS’s policies and 
education reforms programs under the ESP. It was designed with appropriate 
approaches in school selection and project services were carried out with sensitivity to 
local contexts, receptiveness to inclusive participation by beneficiaries, and 
responsiveness to the stated needs of both beneficiaries and stakeholders. 
Effectiveness 
The project was able to achieve most of its intended objectives. Its implementation was 
characterized by a strong relationship between the Project and each of its set of 
stakeholders: schools, POE, DOE, SSC, local community members, students and their 
parents, and volunteers. This inclusiveness enabled local partners to share roles and 
resources, which helped towards the achievement of most of the intended objectives. 
The usefulness of the Project’s initiatives was perceived to be at a high level. 
Efficiency 
Efficiency was manifested by IRD’s ability to mobilize local counterparts for 
participation in FFE Project initiatives and for mobilization of local resources, which 
afforded some cost-efficiency. A strict monitoring of project goods and services 
ensured an efficient use of project resources, especially on provided food and its safe 
handling and storage on behalf of the school feeding component. In addition, attention 
was paid to quality in the construction of WASH-related facilities and education-related 
materials produced. There was reported full use of resources provided. The project also 
worked with a well-managed M&E system that operated within DOE structures and 
that incorporated school directors and other implementing actors (e.g. SSC, cooks, 
teachers) to support IRD’s established reporting systems (on food storage and food 
hygiene standards). Capacity building strategies were integrated in project operation, 
which optimized the skills of key persons with management roles within the Project. 
Impact 
The main changes resulting from the Project, as seen among students, was improved 
health, followed by reduced absences, better attention to their studies, and some 
increase in their grade promotion rate. Regarding teachers, the more significant changes 
perceived were an increase in their own attendance at school, and in the quality of their 
teaching. Other changes noted were improved participation of community members in 
activities to support the schools, and a higher concern about proper nutrition, food 
safety, and general concern for children. 
56 | P a g e
Sustainability 
The following project initiatives to increase educational outcomes were found to be 
especially well adopted by the Project beneficiaries and more likely to be sustained: 
improvement in the quality of teaching instruction, promotion of school enrollment, 
adoption of good nutrition and WASH practices, and support for transporting students 
living in flood-prone villages to and from school.
The school feeding component is most likely unsustainable without extended FFE 
Project support, because it demands donor financing to be viable. This initiative cannot 
be turned over to MoEYS, since there is no specific policy in the ESP for it; 
additionally, there are constraints in how budget allocations are identified and funded. 
Turning it over to the CC would also not be feasible, nor to the WFP, unless the latter 
makes a specific commitment to it. Nonetheless, a school feeding component could be 
locally maintained in areas whose populations have parents with stable economic bases 
to finance such a project themselves. The alternative would be to have households 
ensure that their schoolchildren are properly fed breakfast and supplied with nutritious 
lunches. 
IRD identified strategies for continuation of project initiatives through the Project 
closeout meetings with key stakeholders. These discussions revealed a general 
endorsement for continuation and a strong commitment for involvement. However, 
funding concerns remain unresolved, although some solutions to this were aired. Still, 
the institutional limitations of MoEYS remain a key issue, which cannot be addressed 
at sub-national or local levels. 
FFE II has provided capacity building to all relevant actors (i.e. SSC to assist school 
development plans and resource mobilization, in-kind contributions, etc.), with the 
intention for schools to self-manage feeding programs by themselves with active 
support from DOE, POE and local communities. After the phase out of qualified target 
schools from the Project (30 schools in 2015 and 2016 equally), follow up measures of 
student attendance rates noted sustained attendance rates following phase out (remained 
92.85% for 60 phased out schools from school feeding against 93.02% for the 72 
continuing schools—according to IRD annual record of fiscal year 2015-2016). 
Secondly, WASH training and instructions with regards to best practices were another 
factor emphasized as critical to sustaining lasting Project impact; the Project 
constructed numerous facilities providing access to clean water and latrines, as well 
imparted on key actors the soft skills necessary to leverage these resources both in the 
present and for many years to come. The evaluation observed that these practices were 
systematic in their implementation across all target schools. 
In an effort to disseminate the positive results of the Project, IRD conducted annual 
training sessions on Management & Supervision of School Feeding Programs to 
government officials at the district and provincial education levels, covering all 132 
target schools. Furthermore, in the final year of implementation, IRD organized an exit 
workshop, the participants of which included key government officials, in order to 
57 | P a g e
highlight Project successes, most notable of which were demonstrated improvements in 
literacy scores, student and teacher attendance rates, increased enrollment, decreased 
drop-out rates, etc. Though these Project successes, and many others, have repeatedly 
been highlighted and communicated directly to relevant government officials and 
departments, it is ultimately their burden to take the necessary steps to both draft policy 
and budget properly for the continuation of school feeding programs. 
