This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was 
prepared independently by Jean Christophe Fotso, PhD; Mouftaou Amadou Sanni, PhD; Paul Kouete 
Jimmy, PhD Candidate; Ashley Ambrose, MPH
Foreign Agricultural Service, 
United States Department of 
Agriculture
Benin Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement Project
Final Evaluation
November 2019
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.
Evaluation of Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
(LRP) Project 
Endline Evaluation and Comparison Study Report
The Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) project, funded by the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 
Benin, supports the establishment and functioning of school canteens in government schools of 
N’dali, Perere, Parakou and Tchaourou districts in the Borgou Region. The purpose of the project 
is to develop a replicable and scalable model for decentralized school feeding through effective 
local procurement and distribution of commodities with the aim of providing students with 
nutritious and locally procured meals (rice, shea, cowpea and maize) from Producer Associations. 
CRS and its sub-recipient Union Régionale des Producteurs Borgou-Alibori (URP) worked with 
school management committees(referred to in French as Comité de Gestion des Ecoles(COGES)), 
commune authorities, central government agencies and private partners to achieve project 
goals. The specific goals of the Bèsèn Diannou LRP project were to:
• Increase the capacity of schools, school management committees, and the Government of 
Benin to effectively and efficiently procure local commodities to supply school feeding 
programs, promoting the sustainability of school feeding;
• Strengthen farmer groups' ability to provide high-quality, nutritious commodities and 
connect them to school feeding programs; and
Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, high-quality, nutritious, 
and culturally appropriate foods in school meals.
Agreement Number: Benin LRP-680-2017-034-00
Project Duration: 2017-2020
Implemented by: Catholic Relieve Services
Evaluation Authored by: EVIHDAF
3 
Evaluation of Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
(LRP) Project 
Endline Evaluation and Comparison Study Report
 
Prepared for: Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Benin
Cotonou, Benin
Prepared by: Jean Christophe Fotso, PhD; Mouftaou Amadou Sanni, PhD; 
Paul Kouete Jimmy, PhD Candidate; Ashley Ambrose, MPH
EVIHDAF, BP 35328 Yaoundé, Cameroon
www.evihdaf.com
October 28, 2019
i 
Evaluation Team 
This study was conducted by EVIHDAF (Evidence for Sustainable Human Development Systems 
in Africa). EVIHDAF’s core evaluation team consists of Dr. Jean Christophe Fotso, EVIHDAF 
Executive Manager; Dr. Mouftaou Amadou Sanni, former Director of the Ecole Nationale de 
Statistique de Planification et de Démographie (ENSPD) at the University of Parakou; Mr. Paul
Kouete Jimmy, University of Parakou, Benin; and Ms. Ashley Ambrose, Global Health Research 
Officer.
 
Acknowledgements
With Dr. Mouftaou Amadou Sanni’s leadership, the l'Observatoire Démographique et Statistique 
des Populations Locales (ODeSPoL) at the Ecole Nationale de la Statistique, de la Planification et 
de la Démographie (ENSPD), University of Parakou, Benin served as the field partner for data 
collection. 
We would like to acknowledge the unique role played by MM. Djima Baranon and Elihou Adje
of ODeSPoL, and Ms. Nadia Tefouet from EVIHDAF HQ in Yaounde, Cameroon, for their immense 
contribution during the inception phase, data collection, data analysis and report writing. We 
also thank M. Fred Akoha who programmed the tablets used for data collection, and Dr. Nicaise 
Laleye of University of Parakou for his contribution. Finally, data collection was made possible by 
58 enumerators and seven supervisors for the quantitative component, and nine qualitative 
researchers (See Annex 5). 
At Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Benin, our grateful thanks are due to Mr. Thierry Yabi, MEAL 
Coordinator for Benin-Togo, and Mr. Brice Denakpo, MEAL/LRP, for their valuable support and 
guidance before, during and after data collection. Our special thanks to Ms. Blandine Ekpodile, 
the LRP Project Director, for her support throughout the study.
Most importantly, EVIHDAF would like to acknowledge the hospitality and enthusiasm displayed 
by individuals who were involved in the study. Participation in questionnaires, focus groups and 
interviews was demanding of their time, yet it was willingly given.
All evaluation team member declare they have “no conflict of interest”.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views 
of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the United States 
Government. 
i 
Contents
Evaluation Team .............................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................................... i
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................iv
List of Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................vi
Executive Summary........................................................................................................................vii
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 10
1.1. Project Theory of Change................................................................................................... 11
1.2. Results Framework............................................................................................................. 12
2. Purpose of the Evaluation......................................................................................................... 14
2.1. Impact Evaluation............................................................................................................... 14
2.2. Comparison Study .............................................................................................................. 16
2.3. Use of the Evaluation’s Findings ........................................................................................ 16
3. Methodology............................................................................................................................. 17
3.1. Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Component .................................................................... 17
3.1.1. Design and key indicators............................................................................................ 17
3.1.2. Sampling strategy ........................................................................................................ 18
3.2. Impact Evaluation: Qualitative Component....................................................................... 20
3.3. Direct Observation and Infrastructure Inventory Component.......................................... 21
3.4 Comparison Study ............................................................................................................... 22
3.5. Data Collection and Quality Assurance.............................................................................. 24
3.5.1. Data collection tools.................................................................................................... 24
3.5.2. Data collection team.................................................................................................... 25
3.5.3. Data collection challenges and solutions.................................................................... 25
3.6. Data Processing and Analysis............................................................................................. 26
3.6.1. Sampling weights......................................................................................................... 26
3.6.2. Impact evaluation estimates....................................................................................... 28
3.6.3. Comparison study estimates....................................................................................... 29
3.7. Ethical Considerations........................................................................................................ 29
3.8. Timelines ............................................................................................................................ 30
4. Results: Impact Evaluation........................................................................................................ 30
4.1. Producer Associations........................................................................................................ 31
4.1.1. Sample characteristics................................................................................................. 31
ii
4.1.2. Organizational capacity ............................................................................................... 33
4.1.3 Use of improved production techniques...................................................................... 35
4.1.4. Use of URP MIS............................................................................................................ 37
4.1.5. Relevance, efficiency and sustainability...................................................................... 38
4.2. COGES................................................................................................................................. 41
4.2.1. Sample characteristics................................................................................................. 41
4.2.2. Capacity in school canteen and stock management................................................... 42
4.2.3. Organizational capacity ............................................................................................... 44
4.2.4. Application of project promoted recipes.................................................................... 46
4.2.5. Good practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation............................................ 46
4.2.6. Quality and quantity of available food....................................................................... 47
4.2.7. Direct observations...................................................................................................... 48
4.2.8. Satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 51
4.2.9. Lessons learned and sustainability.............................................................................. 51
4.3. Students.............................................................................................................................. 53
4.3.1. Sample characteristics................................................................................................. 53
4.3.2. Food consumption patterns........................................................................................ 54
4.3.3. Foods at school that they consume at home .............................................................. 56
4.3.4. Minimum acceptable diet............................................................................................ 57
4.3.5. School attendance....................................................................................................... 59
4.3.6. Effects on students’ families........................................................................................ 61
4.3.7. Lessons learned ........................................................................................................... 61
4.4. Government and commune level partnerships................................................................. 62
4.4.1. Government level actors............................................................................................. 62
4.4.2. Commune level actors................................................................................................. 62
4.4.3. Satisfaction .................................................................................................................. 64
4.4.4. Challenges and opportunities...................................................................................... 65
4.4.5. Lessons learned and sustainability.............................................................................. 66
5. Results: Comparison Study ....................................................................................................... 68
5.1. Cost differences.................................................................................................................. 69
5.2. Time differences................................................................................................................. 72
5.3. Food supply mechanisms................................................................................................... 73
5.4. Appreciation of meals by children ..................................................................................... 75
iii
5.5. Externalities on local economy .......................................................................................... 76
5.6. Satisfaction of project beneficiaries................................................................................... 76
6. Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................... 77
6.1. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 77
6.2. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................. 79
6.3. Limitations.......................................................................................................................... 79
6.4. Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 80
7. Appendix Tables – Summary Results........................................................................................ 85
Tables AX1. Producer Associations ........................................................................................... 85
Tables AX2. COGES .................................................................................................................... 85
Tables AX3. Students................................................................................................................. 85
Tables AX4. Cost and Time Differentials between LRP and the MGD and WFP systems......... 85
8. Annexes..................................................................................................................................... 85
Annex 1. Data collection tools................................................................................................... 85
Annex 4. Highlights of key review meetings............................................................................. 85
iv
List of Tables
Table 1. Impact evaluation quantitative target indicators........................................................... 17
Table 2. Intervention and control schools.................................................................................... 18
Table 3. Survey sample size and description ................................................................................ 19
Table 4. Individual interviews and group discussions .................................................................. 20
Table 5. Observations and infrastructure inventory.................................................................... 22
Table 6. Comparison study quantitative target indicators........................................................... 22
Table 7. Schools for comparison study from the WFP Project..................................................... 23
Table 8. Schools for comparison study from the MGD Project.................................................... 23
Table 9. Data collection schedule for the comparison study ....................................................... 23
Table 10. Sample characteristics – Producer Associations........................................................... 31
Table 11. Sample characteristics - Producer Association individual members............................ 32
Table 12. Producer Association organizational capacity scored .................................................. 33
Table 13. Percentage of Producer Associations demonstrating increased organizational capacity
....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Table 14. Sale of produce in the last 12 months through producer association.......................... 34
Table 15. Percentage of Producers who demonstrate the use of improved production 
techniques..................................................................................................................................... 35
Table 16. Producer Associations’ use of URP's Market information system................................ 37
Table 17. Sample characteristics - Schools and COGES ............................................................... 41
Table 18. Capacity and training of cooks and store keepers ....................................................... 42
Table 19. COGES scores in canteen and stock management........................................................ 43
Table 20. COGES organizational capacity score............................................................................ 45
Table 21. Good practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation ............................................. 47
Table 22. COGES report on delivery of commodities for school canteen .................................... 48
Table 23. Kitchen inventory in the sampled LRP schools ............................................................. 49
Table 24. Store inventory in the sampled LRP schools ................................................................ 50
Table 25. Sample characteristics - Students surveyed ................................................................. 54
Table 26. Top 10 meals consumed by students based on one day recall .................................... 55
Table 27. Foods consumed at school and at home ...................................................................... 56
Table 28. Percentage of students receiving a minimum acceptable diet .................................... 58
Table 29. Students regularly attending USDA supported classrooms/schools............................ 59
Table 30. Differentials in commodity cost per MT ($/MT) between LRP and MGD systems....... 69
Table 31a. Quantities of commodities in the weekly school canteens' rations (in grams) in LRP 
and MGD systems......................................................................................................................... 69
Table 31b. Number of school days during the 2018-2019 school year…………………………………..…70 
Table 31c. Differentials in commodity cost per student during the school year 2018-2019………70 
v 
Table 31d. Differentials in average commodity cost per meal and per student between LRP and 
MGD systems ($/meal)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….70 
Table 32. Differentials in commodity cost for specific, comparable meals between LRP and MGD 
systems ($/meal)........................................................................................................................... 71
Table 33. Time differentials between LRP and MGD systems days)………………………………………… 
Table 34. Appreciation of meals among students who declared eating at school canteen….……76
vi
List of Abbreviations
AKB Association Karité Bénin
AME
APE
CLOC
COGES
Mother Educators Association
Parents Association
Commune Level Oversight Committee
Comité de Gestion des Ecoles
CPC
CRS
Commune Procurement Committee
Catholic Relief Services
DAS
DDAEP
Direction de l'Alimentation Scolaire
Departmental Directorate of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries
DPO Data Processing Officer
ENSPD Ecole Nationale de Statistique, de Planification et de Démographie
EVIHDAF Evidence for Sustainable Human Development Systems in Africa
FFE Food For Education
FGDs Focus Group Discussions
HIV/AIDS Human Immunodeficiency Virus/ Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
INRAB Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Bénin
KAP Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
MAEP Ministère de l'Agriculture de l'Elevage et de la Pêche
MDES Minimum Detectable Effect Size
MEMP Ministère des Enseignements Maternel et Primaire
MGD McGovern Dole 
MOH Ministry of Health
ODeSPoL Observatoire Démographique et Statistique des Populations Locales
PASDeR
PME-FCB 
Programme d’Appui au Secteur du Développement Rural
Global Partnership for Education of the Common Budget Fund
PSI Population Services International
RA Research Assistant
RO
SAS
Research Officer
School Food Service
UCP Union Communale des Producteurs
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
URP Union Régionale des Producteurs
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WFP World Food Program
vii
Executive Summary 
Introduction
The Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) project, funded by the United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS) 
Benin, supports the establishment and functioning of school canteens in government schools of 
N’dali, Perere, Parakou and Tchaourou districts in the Borgou Region. The purpose of the project 
is to develop a replicable and scalable model for decentralized school feeding through effective 
local procurement and distribution of commodities with the aim of providing students with 
nutritious and locally procured meals (rice, shea, cowpea and maize) from Producer Associations. 
CRS and its sub-recipient Union Régionale des Producteurs Borgou-Alibori (URP) worked with 
school management committees(referred to in French as Comité de Gestion des Ecoles(COGES)), 
commune authorities, central government agencies and private partners to achieve project 
goals. The specific goals of the Bèsèn Diannou LRP project were to:
• Increase the capacity of schools, school management committees, and the Government of 
Benin to effectively and efficiently procure local commodities to supply school feeding 
programs, promoting the sustainability of school feeding;
• Strengthen farmer groups' ability to provide high-quality, nutritious commodities and 
connect them to school feeding programs; and
Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, high-quality, nutritious, 
and culturally appropriate foods in school meals.
3. Methodology
The endline evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach involving quantitative data, qualitative 
investigationsin the form of individual interviews and group discussions, and direct observations.
Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Component
• Schools: The same schools sampled during the baseline study were kept; that is 35 
intervention schools and 35 control schools. 
• COGES: The COGES questionnaire was administered to all 70 sample schools even though 
we did not expect to have formal COGES in schools without a canteen. 
• Students: The selection of students followed the same procedure as during baseline. In 
each of the 70 sampled schools, 50 students were randomly selected among all grade 2-6 
students. 
• Producer Associations: The sample consisted of 24 Producer Associations in the 
intervention group, and 10 Producer Associations in the control group.
Impact Evaluation: Qualitative Component: The qualitative component consisted of individual 
interviews and group discussions.
viii
Direct Observation and Infrastructure Inventory Component: Direct observation of COGES 
cooks and storekeepers were conducted to evaluate the level of application of good food 
management practices. School infrastructure inventory was also conducted by direct 
observation.
Comparison Study: Quantitative and qualitative data was collected from the LRP, MGD and WFP 
staff. 
4. Results: Impact Evaluation
Producer Associations: About 75% of Producer Associations in the intervention group 
demonstrated an increased organizational capacity, against 50% in the control arm. Regarding 
the use of improved production techniques, 17 individual producers (78.7%) received training 
on production practices for example, and out of those, 15 (84.5%) put the training into practice. 
The percentage of Producer Associations who used URP's Market information system (MIS)
remained unchanged over time in the control group (at 30%), but increased from 11.8% to 31.8% 
in the intervention group. However, the resulting impact estimate of 20 percentage points is not 
statistically significant at the level of 10%.
COGES: Close to 50% of COGES achieved a score of 80 or higher in canteen and stock 
management; 36% achieved a score of 80 or higher in organizational capacity; and close to half 
of COGES achieved a score of 80 or higher in adoption of good practices in terms of hygiene in 
food preparation.
Students: The percentage of students who consumed the same foods at school and at home
increased from baseline to endline in both the intervention schools (+11.6 percentage points) 
and in the control schools (+5.3 percentage points). The impact estimate of 6.4 percentage points 
is statistically significant at the level of 5%. The percentage of students receiving a minimum 
acceptable diet (MAD) decreased from baseline to endline in both arms, and the impact 
estimate, though negative is not statistically significant at the level of 10%. The percentage of 
students who attended school at least 80% of time is roughly the same across the two study 
groups, at around 98.5%. 
5. Results: Comparison Study
Cost differences: In terms of commodity cost per MT, the LRP system has higher average 
commodity cost per MT on three out of the four target commodities, compared to the MGD 
system. The average commodity cost per meal and per student is lower in the LRP model, at 
$0.14 (or 84 CFA Francs), against $0.19 (or 109 CFA Francs) in the MGD system. For specific 
comparable meals, commodity cost of Dambou/Zampiti and pasta (maize/soy pasta) is about 
50% lower in the LRP system, while the commodity cost of wake and rice is lower (by 7% and 
15%, respectively) in the MGD system.
Time differences: The total time (from contracting to delivery to beneficiary schools) is 
substantially shorter in the LRP model, compared with the WFP and MGD systems. Purchase 
ix
contracting time is the shortest in the WFP system and the longest in the MGD system. Time for 
delivery to schools is almost the same in both the LRP and MGD programs, and substantially 
longer in the WFP, presumably because of its larger coverage of schools.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The results of this impact evaluation, as described in this report, demonstrate that the LRP model 
that relies on local commodities and procurement processes for school canteen meals is a viable 
method for feeding students quality meals while contributing to the local economy. Through the 
LRP project, capacities of Producer Associations and COGES were significantly strengthened, 
contributing to timely delivery of high-quality commodities that were adequately delivered to 
students during the school day. While there was no measured increase in minimum acceptable 
diet or attendance among students receiving these meals, qualitative data indicates that the 
provision of school meals to students improved their day-to-day lives. The evaluation put 
forwards the following recommendations:
1. Evaluate PA training needs with members of these associations and involve all members 
during training. 
2. Consider contractual models that incorporate access to financial resources for producers 
before the sales process.
3. Design Contracts with PAs in a format of 1 to 2 pages maximum and in simple and 
understandable terms that allow producers to better control contract processes.
4. Respect the deadlines set in the contracts, particularly with regard to the purchase and 
payment of invoices. 
5. Consider duly signed partnership protocols between the main institutional actors of the 
project. 
6. Transfer supervisory functions to government entities to increase likelihood of sustainability. 
7. Involve community leaders in the management of school canteens (COGES). 
8. Encourage governmental authorities to review current plans, programs or school feeding 
strategies at national level and to allocate financial resources to the town halls for the 
management of school canteens. 
9. Promote an integrated approach including the WASH component. 
10. Reduce financial contributions and promote in-kind contributions from parents. 
11. Identify means of motivation for cooks and storekeepers to maintain compliance and 
quality. 
12. Consider a greater diversity of dishes, combining local meals with some imported products 
for school canteens. 
13. Obtain student feedback and opinion regarding meal plans at the local level to ensure 
greater satisfaction in regard to meal quality. 
14. Solicit a sufficient number of cooks to avoid school girls’ involvement in cooking activities. 
10
1. Introduction
The Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid 
Procurement (LRP) project supports the 
establishment and functioning of school canteens in 
government schools of N’dali, Perere, Parakou and 
Tchaourou districts in the Borgou Region. Its 
purpose is to set up a local mechanism for the 
procurement and distribution of the commodities 
with the aim of providing students with nutritious 
and locally procured meals (rice, shea, cowpea and 
maize) from producer associations in the same 
districts. Funded by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA), LRP is implemented by Catholic 
Relief Services (CRS) and its sub-grantee, the Union 
Régionale des Producteurs du Borgou Alibori 
(URP/BA) who facilitate local procurement and 
strengthen the capacity of producers. The 
intervention areas are highlighted in the opposite 
map of Benin. 
This intervention also complements CRS’ existing school feeding program under McGovern Dole 
(MGD) Food for Education (FFE), currently being implemented in schools of Borgou and Alibori 
Regions. Both programs operate in different schools. This complementarity allows CRS to 
compare timeliness and cost-effectiveness of rations distributed as part of the LRP program with 
those imported and distributed under MGD and other partners including the World Food 
Program (WFP).
The LRP project was implemented with the support of both government and non-governmental 
actors, considered “key stakeholders,” including Direction de l’Alimentation Scolaire (DAS), 
Ministere de l’Agriculture, l’Elevage et de la Pêche (MAEP), Ministère des Finances, Ministère de 
l’Enseignement Maternel et Primaire (MEMP), Ministère du Plan et du Développement, 
Commune administrations of Parakou, Perere, N’Dali, and Tchaourou, Union Communale des 
Producteurs (UCP), Association Karité Bénin (AKB), Union Régionale des Producteurs de Riz 
(URPR), GIZ’s ProAgri project, Cooperation Swiss’ Programme d’Appui au Secteur du 
Développement Rural (PASDeR) and Association Nationale des Communes du Benin (ANCB). 
Other stakeholders include relevant civil society organizations (OSC). The specific goals of the 
Bèsèn Diannou LRP project were to:
• Increase the capacity of schools, school management committees, and the Government of 
Benin to effectively and efficiently procure local commodities to supply school feeding 
programs, promoting the sustainability of school feeding;
11
• Strengthen farmer groups' ability to provide high-quality, nutritious commodities and 
connect them to school feeding programs; and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, high-quality, 
nutritious, and culturally appropriate foods in school meals. 
The ultimate aim is to test the efficiency of local procurement for school canteens and explore 
the scale-up of the model by key stakeholders. The major activities of the project include:
• Purchase, delivery and distribution of food; 
• Construction and rehabilitation of stores and kitchens;
• Engagement with the government;
• Training and support to producers and school canteen management committees;
• Promotion of nutritious local foods.
The two-year LRP project officially started on September 29, 2017 and ends on December 31, 
2019. Its registration number in Benin is LRP-680-2017/034-00. 
1.1. Project Theory of Change 
LRP’s overall theory of change is structured around the following sequence of assumptions:
• IF commune level authorities and community groups have increased capacity to plan, manage 
and oversee school canteens (Pathways A and B); and 
• IF central government agencies support the local purchase and canteen management 
approach (Pathway C); and
• IF commodity procurements are structured to leverage existing agricultural support projects 
and to reinforce the agricultural sector in the Borgou Department (Pathway D); 
• THEN a replicable and scalable model for a locally managed and sourced school feeding 
system, allowing school children to receive nutritious, culturally acceptable and diverse 
quality meals efficiently and cost-effectively, will be developed. 
Pathway A
• IF commune authorities are trained in local procurement of school feeding rations, canteen 
planning, management, budgeting, and oversight; and 
• IF school management committees (COGES) are trained in canteen ration planning, ration 
storage, and ration management; and
• IF commune authorities and COGES receive supportive supervision as they carry out activities 
directly;
• THEN the capacity of commune level authorities and COGES to manage school canteens 
locally will be increased.
12
Pathway B
• IF the COGES, mother associations and cooking teams are trained in hygiene, nutrition and 
food preparation safety and demonstrate application of knowledge and skills; and
• IF mother associations and cooking teams are trained in a variety of culturally acceptable 
recipes; and 
• IF the cooking team is provided with a hygienic cooking area and cooking materials; and 
• IF culturally appropriate foods are procured for consumption at school canteens;
• THEN school children will receive nutritious and culturally acceptable food that meets quality 
standards.
Pathway C
• IF the Département d’Alimentation Scolaire (DAS), Ministère d’Enseignement Maternelle et 
Primaire (MEMP), Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Elevage et de la Pêche (MAEP), and the 
Ministère de Finance (MF) are engaged early in the LRP process; and
• IF the DAS, MEMP, MAEP, and MF receive training in key aspects of local procurement and 
canteen management; and 
• IF the DAS, MEMP, MAEP, and MF visit schools with locally procured meals and provide 
oversight and guidance on project implementation; and
• IF the National Association of Communes of Benin and agricultural stakeholders engaged 
through the project actively advocate for the decentralization of school feeding responsibility 
with the DAS, MEMP, MAEP, and MF;
• THEN central and local government buy-in of localized procurement and canteen 
management will be created.
Pathway D
• IF school rations are procured as locally as possible (“Farm to Fork”); and 
• IF the project leverages the rice, shea, cowpea and maize value chain investments and 
initiatives of other projects operating in Borgou department; and 
• IF the project leverages the investments of private sector partners; and 
• IF the project supports and invests in umbrella organizations to reinforce producer capacity 
and quality; and 
• IF the project addresses gaps in current activities; and 
• IF the project improves producer production capacity, market access, and access to market 
price information systems for producers not currently targeted through existing projects;
• THEN the project will contribute to strengthening local and regional food market systems in 
the Borgou Department.
1.2. Results Framework 
The expected results included:
• Improved cost-effectiveness of food assistance
13
• Improved timeliness of food assistance
• Improved utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality 
standards
• Increased capacity of government institutions 
• Improved policy and regulatory framework
• Improved capacity of relevant organizations
• Increased leverage of private sector resources
The project level results framework is presented below.
SO: Improved Effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement
IR 1: Improved cost￾effectiveness of food 
assistance
IR 2: Improved timeliness of 
food assistance
IR 3: Improved utilization of nutritious 
and culturally acceptable food that 
meet quality standards
IR 4: Foundational results
IR 1.1: Improved cost￾effectiveness of 
procurement
IR 1.2: Improved cost￾effectiveness of delivery
IR 1.3: Improved cost￾effectiveness of 
distribution
IR 2.1: Improved timeliness 
of procurement
IR 2.2: Improved timeliness 
of delivery
IR 2.3: Improved timeliness 
of distribution
IR 3.1: Improved access to culturally 
acceptable foods
IR 3.2: Strengthened local and regional 
food market systems
IR 3.3: Improved access to nutritious 
foods
IR 4.1: Increased capacity of 
government institutions
IR 4.2: Improved policy and 
regulatory framework
IR 4.3: Improved capacity of 
relevant organizations
IR 4.4: Increased leverage of 
private sector resources
A 1.1.1: Commodity 
management 
(procurement; market 
monitoring)
A 1.1.2: Capacity building 
(commune gov’t 
training and support; 
umbrella organization 
training and support)
A 1.2.1: Commodity 
management (delivery, 
construction and 
rehabilitation 
[storerooms and 
kitchens])
A 1.3.1: Commodity 
distribution 
(distribution, vouchers)
A 1.3.2: Capacity building 
(community training 
and support)
A 2.1.1: Commodity 
management 
(procurement; market 
monitoring)
A 2.1.2: Capacity building 
(commune gov’t training 
and support; umbrella 
organization training and 
support)
A 2.2.1: Commodity 
management (delivery, 
construction and 
rehabilitation [storerooms 
and kitchens])
A 2.3.1: Commodity 
management (distribution, 
vouchers)
A 2.3.2: Capacity building 
(community training and 
support)
A 3.1.1: Capacity building (community 
training and support)
IR 3.2.1: Increased agricultural 
productivity
A 3.2.1.1: Capacity building (umbrella 
organization training and support; 
producer organization training and 
support)
IR 3.2.2: Increased value added to post 
production agricultural products
A 3.2.2.1: PASDeR and ProAgri support 
rice, shea, cowpea and maize value 
chains with value addition activities 
IR 3.2.3: Increased access to market to 
sell agricultural products
A 3.2.3.1: Capacity building (producer 
organization training and support)
IR 3.2.4: Improved transaction efficiency
A 3.2.4.1: Capacity building (umbrella 
organization training and support)
A 3.2.4.2: Private sector leverage
A 3.3.1: Capacity building (community 
training and support)
A 4.1.1: Capacity building 
(central gov’t engagement; 
commune gov’t training and 
support)
A 4.2.1: Capacity building 
(commune gov’t training and 
support; advocacy)
A 4.3.1: Capacity building 
(community training and 
support; umbrella 
organization training and 
support; producer 
organization training and 
support)
A 4.4.1: Private sector leverage
14
Through the baseline and endline assessments, the LRP project were rigorously evaluated, and 
the learnings and recommendations will be shared with MEMP for the adoption, replication 
and/or scale up of a model for decentralized school feeding using local and regional procurement. 