4.2. RECOMMENDATION
The evaluation’s findings suggest that the institutional limitations of MoEYS at 
national and sub-national levels be addressed, regarding the perceived restrictions that 
the Government Ministry has set on its mandate, level of resources, and its 
programmatic priorities. Although communities are enthusiastic about having support 
for this project continued, they are also limited in terms of current Commune resources 
and the low economic levels of most households. Some local capacities and resources 
developed by the FFE Project could be sustained. Skills that were taught such as 
management, teaching methods, ingrained practices, and enrollment promotion as well 
as the continued maintenance of provided resources including WASH facilities could 
all feasibly persist. While there will always be parent’s support for their own children, 
project initiatives, like the school-feeding component, are very much at risk of being 
discontinued, despite popular support. 
These recommendations are propounded on the assumption that IRD and the USDA
will turn the Project over to the government, the school, and communities, as has 
already been discussed with the stakeholders. Therefore, strategies suggested here 
address mainly these actors, although general ones may address future similar actions. 
For MoEYS and DOE 
The MoEYS has existing structures for the implementation of its Child Friendly School 
Program, and for enforcing current education reforms through the District Technical 
Management Teams (DTMT), who represent specific school clusters in a geographical 
area. MoEYS should enhance the implementation of school reforms, including: facility 
development and maintenance; periodic in-service training on quality approaches in 
child education; and promotion of improved education outcomes (rates of student 
enrollment, grade promotion, graduation, and school retention). Several steps can be 
taken to achieve this, such as: 
 Enhance the capacity of DOE’s M&E unit to develop a stronger monitoring of 
the CFS Program through the development of better guidelines and reporting 
mechanisms, using the methodology developed by CFD. Focus should be 
placed on aspects for encouraging community inclusiveness and participation, 
with state subsidies to poor families with school-aged children and extra support 
provided to those children who lag behind their peers and those with physical 
and intellectual disabilities.
 Sustain Effective Teaching and Learning (ETL) initiatives by ensuring that 
teachers follow child-friendly practices in their instruction (through periodic 
58 | P a g e
teacher training on innovative and adaptable pedagogic methodologies) and by 
continuing the provision of classroom learning materials.
 Enable support for greater responsiveness to the CFS Program by sustaining 
linkages with UNICEF so that they can offer its technical assistance in 
assessing and re-designing the CFS Program as well as improving the 
Program’s M&E systems.
 Expand support for WASH-related activities. 
Prospective new NGO/INGO Development Partners on Sustaining Educational 
Quality among the Targeted Schools 
 Design a new project with strategies not only for implementation but also for 
withdrawal-and-sustainability (“exit” strategies), especially in the absence of a 
clear funding commitment from MoEYS to sustain the project. 
 Collaborate more closely at all levels (government, support NGO/INGOs and 
with the schools and community) for a common understanding on project 
strategies and various approaches for tackling project objectives. 
 Conduct a more comprehensive assessment of the conditions of project 
beneficiaries, partners, and stakeholders to ensure that the project is designed to 
be responsive to their respective needs, while also enabling the development of 
needed capacities of stakeholders with potential to sustain the project 
mechanisms (schools, communities, CBOs, and support institutions). 
 Pilot innovative approaches so as to address challenges and mitigate risk 
factors, and gain lessons learned so that good practices can be identified for 
their broadened and replicated usage elsewhere. 
 Build the capacity of local resources at community and household levels to 
support project initiatives, even ones as challenging as a school feeding 
components, with approaches that are innovative and integrated in project 
activities, such as ones that enhance farming livelihoods, where the additional 
food cultivated is used to support the school-feeding project. 
 Link nutrition to resource management (LANN) or use the Positive Deviance￾Hearth approach as a basis for a community-based feeding component than can 
expand to a school-based feeding component. 
59 | P a g e
ANNEXES
 ANNEX 1: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (IRD) 
 ANNEX 2: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (DOE)
 ANNEX 3: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (BOAT OPERATOR) 
 ANNEX 4: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (SCHOOL SUPPORT COMMITTEE) 
 ANNEX 5: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (COMMUNITY MEMBER) 
 ANNEX 6: SURVEY INSTRUMENTS
 ANNEX 7: PROJECT INDICATORS AND RESULTS
 ANNEX 7.1: COMMENTS ON PROJECT INDICATORS AND RESULTS