2. Purpose of the Evaluation 
2.1. Impact Evaluation
The baseline study was implemented in May-June 2018 to: a) Establish benchmark values against 
which Bèsèn Diannou’s progress on each of the impact and outcome indicators pertaining to the 
project results framework can be tracked; b) Verify project design assumptions and identify 
potential threats to implementation; and c) Inform decision-making about early project 
implementation planning and execution. In addition, the baseline evaluation supported the 
refinement of the project’s metrics and helped strengthen relationships between the project 
team and key stakeholders. In particular, participants to the baseline evaluation recommended 
the alignment of program implementation with community needs and expectations. Students 
expectations included having free access to quality, nutrient-rich foods from school canteens 
without exclusions; schools hoped to be supported through the provision of storerooms and 
quality food products on a regular basis; COGES’ members expected to receive improved 
trainings on meal preparation, nutrition and canteen management; and communities, producers 
and schools encouraged strong agreements between key stakeholders to allow for organized and 
reliable transactions that would facilitate improved school canteen management. They also 
recommended that improved procedures for school attendance be put in place by school 
directors and teachers, with support from the LRP project.
The endline impact evaluation focuses on assessing the relevance of the interventions, the 
effectiveness of the implementation strategies and activities, the efficiency of the project, the 
progress on impact indicators, and achievements related to sustainability, impact and learning. 
In this regard, the final evaluation: 
• Assesses whether the project has achieved the expected results as outlined in the project￾level results framework and compared to the baseline evaluation; 
• Assesses areas of project design, implementation, management, lessons learned and 
replicability; 
• Generates lessons learned and recommendations for CRS, the Ministry of Education, 
Ministry of Agriculture, partners, USDA and other stakeholders for future school feeding 
programs which emphasize local and regional food procurement.
Key evaluation questions for the impact evaluation include:
Relevance:
• To what extent were the implementation strategies relevant enough to improve 
effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional procurement? 
• Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the overall goal?
15
• How well does the project complement and link to activities and other donors at the local 
level?
• Are stakeholders (producers, umbrella organizations, COGES, national, communal and 
local authorities, private partners) satisfied with the impact that their participation in the 
project has created on the local school feeding model? Why or why not?
Effectiveness:
• To what extent have members of producer, umbrella organizations, COGES, national,
communal and local authorities increased their knowledge and application of different 
concepts they received training on?
• Have targeted producers applied the demonstrated agricultural techniques taught?
• Have cooks and COGES demonstrated improved understanding of nutrition and hygiene 
practices? How often were locally available, nutritious foods from the scoping study 
included in school canteen meals? Did the project increase the diversity of foods being 
consumed?
• Were contractual obligations respected by umbrella organizations and producer groups 
supplying commodities? Why/why not? Were quality requirements met?
• How well did small lot procurements work at the commune level? What lessons were 
learned or challenges identified?
Efficiency:
• Were activities cost efficient?
• Were objectives achieved on time?
• Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
• Were there internal and/or external factors that hindered the efficient implementation of 
project activities?
Sustainability:
• What activities and/or outcomes (both expected and unexpected) of the project are likely 
to be sustained? What evidence is there to suggest this?
• What are the major factors that can influence achievement or non-achievement of 
sustainability?
• How does the government’s capacities, policies, procedures and priority contribute to 
sustainability?
• What is the attitude of central government, departmental government, and commune 
level authorities towards the idea of continued local procurement and local management 
of school feeding? What steps have been taken to integrate it in national and communal 
plans?
Impact:
• Did the project achieve a feasible and replicable model for school feeding in Benin?
• Were local procurements cost-effective, efficient and timely?
• What impact, if any, did procurements have on local market prices and supplies?
• What impact did the school feeding have on attendance of students?
16
• Has the project improved the nutritional state of school children? If so, in which extent?
• Have the project participants taken ownership of the project concept and approach?
• What are the key success factors of the project? What are the main limiting factors?
• What are the unintended effects of the project (positive or negative)?
• What are the key lessons that can be learned from the project?
• (Producers) What are the positive / negative effects of capacity building on climate change 
on your productivity?
Learning:
• What are the application and replicability capacities of the different stakeholders for the 
implementation of the school canteen through the local procurement approach?
• What lessons can be learned from the school feeding through the local procurement 
approach and what measures to increase the chances of extension and success of that 
model in Benin context?
2.2. Comparison Study
The endline evaluation also consists of a comparison study which estimates cost and time 
differentials between the LRP project and the MGD program that is based on imported 
commodities and the WFP/MEMP program. Key evaluation questions for the comparison study 
include: 
• To what extent is the local procurement approach developed by the project more cost 
effective and timely than the MGD and WFP approaches? 
• What are the positive or negative externalities resulting from the local procurement approach
on the local economy compared to the MGD and WFP approaches? 
• What is the appreciation of the meals served in LRP’s canteen schools by the children, 
compared to those served in the MGD and WFP canteen schools?
• What is the level of satisfaction of the project beneficiaries (producers, students, COGES, 
cooks, parents and teachers) with the LRP program?
2.3. Use of the Evaluation’s Findings
We expect that the findings from the present evaluation could contribute to redefine the strategy 
of implementation of school canteen activities in Benin, and to revitalize the local agricultural 
sector. The stakeholders of interest of that include the Government of Benin, the local and 
communal authorities, the implementation partner URP, the National Institute of Statistics and 
Economic Analysis (INSAE), CRS, and USDA (the funder). 
17
3. Methodology
The endline evaluation uses a mixed-methods approach involving quantitative data, qualitative 
investigationsin the form of individual interviews and group discussions, and direct observations.
3.1. Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Component 
3.1.1. Design and key indicators
The quantitative component adopts a quasi-experimental design with 77 schools across the four 
target districts (N’dali, Perere, Parakou and Tchaourou) identified as intervention schools, and 
148 identified as comparison schools. A total of 24 Producer Associations in Parakou, N'Dali, 
Perere and Tchaourou who actively worked with the LRP project were selected as the 
intervention group, and 10 Producer Associations in the comparison districts of Kalale and Niki 
(see Section 3.1.2 on the sampling strategy). The target indicators presented in Table 1 were
measured through surveys with students, Comite de Gestion des Ecoles (COGES) and Producer 
Associations. 
Table 1. Impact evaluation quantitative target indicators 
Indicator Data source
Percentage of Producer Associations demonstrating increased 
organizational capacity
Survey with Producer 
Associations
Percentage of Producer Associations using Union Regionale des 
Producteurs (URP) Market Information Systems (MIS)
Percentage of targeted producers who demonstrate the use of 
improved production techniques in USDA-supported areas
Percentage of COGES achieving a minimum 80% score 
in adoption of good practices related to canteen and stock 
management
Survey with COGES Percentage of COGES demonstrating increased organizational capacity
Percent of school cooks demonstrating the application of project 
promoted recipes
Percentage of cooks achieving a score of 80% adoption of good 
practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation.
Percentage of students reporting having consumed foods at school 
that they consume at home, based on one-day recall
Survey with Students Percentage of students receiving a minimum acceptable diet, based on 
one-day recall
Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
18
Indicator Data source
Percentage of key stakeholders0F
1 (COGES-school mgt committees, 
parents, teachers and students) who reported having received on time, 
in quantity and quality, commodities for school canteen 
(disaggregated by criteria) Other stakeholders
Level of functionality of the Commune Purchase Committees (CPCs) 
and Commune Level Oversight Committees (CLOCs)1F
2
3.1.2. Sampling strategy
Schools
The same schools sampled during the baseline study were kept; that is 35 intervention schools 
and 35 control schools, as shown in Table 2. For sample size calculations, we used the Minimum 
Detectable Effect Size (MDES) method which provides the minimum effect that can be detected 
by considering the number of students selected from each cluster, for given values of confidence 
level, margin error and power. The method yielded a sample size consisting of 60 schools (30 
intervention schools and 30 comparison), with 50 students from each school (3,000 students in 
total). During baseline data collection the target of 30 students was not reached in some of the 
schools, due to the smaller size of these schools or the absence of students. Ten additional 
schools were randomly selected (five comparison schools and five intervention schools) following 
the same sampling principles at both baseline and endline (bringing the total of students in 
endline to 3,500).
To qualify as control, a school needs to have no canteen (run by LRP, MGD, WFP or other 
partners). Three control schools at baseline (in Tchaourou) ended up with canteens supported 
by WFP. They were replaced with three other schools without a canteen that were randomly 
selected using the Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) method. On the other hand, one school 
in N’Dali selected at baseline as part of the intervention group ended up not having a canteen. 
Likewise, it was replaced with another school. 
Table 2. Intervention and control schools
District Parakou N'Dali Perere Tchaourou Total
Intervention
Schools 11 19 25 22 77
Sampled schools 5 8 12 10 35
Urban 5 2 1 2 10
Rural 0 6 11 8 25
1
In subsequent discussions with the CRS team, it was agreed to focus on school principals only.
2
In subsequent discussions with the CRS team, it was agreed to address this indicator qualitatively.
19
District Parakou N'Dali Perere Tchaourou Total
Control
Schools 54 19 9 66 148
Sampled schools 12 5 3 15 35
Urban 13 1 1 2 17
Rural 0 4 1 13 18
COGES
The COGES questionnaire was administered to all 70 sample schools (35 in the intervention arm 
and 35 in the control) even though we did not expect to have formal COGES in schools without a 
canteen (i.e. the control arm). In each school, data was collected from the COGES representative, 
one cook representative and one storekeeper representative. 
Students
The selection of students followed the same procedure as during baseline. In each of the 70 
sampled schools, 50 students were randomly selected among all grade 2-6 students, using class 
registers to number students from 1 to N (N being the total size of grade 2-6 classes). As at
baseline, first-graders were deemed emotionally and cognitively unable to answer our survey 
questions.
Producer Associations
As noted above, the original sample consisted of 24 Producer Associations in the intervention 
group, and 10 Producer Associations in the control group. While the original sample size was 34
Producer Associations and 136 individual producers in total, data was actually collected from a 
total of 32 Producer Associations and 128 individual producers. Data was collected at two levels. 
First, a questionnaire was administered to the chair (or representative) of the Producer 
Association. Second, another questionnaire was administered to the Producer Association’s 
representative and three other individual farmers selected randomly from the list of members. 
The sample size and description for the surveys is summarized in Table 3.
Table 3. Survey sample size and description
Survey
Final 
sample 
size
Description Respondents
1. COGES 
Representatives
70
35 intervention schools and 35 
comparison schools
School Principals as COGES 
representatives
2. COGES - Cooks 35 35 intervention schools (none 
in comparison schools) Head of the cooks
20
Survey
Final 
sample 
size
Description Respondents
3. COGES - 
Storekeepers
35 35 intervention schools (none 
in comparison schools) 
Usually only one storekeeper 
per school. If more than one, 
select the Head of storekeepers 
4. Students 3,500 50 students per school 
(intervention and comparison) Students selected randomly
5. Student 
attendance 3,500 From school registers, and for the months of Oct 2018 to April 
2019: number of school days, and number of days attended.
6. Producer 
Associations 
(PA)
34 
All 24 PAs in the intervention 
arm that were involved in LRP; 
and the 10 comparison PAs 
surveyed at baseline
Representative/President of the 
PA. 
7. Individual 
Producers
136 4 individual producers per PA
- List of the active members of 
from the representative
- Simple random draw of 3 
members from the list.
- The representative with be 
the 4th member 
3.2. Impact Evaluation: Qualitative Component
The qualitative component consisted of individual interviews and group discussions as detailed 
in Table 4.
Table 4. Individual interviews and group discussions
Interview
Num￾ber Description Respondents
Individual interviews (n = 40) 
1. School 
Principals
8 
2 intervention schools per 
district Schools that have been well 
involved in their canteen. Same 
schools to serve for #1 and #2. 2. Parents 
Associations
8 2 intervention schools per 
district
3. Government 
Authorities 
2 DDAEP, SAS or DAS/DDEMP One representative each
21
Interview
Num￾ber Description Respondents
4. Commune 
Authorities
4 1 representative per 
commune
A representative familiar with 
economic and social issues.
5. Communes’ 
CPC and CLOC
8 1 interview with CPC, and 1 
interview with CLOC
2-3 CPC members together; the 2 
CLOC members together
6. Producer 
Associations
3 1 Association per district Among those that sold produce to 
LRP (from list provided by CRS)
7. PA Faitières 3 URP, URPR et AKB One representative each
8. PASDeR & 
ProAgri
2 PASDeR, ProAgri
One representative at regional 
level, each
9. LRP program 
staff 
2 2 persons from CRS/LRP 2 persons from CRS/LRP
Group discussions [n = 23] 
1. Students’ 
parents 
4 1 per district, from 
intervention schools
In each district, three schools that 
are close to each other to be 
selected. Respondents for #1, #2, 
#3 and #4 drawn from these 
schools. 
2. Students’ 
mothers
4 1 per district, from 
intervention schools
3. Students 4 1 per district, from 
intervention schools
4. Teachers 4 1 per district, from 
intervention schools
5. COGES 4 1 per district, from 
intervention schools
6. Producer
Associations
3 1 per district – none in 
Parakou
In each district, PA that are close 
to each other to be selected. 
Respondents drawn from PAs. 
3.3. Direct Observation and Infrastructure Inventory Component
Direct observation of COGES cooks and storekeepers were conducted to evaluate the level of 
application of good food management practices. Another observation was made to determine 
the level of community involvement throughout the food supply chain. School infrastructure 
inventory was also conducted by direct observation to determine the need to meet set standards 
22
or the minimum viable when there is a gap of standard of storerooms and kitchens, and if 
rehabilitation is possible, or new construction is required (see Table 5).
Table 5. Observations and infrastructure inventory
Observation Number Description
1. Direct observation (Cooks/ Storekeepers) 35 
Sampled intervention 
schools
2. Direct observation (community involvement) 35
3. School infrastructures inventory 35
3.4 Comparison Study 
The endline comparison study comparing the LRP project to the MGD and WFP projects utilized 
a mixed-methods approach, relying on both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative and 
qualitative data was collected from the LRP, MGD and WFP staff to calculate the indicators listed 
below in Table 6. In addition, information about appreciation of the canteen meals was collected 
in student questionnaires. The quantitative component was based on the 35 LRP intervention 
schools, and 36 other MGD/WFP schools. According to the database provided, we had 144 MGD
schools and 136 WFP schools in the LRP intervention communes, which gave us a ratio of 18 
sampling schools selected covered by the MGD intervention and 18 sampling schools selected 
covered by the WFP project.
Table 6. Comparison study quantitative target indicators
Indicator
Cost per meal differential between local school feeding approach and MGD and WFP ($/meal)
Cost differential between local market commodity and MGD and WFP (from purchase to 
distribution)
Time differential between purchase order and distribution in targeted schools for commodities 
locally procured versus MGD and WFP (# of days, by commodity)
Time differential between purchase of commodities locally procured versus MGD and WFP (# 
of days, by commodity)
Time differential between delivery of commodities locally procured versus MGD and WFP (# of 
days, by commodity)
Time differential of distribution of commodities locally procured versus MGD (# of days, by 
commodity)
In order to ensure a consistent selection method and to keep equiprobability in the selection of 
students to be sampled, schools were drawn with probability proportional to their student size, 
23
in accordance with the distribution of schools of each project in each of their intervening 
communes (see Tables 7 and 8).
Table 7. Schools for comparison study from the WFP Project
District Parakou N'Dali Perere Tchaourou Total
Intervention
Schools 10 30 22 74 136
Sampled schools 2 4 3 9 18
Table 8. Schools for comparison study from the MGD Project
District Gogounou Kalalè Kandi Malanville Total
Intervention
Schools 30 15 67 32 144
Sampled schools 4 2 8 4 18
Data on procurement cost and time was collected from relevant LRP, MGD and WFP staff; data 
on cost per meal was collected from COGES representatives; and data on the appreciation of 
meals served was collected from students. To complement these quantitative data, we 
conducted in-depth interviews with project staff, communes and government authorities, and 
focus group discussions with COGES members and community leaders, so as to compare the 
positive or negative externalities resulting from the varying procurement approaches, and the 
level of satisfaction of the beneficiaries under each project (see Table 9).
Table 9. Data collection schedule for the comparison study 
Data collection tool Sample 
size Description Respondents
Quantitative component
1. LRP/ MGD /WFP 
Staff Form
3 
LRP, MGD and WFP staff in 
charge of procurement and 
logistics
One person from each 
program
2. COGES survey 71 
35 sampled LRP intervention 
schools, 18 sampled MGD
schools, and 18 sampled WFP 
schools
School principals
3. Students survey 3,550 
50 students in each of the 71 
schools described above Same procedure as in Table 3
24
Data collection tool Sample 
size Description Respondents
Individual interviews (n=9)
1. LRP/MGD /WFP 
Staff interviews
3 
LRP, MGD and WFP staff in 
charge of procurement and 
logistics
Same persons as in the 
quantitative component 
above
2. Communes 4 
2 communes for LRP; 1 
commune for WFP; and 1 
commune for MGD selected 
from Table 8
For the LRP/WFP arm: Same 
persons in Table 4/Individual 
interviews. For MGD arm: 
Similar persons as in the LRP 
communes
3. Government 
Authorities
2 DDAEP, SAS or DAS/DDEMP Same persons in Table 
4/Individual interviews
Group discussions (n=4)
1. COGES 4 
2 group discussions for LRP; 1 
group discussion for WFP; 1 
group discussion for MGD
For the LRP: Same group 
discussions as in Table 
4/Group discussions
For the WFP and MGD: Follow 
the same procedure as 
described in Table 4
3.5. Data Collection and Quality Assurance
3.5.1. Data collection tools
The study tools are listed on the cover page of Annex 1. For the endine evaluation, there were 
seven questionnaires related to the surveys with Producer Associations and individual producers 
(2), COGES (3), and students (2). Nine interview guides were developed for individual interviews, 
and five for group interviews. Three tools were used for the direct observations of COGES and 
infrastructure inventory. For the comparison study, one quantitative tool and one guide for 
individual interviews were developed. Two questionnaires (with COGES and students), two 
individual interview guides (communes and government authorities), and one group interview 
guide (with COGES) used in the endline evaluation were expanded to cover key aspects of the 
comparison study. All questions included in the data tools were formulated in accordance with
those implemented under the MGD project; all of which were informed by local stakeholders and 
considered culturally relevant and appropriate in character. 
25
3.5.2. Data collection team
Data collection was conducted by our local partner, the l'Observatoire Démographique et 
Statistique des Populations Locales (ODeSPoL) at the Ecole Nationale de la Statistique, de la 
Planification et de la Démographie (ENSPD), University of Parakou, Benin. The data collection 
team consisted of 58 enumerators and seven supervisors for the quantitative component, and 
nine qualitative researchers and one supervisor for the qualitative component. These team 
members underwent a five-day training ending with the pre-test and revision of the tools. The 
survey data was collected using tablets provided by CRS and programmed by EVIHDAF/ODeSPoL. 
Two overall supervisors oversaw the data collection, providing administrative, logistic and 
technical support to supervisors, enumerators and the qualitative research team and conducting 
routine spot checks for data quality. A Data Processing Officer (DPO) was in charge of 
downloading the quantitative data and generating quality control tables to be used by the overall 
supervisor and the team supervisors. The DPO also converted the datasets from the tablets into 
STATA and performed data cleaning. The audio recordings from the qualitative data collection 
were transcribed verbatim (and translated into French when applicable). 
3.5.3. Data collection challenges and solutions 
There were several challenges we faced during the data collection. The first and most important 
one has to do with the data collection period which was around the time of preliminary final 
exams (“Examen blanc du CEP”, in French) for grade 6 students. Consequently, some of the 
sampled schools that were acting as exam centers were not available. In other schools, principals 
and teachers were not available because they were part of the team supervising the exams, or 
grade 6 students were busy for the exams and thus not available for the interviews. The initial 
plan was to have a reserve list of 10 students per school. Given the challenge above, we ended 
up with a reserve list of 20 students per school.
Also, because the data collection period coincided with Ramadan, some sampled students were 
fasting. In order to avoid bias in the data, these students were replaced by other Muslim students 
in the sampling order who were not fasting.
In a few schools, some community-funded teachers were not being paid from the end of April, 
and as a consequence, their classes were closed. In a few others, the total school size was below 
50 (our target sample size). These two factors contributed to our not reaching the total target 
sample size for students. 
Another major challenge concerns the non-availability of up-to-date registers in some schools. In 
total, 8 classes out of the 293 classes in the 70 target schools (or 2.7%) had no registers, while 30 
(or 10.2%) had only partially updated registers. For data on student attendance, a decision was 
made to only use the periods for which registers were available. 
26
Long distances, poor road quality, and poor directions in locating Producer Association members 
also posed challenges in data collection. Because it was the start of the farming season, farmers 
were also not readily available during the day. Data collection teams therefore rearranged their 
schedules to accommodate longer journeys to villages, spent extra time locating Producer 
Association members with the help of village leaders, and worked by night to survey those 
farmers who were unavailable during the day. In almost all qualitative interviews in the 
intervention arm, producers first refused to take part in the study, protesting against delays in 
their payments by CRS or against the fact CRS sometimes did not respect agreement on quantities 
(e.g. both parties agreed on say, 5 tones, but CRS decided to only purchase say, 3 tones). Further 
details on these complaints are described in the results sections. Once the supervisors clarified 
that the study aimed to identify problems faced by different actors and help resolve them, they 
agreed to participate. 
Importantly, the post-electoral crisis and violence faced by the country around the period of data 
collection negatively impacted the work. In Tchaourou for example, several schools or commune 
offices were closed some days of the week. The data collection teams had to adjust the plans, 
and this created delays in the completion of data collection. 
Finally, it was quite difficult to conduct interviews with representatives from MGD and WFP for
the comparison study. The MGD representative, based in Kandi was working between Cotonou
and Kandi, and it took time to finally secure an interview with him. The WFP representative, 
based in Cotonou was not responsive to our requests, until CRS had to chime in. She eventually 
sent us the materials by email, but we did never get the opportunity to talk to her. This had 
implications on the time it took to complete data collection, and to some extent, on the quality 
of the cost and time data received from WFP. 
3.6. Data Processing and Analysis
3.6.1. Sampling weights
We used the same school weights for the evaluation study as at baseline, and used the same 
approach to generate sample weights for the comparison study. 
Schools
Since we used the same intervention and comparison schools, the probabilities of inclusion of 
schools were same as in baseline; that is probabilities proportional to size (PPS). 
𝜋𝜋𝑖𝑖
𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏,𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑔𝑔𝑖𝑖
𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏
𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 ∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏
Where: 
- gl
a,b is the total enrollment of school i in district a, zone b (for Grades 2-6) – zone is 
the urban-rural stratum in each district; 
- 𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏is the total enrollment of all schools in district a, zone b (for Grades 2-6); 
27
- 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 is the total number of schools sampled in district a, zone b.
Then the sampling weight of each school was computed as:
ωi
a,b = 1
πi
a,b,pps
COGES, Cooks and Storekeepers
There is only one COGES, one head cook and one head storekeeper per school. Therefore, the 
sampling weights for these units were the above school weights. Since the sampling of schools 
was undertaken with probabilities proportional to size, our design implicitly allocates higher 
inclusion probabilities to COGES, cooks and storekeepers in larger schools. 
Students
The probability of inclusion of a student j in school i is:
πij
a,b = πi
a,b,pps*πj i ⁄
a,b
; 
where πj i ⁄
a,b = 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏
gi
a,b
- 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 is the number of students sampled per school in district a, zone b 
πij
a,b = 𝑆𝑆𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏∗ 𝑛𝑛𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏
𝐺𝐺𝑎𝑎,𝑏𝑏 
Then the sampling weight of each student was computed as:
ωij
a,b = 1
πij
a,b
Producer associations
No sampling weights were needed, as we surveyed all eligible Producer Associations in both the 
intervention and the control arms. 
Individual producers
The probability of inclusion and sampling weight for the target Producer Association’s 
representative was 1. The probability of inclusion of the three other sampled individual members 
from the producer association i was: 
𝜋𝜋𝑖𝑖 = 
1
𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 − 1
28
Where 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 is the total number of active members of the Producer Association i. The sampling 
weight for these three members (inverse probability of selection) was: 
𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖 = 
1
𝜋𝜋𝑖𝑖
= 𝑀𝑀𝑖𝑖 − 1 
Sampling weights for individual producer at baseline was not taken into account in the baseline 
report. They have been incorporated in the current analyses.
3.6.2. Impact evaluation estimates
We used difference-in-differences (DID) estimates to determine the impact of the intervention 
on the target indicators. We estimate the simple DID for a given outcome Y as follows: 
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷(𝑌𝑌) = �𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑌𝑌𝐶𝐶 � − �𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 − 𝑌𝑌𝐶𝐶 � (1)
where 𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑌𝑌𝐶𝐶 represent the average outcome at endline in the intervention site and control 
area, respectively, and 𝑌𝑌𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 and 𝑌𝑌𝐶𝐶 represent the average outcome at base line in the 
intervention site and control area, respectively.
DID (Y) can also be estimated through a multivariate regression as follows: 
Y (or Prob[Y=1]) = 𝛼𝛼 + 𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽 + 𝛾𝛾𝛾𝛾 + 𝛿𝛿( ∙ ) + 𝜀𝜀 (2) 
Where: 
• is a dummy variable which equals 1 if the observation is in the intervention group and zero 
otherwise; 
• is a dummy variable which equals 1 in the follow-up year and zero in the baseline year; 
• ( ∙ ) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 interaction term which equals 1 if the observation is in the intervention group 
and at endline and zero otherwise (i.e., for comparison group members in both the baseline 
and endline, and for the intervention group in the baseline year). The estimate of captures 
the impact of the project on the outcome variable (𝑖𝑖. 𝑒𝑒. 𝛿𝛿 = DID (Y))
In practice, we used (1) to generate the estimates, and (2) to determine their level of statistical 
significance. Analyses were done using STATA. 
A number of outcomes are computed as a score, with values ranging from 0 to 100. These scores 
are calculated by averaging related variables recoded as binary variables (0/1), with value 1 
representing the favorable outcome (e.g.: Does your school have a handwashing place?). In the 
case of variables with three categories, the values were coded as 0; 0.5; 1, with higher values 
representing more desirable outcomes. There are a number of 4-category variables. These were 
coded as 0; 0.25; 0.75; 1. An example is the variable on whether the students washed their hands: 
0=No; 0.25=after meals; 0.75=before meals; 1=both before and after meals. The averages of 
relevant variables are multiplied by 100. In many instances, the overall score consists of two or 
more sub-scores. In this case, the overall score is obtained as s simple average of the constituent 
sub-scores. As a matter of illustration, let’s take the producer associations’ organizational 
capacity sub-score derived from individual members. Assuming the indicator is made up of n 
29
variable items (j=1, 2, … n). Let’s denote k an individual respondent (k=1, 2 …4. The sub-score of 
producer association i is:
𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 = 100 ∗ 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑗𝑗=1,...𝑛𝑛�𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑘𝑘=1,...4�𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗 ��; 0 ≤ 𝐶𝐶𝑖𝑖 ≤ 100
Where 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑘𝑘=1,...4�𝐶𝐶𝑗𝑗 � is the average of responses to the item variable j across the four 
individual respondents; and 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑗𝑗=1,...𝑛𝑛[ ] is the average across the n item variables. 
The questionnaire for students contains questions on students’ household possessions and 
characteristics, similar to the variables used in the demographic and health survey (DHS). 
Students were asked: “Does your household have any of the following items?”. Items considered 
included electricity, radio, TV, phone, bicycle, motor bike (see Q11 in Students’ questionnaire). 
We construct an asset-based indicator of socio-economic status (SES) by summarizing these 
items using principal component analysis (PCA). The first PCA factor, referred to as wealth index 
(a continuous variable) is used to classify the population in three groups of equal size or tertiles: 
Poor (lowest 33.3%); Middle; and Rich (highest 33.3). Tabulation outcomes by SES allows us to 
measure the extent of inequities by SES. 
3.6.3. Comparison study estimates
Simple differences were used to compare LRP indicators with those of McGovern-Dole, WFP and 
the average McGovern-Dole and WFP. 
3.7. Ethical Considerations
We sought answers to questions related to the ethical guidelines that were to be followed in 
Benin. At the very minimum, the following ethical principles were adhered to during the 
interviews with children:
- Invited freely given consent from all children, and from the parent s/guardians, ensuring that 
they understood they can refuse any question or withdraw at any time.
- Informed children and parents about the research. 
- Kept all data confidential, removing all personal identifiers and assigning pseudonyms where 
appropriate. In addition, consistent with CRS’ “Responsible and open data policy”, the report 
doesn’t contain any information that should not be made publicly available (e.g. school 
names). 
- Informed participants that if they divulge information suggesting that they or others are at 
risk of harm, the researcher has a duty of care to report this and to ensure support for the 
child (and to inform the participant that this is occurring). 
- Left all study participants with a written record of the researchers' names and contact
information. 
Specific strategies were put in place when interviewing children. Appropriate measures were put 
in place to protect the privacy and wellbeing of young people surveyed and interviewed in 
30
research. The interview team was carefully screened and selected according to their suitability 
for interviewing young people. Surveys with students were carried out within the protected 
environment of the school setting. Aside from obtaining informed consent from students 
themselves, the permission of the school principals and teachers were obtained before 
conducting the interview. The subject and general nature of the interview was explained in a 
simplistic manner in the local language and formal consent was obtained from both the student 
and an overseeing adult. For focus group discussions, additional consent was obtained from 
parents and guardians, and the venue and time for the discussions was carefully selected to 
provide safety and confidentiality.
3.8. Timelines
The inception phase began on April 3, 2019 and ended with the submission of the first draft of 
the Inception report on May 11. It included the draft study tools, sampling strategy and analysis 
plan. It was further revised and resubmitted on May 29, 2019. The training of data collectors took 
place on May 9-14, 2019. The pre-test of the tools was conducted on May 13, 2019 as part of the 
training process. Data collection began on May 15, with the bulk of interviews completed on June 
8th, and the remaining on June 14th, though data from WFP was only received on June 24th. Data 
analysis and report writing began in mid-June and draft reports were submitted on July 25, 
August 18, and August 25, 2019. 
The review of preliminary findings from the comparison study prompted a meeting between the 
evaluation team and representatives from the thee programs (LRP, MGD and WFP). The meeting 
took place on September 9, from 2:30pm to 5:30pm, local time. The highlights of the meeting 
are in Annex 5 (Highlights of key review meetings). Following the meeting, data for the 
comparison study was updated (by the three programs), the analysis was revised, and the 
evaluation report was submitted on September 17, 2019. 
A webinar was organized on September 19 to share the evaluation methodology and results to a 
wider group within CRS,and receive comments and suggestions on the methods and 
interpretation of results. The highlights of the webinar meeting are presented in Annex 5 
(Highlights of key review meetings). Following the webinar, the CRS team sent additional written 
comments on September 23. These were examined and addressed, and the final evaluation 
report submitted on September 24, 2019. 
4. Results: Impact Evaluation
In the section we present the results of the impact evaluation. Apart from results about producer 
associations (for which there are no sampling weights), all results, including those about 
individual producers are weighted. 
31
4.1. Producer Associations 
4.1.1. Sample characteristics 
Table 10 shows the sample characteristics. Two of the targeted producer associations could not 
be reached. As shown, while the share of maize and rice as the most important crops remained 
unchanged in the control group, the percentage of Producer Associations in the intervention area 
whose most important crop is rice rose from 8.8% at baseline to 31.8% at endline, and the 
percentage who most important crop is maize decreased from 88.3% at baseline to 50% at 
endline. It should be noted that the target Producer Associations in the intervention group 
changed markedly from baseline to endline, as further detailed below in the section devoted to 
the indicator on the percentage of Producer Associations demonstrating increased organizational 
capacity.
Table 10. Sample characteristics – Producer Associations
 Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Number of Producer 
Associations
Endline 10 22 12
Baseline 10 34 24
Most important crop (%) 
Maize
Endline 60.0 50.0 -10.0
Baseline 60.0 88.3 28.3
Rice
Endline 40.0 31.8 -8.2
Baseline 40.0 8.8 -31.2
Others (Soy)
Endline 0.0 18.2 18.2
Baseline 0.0 2.9 2.9
2nd most important crop (%)
None
Endline 50.0 77.3 27.3
Baseline 60.0 20.6 -39.4
Maize
Endline 40.0 18.2 -21.8
Baseline 10.0 2.9 -7.1
Rice
Endline 0.0 22.7 22.7
Baseline 0.0 5.9 5.9
Cowpea
Endline 10.0 0.0 -10.0
Baseline 0.0 2.9 2.9
Others
Endline 30.0 67.7 37.7
Baseline 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mean number of members
Endline 32.4 22.1 -10.3
Baseline 43.5 44.3 0.8
Mean number of female 
members
Endline 7.7 15.9 8.2
Baseline 15.2 9.1 -6.1
32
Also noteworthy in Table 10 is the fact that over time, the mean number of female members 
increased noticeably in the intervention group, and decreased in the control group. Qualitative 
data supports the idea that that this phenomenon was due to changing dynamics in group 
product sale that was associated with the LRP project. A rice producer in Pèrèrè states: 
The LRP project has revolutionized the associative life in Pèrèrè. Prior to the project, many 
women left the association because they earned virtually nothing. But with the LRP project 
that now accepts our production, there are many who want to join our association.
In Table 11, we show the description of the sample of individual producers interviewed (four 
individual producers per association). The proportion of female producers interviewed more than 
doubled (from 13.4% at baseline to 29.6% at endline), presumably reflecting the higher number 
of female members noted above. While the change in the intervention arm may be the result of 
the difference between producer associations interviewed at baseline (n=34) and at those 
covered at endline (n=22), the change in the control group is difficult to explain, suggesting a 
possible quality issue of self-reported data. 
Table 11. Sample characteristics - Producer Association individual members
 Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Number of members 
interviewed
Endline 40 88 48
Baseline 40 136 96
% of Female
Endline 20.0 29.6 9.6
Baseline 27.5 13.4 -14.1
Crops produced last season (%)
Maize
Endline 92.5 78.4 -14.1
Baseline 85.0 94.9 9.9
Rice
Endline 47.5 38.6 -8.9
Baseline 57.5 77.9 20.4
Cowpea
Endline 22.5 27.3 4.8
Baseline 80.0 51.5 -28.5
Shea collection
Endline 7.5 28.4 20.9
Baseline 80.0 74.3 -5.7
The percentage of farmers who produced each of the target crops declined from baseline to 
endline, suggesting that farmers tended to concentrate on few crops. The only exception is with 
maize in the control group (the proportion of farmers increased from 85.0% to 92.5%). 
33
4.1.2. Organizational capacity 
Focus group discussions with Producers Associations provide insight into the composition of 
Producer Associations, which varies from one association to another. The executive office of 
these associations usually has 7 to 11 members. The most important positions are: the president 
(presides over all assemblies and ensures the implementation of the decisions resulting from 
these assemblies); the secretary (assists the president in the preparation of meetings, handles 
the secretariat during meetings and maintains the group documents); and the treasurer (keeps 
up to date the accounting and financial documents of the group). These three main members are 
co-signers of the group's bank account. Most CRS partner cooperatives had a high level of 
formalization, as the selection criteria for suppliers involved verification of their formal and 
physical existence. Most of them had statutory texts (statutes and internal regulations). While 
cooperatives are themselves responsible for and guarantee the execution of agricultural product 
delivery contracts obtained from CRS, the URP, as a regional umbrella organization, serves as an 
interface between the cooperatives and CRS, and is responsible for implementing training for the 
benefit of cooperatives and their members. 
As at baseline, a score for organizational capacity of Producer Associations was created from 
relevant questions in the surveys with Producer Associations’ management and individual 
members. We used the same variables as at baseline. Two sub-scores for Producer Association 
management and members were created by averaging the corresponding variables, and the 
overall score obtained by averaging the two sub-scores. The results are presented in Table 12. 
Overall, the LRP project seems to have had a noticeable effect on Producer Associations’ 
organizational capacity, with an impact estimated at 30 percentage points and statistically 
significant at the level of 1%. The magnitude of change was more pronounced from individual 
producers’ perspectives (+43.0 percentage points, significance level of 1%), than from association 
management’s perspectives (+17.0 percentage points, statistically non-significant at the level of 
10%). 
Table 12. Producer Association organizational capacity scored (n=44 at baseline; n=32 at endline)
Indicator Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Difference in 
differences
Overall Score
Endline 27.5 41.5 14.0
30.0***
Baseline 32.0 16.0 -16.0
Score derived from Management
Endline 24.0 31.0 7.0
17.0
Baseline 30.0 20.0 -10.0
Score derived from Members Endline 31.0 52.0 21.0 43.0***
34
Indicator Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Difference in 
differences
Baseline 34.0 12.0 -22.0
For Difference in differences: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
To determine the percentage of Producer Associations demonstrating increased organizational 
capacity (the first indicator), the analysis was restricted to the sub-sample of Producer 
Associations interviewed at both baseline and endline. There were 10 (out of 10) in the control 
area, and eight (out of 22) in the intervention area. As shown in Table 13, 75% of Producer 
Associations in the intervention group demonstrated an increased organizational capacity from 
baseline to endline, against 50% in the control arm. 
Table 13. Percentage of Producer Associations demonstrating increased organizational capacity
(n=18 at baseline and at endline)
Indicator Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Overall Score 50.0 75.0 25.0
Score derived from 
Management
50.0 62.5 12.5
Score derived from Members 50.0 75.0 25.0
An important aspect of Producer Associations’ organizational capacity is the extent to which their 
members sell their products through the associations. Table 14 shows the percentage of 
individual producers who sold their products through their association in the 12 months 
preceding the survey.
Table 14. Sale of produce in the last 12 months through producer association (n=44 at baseline; 
n=32 at endline)
Indicator Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Difference 
in 
differences
Sold produce through producer 
association
Endline 45.1 64.5 19.5
33.4***
Baseline 37.5 23.5 -14.0
Satisfied with the sale
Endline 95.3 98.7 3.4
-0.1
Baseline 93.3 96.9 3.6
For Difference in differences: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
35
While at the baseline the percentage was 14 percentage points lower in the intervention group, 
at endline it was 19.5 percentage points higher, for an impact estimate off 33.4, which is 
statistically significant at the level of 1%. For those who sold their products through their 
associations, the level of satisfaction did not seem to vary over time or across the two study arms.
Data collected from interviews and focus group discussions reinforces that the LRP project has 
had a great impact on the organizational capacity of Producer Associations. It is with the LRP
project that some cooperatives were remobilized as leaders were able to present the interests 
of group sales in general and in the framework of the LRP project in particular. During a FGD, a 
member of an association of maize producers in Tchaourou states: "With the LRP project, we 
were able to showcase our warehouse of warrantage which was not used. The CRS allowed us to 
use our warrantage stores, which reorganizes the sale of our products". By providing an 
opportunity for the supply of agricultural products to school canteens, the LRP project has 
reinvigorated the collective activities of cooperatives. 
Qualitative data also indicates that with the LRP project, cooperatives have become the platform 
for regular meetings, sharing of information and exchange of experiences, in accordance with 
existing statutes and internal regulations. This is confirmed by the words of a producer of maize, 
during a FGD in Tchaourou: "Our grouping in association also facilitates the sharing of 
information, experiences and allows us to benefit from training". 
4.1.3 Use of improved production techniques
Another important indicator for Producer Associations is the percentage of producers who 
demonstrate the use of improved production techniques. Individual producers were asked:
Do you think that the LRP project has enabled you to acquire technical and management skills 
for your farm? (Q20); If yes: What capacity did you acquire? What training did you receive? 
(Q21)
Which of the trainings received did you put into practice? (Q22)
The results are presented in Table 15. It shows that 17 individual producers (78.7%) received 
training on production practices, and out of those, 15 (84.5%) translated what they learned into 
practice. Results also show that among associations interviewed, 64.2% have received training 
on harvest practices; 73.9% on post-harvest practices; and 39% on storage practices. For these 
trainings, respectively 59.3%, 76.3% and 75.6% have translated what they learned into practices.
Table 15. Percentage of Producers who demonstrate the use of improved production techniques 
(n=22)
Training received through LRP on production techniques 
Production practices 78.7
Harvest practices 64.2
Post-harvest practices 73.9
Storage practices 39.0
36
Training received through LRP on production techniques that were put 
in practice
Production practices 84.5
Harvest practices 59.3
Post-harvest practices 76.3
Storage practices 75.6
As indicated in the quantitative data, not all individual producers were involved in LRP training. 
Interviews and focus group discussions explain that while the LRP program intended to only train 
leaders of Producer Associations, members of Producer Associations who participated in the FGD 
in N’Dali who were not involved in the trained would have like to have received the training 
information as well. 
Qualitative data from all communes but Parakou further explains the nature of the trainings 
received by Producer Associations as part of the LRP project. In Tchaourou, these trainings mainly 
focused on: agricultural techniques, group sales, market access and contract farming. In these 
trainings producers learned new techniques for producing, storing and marketing products. A 
rice producer says during a FGD: 
Apart from the marketing of our products, we have benefited from several trainings that 
make us experienced producers, so that we can now deal with other partners. Indeed, we 
benefited from LRP; the food storage techniques we hadn’t seen before. We are able to 
do annual conservation without insecticide. We did not know how to do it. We now know 
how to do group sale and contractualization. This is the case of soy that we sold together 
this year while we are corn producers in the project. 
In Pèrèrè, the main training themes for Producer Associations included: agricultural production 
and processing techniques, the market information system (MIS), climate change, the production 
of good quality butter, hygiene, the constitution of tender documents and the implementation 
of a contract. Apart from training on the constitution of tender documents, members of these 
associations indicated that these topics were review for them, as they had completed previous 
training on the same themes from other projects. However, with the LRP project, producers in 
Pèrèrè have been able to access certain markets for the sale of their products, and producers 
perceive the trainings to contribute to the advertisement of their products.
Two of three of associations in N’Dali (a rice and maize Producer Association), on the other hand, 
criticized the selection of training modules provided by the project. This is apparent from the 
following statement from a maize producer: 
We have requested training on the management of financial resources. We also 
emphasized modules such as entrepreneurship and the business plan. But instead of all 
that, we will be trained on climate change and the keeping of administrative documents. 
37
These are trainings that we have already benefited from and many times. So, in terms of 
training, it's not too good. 
Therefore, CRS’ approach to rely mainly on ProAgri and PASDeR (without involving farmers 
themselves) in order to gauge the need for training of farmers may have limited potential training 
impact. 
Despite these criticisms, qualitative data further indicates that knowledge from the training 
received is implemented. For example, the requirement of laboratory analysis by project 
managers before buying a product has reinforced application of knowledge gained during 
trainings. One participant of a focus group discussion with producers states: 
Indeed, the project takes a sample of each product to analyze at the laboratory in Cotonou 
before to authorize the purchase. This has meant that each cooperative or association is 
committed to producing better quality by applying the lessons learned during the training 
courses.
4.1.4. Use of URP MIS 
The third indicator for Producer Associations concerns the use of URP's Market information 
system (MIS). Table 16 shows that the percentage of Producer Associations who used the system 
remained unchanged over time in the control group (at 30%), but increased from 11.8% to 31.8% 
in the intervention group. However, the resulting impact estimate of 20 percentage points is not 
statistically significant at the level of 10%. In the intervention arm, the use of the system to 
monitor local prices increased over time slightly from 75.0% to 85.7%.
Table 16. Producer Associations’ use of URP's Market information system (n=44 at baseline; n=32 
at endline)
 Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Difference
Difference 
in 
differences
Used URP MIS
Endline 30.0 31.8 1.8
20.0
Baseline 30.0 11.8 -18.2
Purpose of using the URP
Producer prices
Endline 33.3 14.3 -19.0 -10.7
Baseline 33.3 25.0 -8.3
Local market prices
Endline 66.7 85.7 19.0
10.7
Baseline 66.7 75.0 8.3
For Difference in differences: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
38
4.1.5. Relevance, efficiency and sustainability 
Relevance of the LRP project for Producer Associations
The LRP project with its local procurement principle is undoubtedly a positive market outlet for 
their agricultural production. In Tchaourou, a maize producer says: "Our products flow quickly 
and in a grouped way". In Pèrèrè, a producer of shea butter declares: "As an association we have 
facilities to sell our products in bulk, we do not walk anymore in the villages or in the markets for 
the sale of shea butter in detail”. In particular, for these women producing shea butter, the 
benefits are noticeable, since they previously lacked opportunities to access larger markets. A 
leader of the umbrella organization states:
Associations affiliated to the AKB are struggling to find a sustainable market for their 
products, particularly shea butter. The LRP in its approach comes to offer this marketing 
market of shea butter in a significant amount. The project is therefore an opportunity that 
women in the group seize to produce and sell with an assurance of profitability.
Producers Organization umbrellas and Producer Associations are satisfied with recognition and 
use of local producers in school feeding. But because of delays in purchase of products and 
payment by CRS, the level of satisfaction remains partial. Also, the expected economic benefits 
are slow to be perceptible. Reducing the chain of sales or streamlining the process will allow 
producers to get back their income from selling products quickly.
Efficiency of Producer Association processes 
Overall, the most important objectives of the Producer Associations were achieved. 100% of all 
purchases of agricultural products described in the contracts were made. When the evaluation 
survey took place, there were still some trainings that the URP had to conduct, but according to 
CRS, these activities remained well within the original timeframe set. 
In relation to the efficiency of the project, the local approach to the supply of agricultural 
products for school canteens bears witness to the efficiency of the LRP project. Most other school 
canteens obtain supplies on the regional or international market, and generally use imported 
products. The LRP participation models values contributions from the local community as well as 
the minimization of costs. To ensure the minimization of costs while also keeping commodities 
local, the LRP model is supported by in-kind contributions from local communities (e.g. firewood, 
donation of site for the construction of shops, sand picking, etc.) and financial contributions from 
parents. 
Furthermore, the LRP project designed a specific training program for producers, which teaches 
new techniques for growing, harvesting, preserving and selling agricultural products that allow 
producers to have better yields. Similarly, training to respond to calls for tender and support in 
group sale was also received. One producer in Tchaourou states: “Training is very useful because 
39
it has made it possible to know how to keep food without insecticides in the long term. They have 
allowed us to sell our soybeans using grouped sale". 
However, there are some aspects that reduce the efficiency of the local approach. For example, 
some cooperatives (especially associations in the agricultural product processing sector) that 
have won contracts are financially weak in producing the expected quantities on time and of 
quality. Cooperatives that have won market contracts can find it difficult to produce the expected 
quantities on time and under conditions that guarantee quality in accordance with the standards 
required by the project. A URPR member in Parakou states: 
The CRS in its first tender asked for three tons of parboiled rice from a selected 
cooperative. In order to deliver this demanded quantity, processing purpose requires 5 
tons of paddy rice at a cost of one to two million CFA francs [$3,418.21 USD]. All 
cooperatives do not have access to credit; CRS does not pay in advance nor does it 
facilitate access to credit to fulfill the supply contract. In addition, rice processing is 
traditional in cooperatives and to release 3 tons of rice it takes a minimum of one month. 
After production, a sampling and a laboratory analysis are required, the result of which, 
if it is good, authorizes the cooperatives to deliver the product. The lack of equipment 
support has also had a negative impact on the efficiency of production units in rice 
processing on time.
Furthermore, administrative delays in the signing of contracts, the execution of activities, the 
purchase and delivery of products impacts efficiency. Relatively weak capacities of Producer 
Associations in drafting offers also inhibits efficiency of the project. It is important to note that 
farmers are affected by the delays in the purchase process under the LRP project. For example, 
a maize producer in N'Dali states: 
There is some slowness in the purchase of products, the period between the 
announcement of the purchase and the purchase itself is very long. As a result, the corn 
that was once winnowed is left with waste and it is necessary to sort again before the 
purchase five to six weeks later. All of this is huge losses for the producer. There is also 
slowness not only at the level of purchases but also at the level of payment. 
Conversations with producers also indicate frustrations by producers with the time it takes for 
them to get paid after invoicing. After the delivery, it can take several months before invoices are 
paid. This delay in payment prevents cooperatives from filling other contracts because of lack of 
available finances. A focus group discussion participant in Pèrèrè states: “The members of the 
associations contracted credit for the production at the CLCAM. But the money of the products, 
was paid much later, while on the other hand, the deadlines with the CLCAM do not wait. This 
causes a lot of damage to the producers”. Producers therefore had difficulties mastering the 
contracting process and were unable to effectively plan due to changes in market prices. 
40
Sustainability of Producer Association participation 
With a specific training program for producers under the LRP project, producers have increased 
their capacity to respond to project requirements and needs and have become more professional 
and self-reliant. These acquired capacities contribute to sustainability of the achievements of the 
LRP project that could also be used for any other form of institutional sale. A producer from a 
focus group in Pèrèrè states: 
The producers are today able to supply the products to other canteen projects or in the 
institutional market led by WFP. Similarly, there are other associations working to join the 
group of associations that deliver products to the LRP project. And all this will only 
increase the delivery capacity of agricultural products according to the demand of the 
wholesale market or institutional market which will challenge the associations of 
producers. 
Another maize producer in Tchaourou indicates the obvious interest of the producers for the 
perpetuation of such an approach: "The producers are very interested in the project and 
campaign for its sustainability which constitutes an opportunity for the sustainability of the 
project. We want this partnership to grow and multiply".
Producer Associations (especially maize and rice) believe they can use experiences acquired with 
the LRP project in other similar initiatives or institutional purchases. Although producers of shea 
butter do not yet seem able to continue with the activities of the project without support, as 
these producers needed a lot of help from the AKB to comply with the project procedure. In 
moving forward, to ensure sustainability of the project among Producer Associations, it is 
necessary to develop contractual models which allow the associations of producers to find the 
necessary financial resources before and during the sales process to guarantee their compliance 
with the contractual obligations. With this support, URP believe it has enough experience that 
allow it to retain the achievements of the LRP project as well as respond to similar solicitations.
But, on the other hand, Producer Associations do not yet seem to have the capacities and 
resources needed to continue project activities without any outside support. For example, in 
Pèrèrè, the shea butter Producer Associations relied on support from their umbrella organization 
(i.e., AKB) to complete their first group sales contract, and seeing that they only have one group 
sale under their belt, they feel that they don’t yet have sufficient experience in the process to 
complete it on their own. External support is still needed to mobilize resources to further support 
this process. According to the AKB, the weak financial capacity that characterizes Producers 
Associations, as well as their poor organization, do not guarantee the sustainability of this type 
of project. In order to remedy this situation, it would be important to train the AKB on the project 
account, taking into account the related constraints. The URPR also recognizes that it has 
difficulties in structuring its many members in such a way that gives them the right to structured 
markets. The few cooperatives that have formalized themselves do not have the financial base 
41
for services that meet the requirements of the LRP project. Difficulties in accessing bank credit 
and lack of pre-financing or start-up loans weaken Producer Associations, thus compromising the 
sustainability of the project. It would be important to consider contractual models that allow 
Producer Associations to find the necessary financial resources before and during the sales 
process to ensure their effectiveness in complying with the contractual obligations. The URP, on 
the other hand, believes that it has enough experience that allows it to perpetuate the 
achievements of the LRP project. Its aspiration for sustainability is to renew this project and to 
extend its geographical reach beyond the current four municipalities and continually improve the 
activities of the project.
Producer Associations members also indicate that, given that beneficiaries would be unable to 
perpetuate project initiatives without external support, continuation of CRS support is necessary. 
The LRP project is a source of motivation for producers who now have easy access to the markets 
of agricultural producers, and for school children who feel more comfortable in school. An abrupt 
stoppage of the project may provoke a demotivation of beneficiaries and the communities will 
again face the problems that the project seeks to solve. Respondents noted that stakeholders 
still need additional time and resources to be able to ensure the sustainability of project 
initiatives. This is clear from the words of a producer in N'Dali: "In order for parents' associations 
to be able to take over, we need a gradual apprenticeship for at least five years, as was the case 
with mutual health insurance companies".
4.2. COGES
4.2.1. Sample characteristics
Baseline data was collected at the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year and the end line data 
at the end of the same school year. Out of the 35 control schools surveyed, only three ever had 
a canteen, and consequently a COGES which is directly tied to the presence of a canteen. Among 
the intervention districts, only five intervention schools had ever had a school canteen, and out 
of these, four ever had a COGES. For this reason, the analyses for this section will focus on the 
intervention schools at endline, as well as the 35 cooks and the 35 store keepers interviewed. 
Table 17 shows that cooks were all female, while store keepers were largely male. 
Table 17. Sample characteristics - Schools and COGES (n=70)
 Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Number of schools
Endline 35 35
Baseline 35 35
Mean school size (number of 
students)a
Endline 191.7 146.3
Baseline 260.4 224.1
Endline 0 35
42
 Period
Control 
districts
Intervention 
districts
Number of schools that have a 
Canteen
Baseline 0 0 
Number of schools that ever 
had a Canteen
Endline 3 5
Baseline 3 5
Number of schools that 
have/had a COGES
Endline 3 35
Baseline 3 4
Number of Cooks at endline
Total 0 143
Female 0 143
Number of Store keepers at 
endline
Total 0 35
Male 0 32
a
Baseline values are for grade 1-6, while endline values are for grade 2-6. This largely explains 
the observed drop over time. 
4.2.2. Capacity in school canteen and stock management 
An important factor likely to precede (and perhaps influence) COGES’ practices related to 
canteen and stock management is the capacity and training of cooks and store keepers. This 
factor was measured through the following questions: 
• Q34-35 in the Cooks questionnaire: In your opinion, did the LRP project help you acquire 
cooking capacity? If so, which capacity did you acquire? which training did you receive? 
• Q24-25 in the store keepers questionnaire: In your opinion, did the LRP project help you 
acquire store keeping capacity? If so, which capacity did you acquire? which training did you 
receive? 
Table 18 shows that a large majority of the 35 cooks and the 35 store keepers reported having 
acquired capacity in various aspects of their work. 
Table 18. Capacity and training of cooks and store keepers (n=35)
 LRP training 
received
Capacity acquired (among 
those trained)
Cooks
Cooking food 96.5 100.0
Hygiene 96.5 100.0
Nutritious foods 88.0 67.6
Planning of canteen activities 90.7 77.1
Ration measurement 77.9 70.4
Monitoring of commodities 84.5 80.5
Store keepers
43
 LRP training 
received
Capacity acquired (among 
those trained)
Stock management 93.6 79.0
Hygiene 91.9 89.4
Storage of commodities 88.9 87.6
Interviews with COGES members in all of the intervention communes confirm that COGES 
members received training under the LRP project. A series of two trainings were organized in the 
selected sites in the respective communes. The training focused mainly on stock management, 
the measurement of the quantities to be served, and the operating rules of the COGES for the 
canteen functioning. COGES members received specific training according to their role (cook, 
storekeeper, president or teacher), and the COGES members were able to apply the learning 
outcomes, each according to the roles and tasks assigned to them. 
Training was conducted in the local language, facilitating the mastery of the concepts taught to 
the participants. In addition, all COGES members were invited to all of the training workshops, 
allowing participants to learn about each other's roles. During a focus group, a COGES member 
states: “With the LRP project, we all [the other COGES members of his school and him], were at 
this training. This allowed us to master these concepts well. In addition, these training were 
taught in the local language, it was accessible even for us farmers”.
In Table 19, we present the score of COGES in canteen and stock management, and the 
percentage of COGES who achieved 80% score or higher (the first indicator).
The following three sub-scores were computed: 
• Students hygiene, computed from Q71-74 of COGES questionnaire
• Meal service, computed from Q75-75.5 of COGES questionnaire
• Store management practices, computed from Q12-18 of Store keeper questionnaire
The overall score, calculated by averaging the three sub-scores, was estimated at 77.3, with 
higher value on student hygiene (85.2), and lower value on the sub-score for cooks. In total, close 
to 50% of COGES achieved a score of 80 or higher (out of 100). 
Table 19. COGES scores in canteen and stock management (n=35)
 Score % Achieving 
80% score
Overall Score 77.3 49.8
Student hygiene 85.2 97.0
Score derived from Cooks 68.0 69.5
Score derived from store keepers 78.7 71.7
44
In practice, COGES members are dedicated to providing good services in school children feeding. 
In preparation for this service, meetings are held to decide on recipe choices, purchase of 
condiments, timing in meal preparation, etc. In general, COGES plans and executes a weekly 
organization schedule for the canteen. In Tchaourou, a COGES member reported: "A calendar is 
developed weekly for the meal menu. It's the whole office that meets every Friday to do it. This 
is done according to the food available in the store’’.
The role of teachers in canteen management is quite remarkable. Teachers support COGES 
members such as the storekeeper, the president or even the cooks to evaluate the quantity of 
products to be used and meals to serve to students. In addition to supporting COGES members, 
teachers mobilize and organize students as they get in line for lunch in the canteen.
The storekeepers have also been able to improve their inventory management capacity in order 
to guarantee the good quality of the products kept. In N'Dali, during a FGD, a storekeeper reports 
being congratulated by the project team during a monitoring field visit: "Last time, the project 
people said that we are among those who have maintained the store". At Pèrèrè, it was reported 
that "many improvements are noted in the filling of management books, and the conservation 
of stocks". In Tchaourou, it is evident that the storekeeper is proactive in managing stock to avoid 
stockouts. The storekeeper described his strategy stating: "When our stock tends to finish, we 
send a request for refueling well before it finishes".
Furthermore, LRP project activities also included the installation of handwashing devices in the 
intervention schools, contributing to the high score in student hygiene. The project has 
purchased a total of 3,012 five-liter cans and 3,280 meters of rope cut on a one-meter basis to 
make up the tippy tap system, on behalf of the project's intervention schools. The project then 
led school canteen management committees to install tippy taps in all intervention schools of 
the project. The school management committees were trained on-site and assisted in the 
installation of this system. The implementation of the canteen reinforced the use of these devices 
as it is recommended that every student wash their hands before receiving a meal from the 
canteen.
4.2.3. Organizational capacity 
Three sets of questions in COGES questionnaire were designed to capture three different aspects 
of COGES’ organizational capacity (the evaluation’s second indicator). These are:
• Rules and regulations (Q60-64)
• Monitoring of activities (Q65-67)
• Resource mobilization (Q68-69)
Three corresponding sub-scores were computed, and the overall score was calculated by 
averaging the sub-scores. As indicated previously, the main score and the three sub-scores range 
from 0 to 100. The results in Table 20 show that 36% of COGES achieved a score of 80 or higher. 
45
The overall score was 62.1. COGES scored higher on resource mobilization (73.5 score; 65.4 of 
COGES achieving 80 or higher), and very low on activity monitoring (43.0 score; 14.3% of COGES 
achieving 80 or higher).
Table 20. COGES organizational capacity score (n=35)
 Score % Achieving 
80% score
Overall Score 62.1 36.0
Rules and regulations score 69.9 46.2
Activities monitoring score 43.0 14.3
Resource mobilization score 73.5 65.4
Interviews and focus group discussions with COGES members elucidate the organizational 
capacity of COGES. In general, the COGES is composed of five members: 1) a president, 2) a 
storekeeper, 3) an accountant, 4) an advisor who is the principal or one of the school principals 
for school complexes, and 5) one of the school teachers who serves as the monitoring-evaluator. 
The president, storekeeper and accountant can be members of the Parents Associations (e.g. 
some schools sampled in the commune of Parakou such as Dabou), or parents that are not 
members of Parents Associations, but are selected within the community (e.g. sampled schools 
in the commune of N'Dali, and in Parakou). In Dabou (Parakou), COGES members 
unanimously agreed to choose a woman as president. The reasons were, among other things, 
that "cooking and feeding children is a women's affair. She knows what is good for children…, 
and as a mother will also be able to assess the needs and aspirations of everyone in terms of food 
to serve”. All of the cooks or their representatives are also considered members of the COGES. 
With regard to the five main members mentioned above, apart from the advisor and the 
teachers, the configuration of the committee varies in terms of the provenance of the members.
In addition to the criteria recommended by CRS for the selection of COGES members, some 
criteria are valued at the local level, including availability, ability to collaborate in decision￾making, and prioritization of COGES work. In general, COGES has operated according to statutory 
texts which define the attributions and roles of the members. At Pèrèrè, COGES members have 
demonstrated a knowledge of their roles by stating them on demand. Members meet regularly 
as needed. In all the intervention communes, the communication between the members of the 
COGES is primarily through telephone calls. However, in Parakou and N'Dali for example, it 
appears that the storekeeper and the president are generally more active with in-person 
communication; demonstrating a greater commitment to the school canteen. 
Regarding the monitoring of food management and the performance of the canteen, a 
monitoring committee is set up to allow and ensure all students are served in an orderly fashion. 
This committee is composed of three grade six students, a cook and a teacher. Another level of 
46
monitoring is associated with monthly meetings between the storekeeper, the monitoring officer 
(the teacher member of COGES) and the project managers. For transparency in the use of food, 
the president or the storekeeper cannot open the store alone without the permission of the 
other.
COGES members have also demonstrated a good capacity for community mobilization of 
resources for the purchase of condiments for sauce. Even if some contributions for condiments 
are requested from students, they are not obliged to pay for them before eating. In Tchaourou, 
the contributions for condiments come from the Parents Associations committee in schools as 
expressed in these terms: "We request the Parents Associations committee to help us in the 
event of lack of resources, because there is a reciprocal agreement between the COGES members 
and the Parents Associations committee". Contributions for condiments also come from local and 
traditional authorities as expressed by a respondent: "We went to see the local authorities who 
supported us in cash, even the king gave us money to support the LRP canteen initiative". In 
Pèrèrè, if further resources are needed (for example financial contributions), a meeting of all the 
student parents of the village is convened and a favorable solution is generally found for the good 
functioning of the canteen.
4.2.4. Application of project promoted recipes 
The indicator on the percentage of school cooks demonstrating the application of project 
promoted recipes was not calculated quantitatively. Rather, cooks were asked by qualitative 
interviewers to list their menus based on recall; a method that could be improved in the future 
by requiring that cooks record and save all menus and ingredients used for each meal. 
As confirmed through qualitative data, the LRP model using local products for school meals was 
adhered to throughout the project. The use of local products is very much appreciated by 
multiple stakeholders. Using the local products reduces doubts on quality and security of 
products. During a focus group, a COGES member states: “it is a relief because we no longer have 
to doubt the quality of food, unlike imports food; for imports food, we do not always know their 
provenance and do not have means to guarantee their storage conditions”.
During the weekly menu planning, COGES members ensure that the meals recommended by the 
LRP project are highlighted. However, complaints are increasingly raised concerning use of shea 
butter exclusively in school canteens. And while some COGES (for example in Tchaourou) have 
provided tofu or fish for some school meals, complaints about lack of protein-based foods like 
meat or fish have been voiced.
4.2.5. Good practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation 
Cooks were observed to measure COGES’ practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation in the 
six following areas:
• Body and clothing hygiene (Q1-7)
• Food hygiene (Q8-12)
47
• Dishes (Q13-17)
• Food cooking (Q18-23)
• Food conservation and service (Q24-27)
• Store and environmental hygiene (Q28-33) 
The observation could not take place in one school (in Tchaourou), because the canteen was 
closed due to stock out in commodities. The overall score was obtained as a simple average of 
the six sub-scores listed above, and the percentage of COGES that achieved a score of 80% or 
higher was derived. As shown in Table 21, close to half of COGES achieved a score of 80 or higher, 
with higher values in food hygiene, followed by store and environmental hygiene, and lower 
values on body and clothing hygiene.
Table 21. Good practices in terms of hygiene in food preparation (n=34)
 Score % Achieving 
80% score
Overall Score 80.1 49.8
Body and clothing 
hygiene
62.7 12.8
Food hygiene 90.3 91.3
Dishes 67.2 48.9
Food cooking 85.3 54.8
Food conservation and service 87.8 53.8
Store and environmental hygiene 87.5 80.4
Qualitative data reinforces how, by having the cooks participate in multiple training courses, 
including those unrelated to their direct work, mutual monitoring of rule compliance is possible. 
If bad practices arise, the other members of the COGES can question the person concerned. Thus, 
the collaborative environment of all COGES members underlies the improvement of the attitude 
and the capacity of the cooks in their service for the school canteen.
4.2.6. Quality and quantity of available food
While it was agreed to qualitatively measure timeliness, quantity and quality of commodities 
delivered for school canteens, the following relevant questions were included in the COGES 
questionnaire: 
• Do you receive on time commodities for the school canteen? (Q57)
• Are the quantities received adequate to cover the needs of the canteen? (Q58)
• Are the commodities received of good quality? (Q59)
48
As shown in Table 22, almost all COGES reported a level of satisfaction with the quality of 
commodities received, and close to 90% reported the commodities were delivered on time and 
with adequate quantities. 
Table 22. COGES report on delivery of commodities for school canteen (n=35)
 % 
Timely delivery of commodities 88.6
Adequacy of quantities 90.4
Quality of commodities 98.1
Discussions with stakeholders help to clarify the quality and quantity of food delivered. As 
indicated in interviews and focus group discussions, contracts with producers' cooperatives 
specifies the schools in the intervention communes and their location, with specification on the 
types of agricultural products to deliver. In addition, the project field staff are also available to 
assist producers in navigating the delivery process. This promotes timely delivery and avoids 
stockouts in school stores. 
Laboratory control in the process of purchasing products ensures the receipt of good quality 
products. The quantities received are also sufficient to cover the needs of all students according 
to COGES members. Two strategies have been developed to avoid or manage stockouts. These
include: 1) proactively informing the project managers of products that are expected to be 
finished in order to restock the product before more is needed, and 2) the loan approach that 
consists of the provision of products from peers (other LRP canteen in the same locality) and 
reimbursement after provisioning from LRP.
Furthermore, the LRP project contributes to improved quality control of school meals. A producer 
in Pèrèrè states: 
The project gives canteens to students and the canteen of this project is different from 
that of other projects. With the LRP project, it is not possible to provide children with 
what is not good. Even our shea butter is sent to the laboratory and if it is of poor quality, 
we return that and then we cannot serve that to children.
The LRP project is therefore able to feed schoolchildren with local products that are healthy and 
of good quality.
4.2.7. Direct observations
Direct observations help to indicate how well the canteen kitchens are equipped with the 
materials needed to provide quality meals to school children. Table 23 indicates this kitchen 
inventory. As shown in Table 23, none of the 35 sampled LRP schools had refrigerators, and 28 
of the kitchen areas were in the open air. Furthermore, 28 of the 35 schools did not have a 
49
cafeteria for students. It should be noted that refrigerators, enclosed kitchens and cafeterias are 
not required by the project, or by the government concerning school canteens for that matter. 
This data rather describes the conditions in which the meals were prepared and served. It is 
important to note that 31 schools of the 35 schools observed had hand washing places for 
students.
Table 23. Kitchen inventory in the sampled LRP schools (n=35)
Number % weighted
Location of the kitchen
Within school compound 31 91.0
Outside school compound 4 9.0
Type of kitchen area
Open air 28 78.1
Tent/shed/hangar 6 20.0
Well/finished 1 1.9
Type of cooking stove used
Traditional cooking stove (stone) 32 93.5
Metal cooking stove 3 6.6
Number of cooking stove used
1 cooking stove 5 15.1
2 cooking stoves 17 54.6
3 cooking stoves 11 27.3
4 cooking stoves 2 3.1
Presence of a refrigerator
Yes 0 0.0
No 35 100.0
Existence of refectory/cafeteria for students
Yes 7 14.8
No 28 85.2
Existence of handwashing place for students
Tap 31 93.4
Hand washing system (Dispositif de lavage des 
mains
8 28.5
Table 24 below describes the construction of and location of the stores of the 35 sampled LRP 
schools, along with the food stored at each location. As shown, the majority of the stores had 
brick walls or cement floors with sheet metal or tile roofs. The majority had maize, pulses, rice 
and shea butter in store. 
50
Table 24. Store inventory in the sampled LRP schools (n=35)
Number % weighted
Location
Outside school compound - in a community store 2 4.0
Outside school compound - at home 12 41.0
Inside - in a classroom 8 14.5
Inside - in the principal's office 13 40.6
Type of wall
Clay 6 26.0
Brick 27 68.6
Sheet metal and other 2 5.5
Type of floor
Ground 5 22.3
Cement 29 74.6
Tile 1 3.2
Type of roof
Sheet metal/Roof tile 32 93.1
Slab/No roof 3 6.9
Food in store
Maize 33 91.1
Pulses 33 95.2
Rice 32 90.6
Shea butter 26 80.4
It should be noted that the construction of the stores had not yet been started at the time of the 
evaluation. Several stakeholders interviewed in the field reported the non-construction of stores 
and kitchens as an unfulfilled expectation or promise held by the project. A member of COGES in 
Pèrèrè states: "At startup, the project promised the construction in each school, storage store 
and kitchen. This expectation has remained unsatisfied until now. The sites to house the shops 
and kitchens were donated. The sand is even picked up”.
There were several reasons for the delay in construction of the kitchens. Firstly, the responsibility 
of kitchen constructions was left with the community, but when assessments indicated that this 
would not be possible, savings were identified in the project budget, which was realigned to 
include kitchen and warehouse construction. Secondly, the initial plans did not include the 
expertise of an engineer, and once it was decided that this expertise was needed, 
accommodations were made, albeit with a delay. Lastly, given the project commitments and 
work load, the procurement of local commodities was prioritized over the construction activities. 
51
Despite these delays, CRS management indicates that everything is now ready for construction 
to start in schools: 
With the inadequacy of the budget line provided to cover the actual costs of the 
construction of stores and kitchens, we must go back to the lessor each time to agree on 
the new amounts. Subsequently, his physical agreement was obtained. Currently, the 
contract with the staff is signed and the start order is given, pending the final agreement 
with the finalization of the administrative documents.
Thus, considering that the arrangements are made at the level of the CRS to carry out this 
important activity, we can likely say that the LRP Project is in the process of achieving 100% in 
terms of the achievements of the activities.
4.2.8. Satisfaction
The COGES are satisfied with their role in the project and the local supply approach. The relative 
independence of COGES from existing structures in schools such as EPAs and the 
representativeness of community members gives it legitimacy within the community, and COGES 
members are committed to the success of the school canteen. While the satisfaction among 
students remains high, difficulties have been raised at the school level. In some villages, there is 
a lack of motivation of the cooks in the canteen, and there is a lack of supplies or condiments due 
to insufficient contributions. Taking action against these difficulties or adapting certain principles 
of the approach will only improve its relevance on these points.
4.2.9. Lessons learned and sustainability
Qualitative data indicates lessons learned from the LRP school canteen experience. It was noted 
that local agricultural products serve well in the school canteen, as is reflected in the statements 
of COGES member in Tchaourou: "We always thought that it is all that comes from outside that 
is well. But with the LRP, we realized that our local products are better compared to what is 
imported to us. Local consumption has become a reality for us". Aside from benefiting students, 
the use of local products in school canteens also provides a financial gain for producers. 
Another lesson learned is that the more actors involved in the COGES (e.g. teachers, parents of 
students, Directors), the greater the transparency and improved operation of the canteen.
Moreover, the opening and the increase of the number of members in the COGES to involve local 
elected representatives and other officials at various levels of the community structures were 
noted during the focus groups. Throughout the project there were several examples of actors 
outside of the COGES who served as integral contributors to the school canteen, as was the case 
in Tchaourou where the king contributed financially. Stakeholders therefore suggested that 
COGES be expanded to ensure a diversity of sources of support for the school canteen, and 
consequently a greater improvement in the quality of the meals that will be served to students. 
One COGES member states: "The COGES must be expanded to all the structures that exist in the 
52
villages and especially increase the number of its members. It is the participation of all that will 
need to expand the sources of funding of this canteen and participation in kind".
In the light of these lessons learned, several schemes for organizing school canteens based on 
local products are proposed by the interviewees. A gradual withdrawal of CRS is considered 
appropriate so that the COGES can be well prepared to manage school canteens (resource 
mobilization, canteen services and canteen and stock management). For autonomous operation 
of the school canteen without support from CRS, some have recommended that local farmers 
who are parents of students supply the food bank or school stores under management of COGES. 
This should involve a substantial reduction of any request for financial contribution to parents of 
students. Others propose initiating collective school fields that students or their parents will 
cultivate for the benefit of the school canteen. It should be noted that the first option is 
considered stronger than the second. A COGES member of EPP Dabou involved in the Parakou 
focus group states: 
It could be easier to ask the farmers for food than to ask them for money or tell them to 
go work in another field. After the assessment of our needs in staple foods/products or 
agricultural products, we will define the share to be given by each farmer. The condiments 
will be managed by the women of the village.
In terms of sustainability, most of the COGES members interviewed in all of the LRP communes 
felt that continuation of the LRP project would be a good thing for the entire community. One 
stakeholder in N’Dali states: "The renewal of this canteen is a necessity for parents, for teachers 
as well as for students". Another in Pèrèrè says: "It is very important to renew the project given 
the many benefits it provides to students, students’ parents and school’’.
Members of COGES expressed the need for additional time and resources to be able to sustain 
project initiatives. This is clear from the following statements from Student Parents FGD in N’Dali: 
"For the student parents’ associations to take over, requires a gradual learning over at least five 
years as was the case with mutual health". Parents of students also expressed concern in 
continuing to make payments for school meals, especially given the many other problems whose 
resolution requires additional efforts on the part of parents. This is reflected in a statement from 
a member of the Parents' Association in Parakou: 
Every year parents must be solicited through subscriptions to recruit community teacher 
deficit of teachers made available by the State. In these conditions other subscriptions 
are often poorly perceived by parents of students. This is the case with the contributions 
requested from parents to ensure the feeding of their children in the canteen. Despite 
the acceptable cost, parents often say they are out of breath to insure these 
contributions. This compromises the sustainability of the project which may stop as soon 
as the bully withdraws. 
Another member of the Parents’ Association in Tourou states:
53
The parents are already too much solicited in various subscriptions to make work the 
school by ensuring the effectiveness of the courses to through the recruitment of 
teachers. So, the contributions for a canteen entirely in charge of the school are not 
possible. The evidence despite the external contribution that reduces the cost of meals, 
some parents do not give. The height is that the APE office has been removed from the 
management of the canteen; how will we convince parents of the need for an additional 
contribution to the canteen? 
Some beneficiaries consider that the project was only at an experimental stage. Therefore, it is 
important that it be implemented over a longer period than that planned to consolidate learning. 
A parent of says: 
It is necessary to continue because, despite these limitations, it has been useful for many 
layers of society. People have benefited, even the project leaders have won a job. It's also 
our children. The project must continue; we have already done the most difficult, the 
experimental phase
To ensure the continuity of activities, CRS must gradually withdraw in order to give time to COGES 
to consolidates their capacities of canteen management (resource mobilization, stock 
management and management of canteen services). Similarly, sustainability will require a strong 
participation and community contribution. The following proposals were made by stakeholders: 
- Implement collective school fields whose harvests will be used to supply school canteens. 
For that, a proposal must be made to the government.
- Promote in-kind participation of student parents to supply the school canteens with the 
products of their own harvest.
- Involve community and communal leaders in the management of school canteens. For 
example, they can provide a budget line for women cooks and storekeepers, or for the 
canteen supply with condiments. 
- Advocate with partners other than CRS for support. 
4.3. Students
4.3.1. Sample characteristics
As shown in Table 25, a total of 3,216 students were surveyed at endline (1,668 in the control 
group and 1,548 in the intervention group). While at baseline a slightly higher majority of 
students were girls, at endline, a slight majority were boys.
54
Table 25. Sample characteristics - Students surveyed
 Period
Control 
schools
Intervention 
schools
Average number of students surveyed per 
school
Endline 47.7 44.2
Baseline 28.5 28.3
Number of students surveyed 
Endline 1,668 1,548
Baseline 988 1,001
% Female students
Endline 49.4 48.1
Baseline 51.9 51.5
By grade (%) 
CP (Grade 2) 
Endline 26.9 27.1
Baseline 21.7 21.8
CE1 
Endline 24.8 22.3
Baseline 20.2 24.4
CE2 
Endline 20.7 21.6
Baseline 21.5 21.6
CM1 
Endline 17.1 18.2
Baseline 20.1 17.6
CM2 (Grade 6) 
Endline 10.5 10.8
Baseline 16.5 14.7
By socioeconomic status (%) 
Poor
Endline 33.8 36.0
Baseline 32.5 32.7
Middle
Endline 30.2 35.2
Baseline 31.2 35.2
Rich
Endline 36.0 28.8
Baseline 36.3 32.2
4.3.2. Food consumption patterns
This section presents the top 10 foods cited by the students, in response to the following 
question: “Now I would like to ask you about meals you ate yesterday, during the day or at night. 
What meals did you eat yesterday? Did you eat this meal at home, at school, somewhere else? 
[FOR EACH MEAL, ASK SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS ABOUT MEAL COMPOSITION AND LOCATION]”.
The first step to process this open-ended question consisted of harmonizing manually the names 
of meals cited by students (they used different names for the same meal). Each reported meal 
was then multiplied by the number of times it was mentioned, whether it was eaten at home, at 
school or somewhere else. The results are shown in Table 26. 
55
Table 26. Top 10 meals consumed by students based on one day recall
Foods Cited Period
Control 
schools
Intervention 
schools
Difference
1. Pate (Made of maize, sorghum, yam, 
cassava, rice)
Endline 38.7 34.4 -4.3
Baseline 41.4 43.9 2.5
2. Boiled Rice
Endline 14.2 13.5 -0.7
Baseline 13.7 12.9 -0.8
3. Mango
Endline 7.6 8.2 0.6
Baseline 11.8 13.7 1.9
4. Porridge (Made of maize, sorghum, 
millet)
Endline 7.3 10.4 3.1
Baseline 6.6 9.8 3.2
5. Boiled Yam (Pounded or not)
Endline 4.3 3.4 -0.9
Baseline 4.0 5.9 1.9
6. Macaroni
Endline 3.9 1.8 -2.1
Baseline 4.2 2.2 -2.0
7. Wake (Made of rice and cowpea)
Endline 6.6 11.1 4.5
Baseline 3.8 1.2 -2.6
8. Beignet (Made of cowpea, maize, 
wheat)
Endline 4.3 2.8 -1.5
Baseline 2.1 2.4 0.3
9. Orange
Endline 0.5 0.4 -0.1
Baseline 2.0 1.0 -1.0
10. Akassa (Made of Maize)
Endline 2.7 1.4 -1.3
Baseline 1.6 1.2 -0.4
11. Others
Endline 9.9 12.6 2.7
Baseline 8.8 5.8 -3.0
Total
Endline 100.0 100.0
Baseline 100.0 100.0
Number of occurrences (n)
Endline 5,947 5,958 11
Baseline 1,512 1,596 84.0
In general, students participating in the focus-groups recognized that local foods are served in 
the school canteen. In N'Dali for example, students report that local meals mainly consist of: 
Wake (rice + beans); Gberewake (corn + beans); Zampiti (beans + maize flour); rice; akassa; and 
pate. And in Tchaourou, local foods such as Wake (rice + beans); Gberewake (corn + beans); and 
Zampiti (beans + maize flour) are served in the school canteen. 
As part of the LRP Project, school children are served a meal once a day; in this case for lunch 
between noon and 1pm. Most of the students believe that they are served on time, except in 
Parakou commune were some students suggest that service is often delayed. One student states: 
56
"The cooks do not finish cooking early and we are stuck. It is late that we are served food and 
that we are in school sometimes until 1:30pm or 2:00pm".
There is a general consensus among students that the quantity of meals is sufficient, but student 
reporting on quality of meals varies. In Tchaourou, most students declared their satisfaction as 
much for the quantity as the quality: "The meal of the canteen is served only once at noon in 
large quantity and quality. It's very very very nice”. However, there are meals that are not 
appreciated by students. Unanimously, the food ''Zampiti'' made with beans + maize flour is not 
liked by children because: "If we eat this meal, the belly becomes bloated”. In Tchaourou, all 
students agreed that that they do not like the "Gbéréwake" dish made from maize and beans. 
Also, the use of shea butter is appreciated by some but not others. For some (like children in the 
Baatonou area), the introduction of this oil does not cause physical discomforts, but children 
rather dislike the taste of this oil due to the cooking technique used at school. A student from
N'Dali commune states: “It is this oil that we consume at home, but that of the school is often 
bitter. Sometimes it sticks in my throat and smells unpleasant when eaten. Apart from that, I do 
not find any problem eating this oil”. For other students who are not from Baatonou, shea butter 
oil is more for cosmetic use rather than consumption use. Because the various preferences 
among students varied by community, it is important for COGES to ensure that student feedback 
concerning meals is taken into consideration for future meal planning.
4.3.3. Foods at school that they consume at home
The percentage of students who consume the same foods at home as they do at school is shown 
in Table 27. The percentage of students who consumed the same foods at school and at home 
increased from baseline to endline in both the intervention schools (+11.6 percentage points) 
and in the control schools (+5.3 percentage points). The impact estimate of 6.4 percentage points 
is statistically significant at the level of 5%. It did not vary by sex, but varied greatly by 
socioeconomic status, with higher value of +18.4 (p<0.05) among the middle class. 
Table 27. Foods consumed at school and at home
 Period
Control 
schools 
Intervention 
schools
Difference
Diff. in 
differences
Consumed foods at school that 
they consume at home
Endline 25.3 34.0 8.8
6.4**
Baseline 20.0 22.4 2.4
By sex
Female
Endline 24.7 34.6 9.8
5.9*
Baseline 18.9 22.8 3.9
Male
Endline 25.8 33.5 7.7
6.7*
Baseline 21.1 22.1 1.0
57
 Period
Control 
schools 
Intervention 
schools
Difference
Diff. in 
differences
By socioeconomic status
Poor
Endline 23.3 28.6 5.4
3.3
Baseline 21.3 23.4 2.1
Middle
Endline 25.1 38.2 13.1
18.4***
Baseline 20.1 14.7 -5.3
Rich
Endline 26.7 36.6 9.9 -1.1
Baseline 19.0 30.0 11.0
For Difference in differences: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
Although the LRP approach prioritizes the consumption of similar meals at home and at school, 
it is important to point out that there is a tendency in students to prefer the meals that are 
consumed rarely at home. In Parakou, the most popular foods for students in this canteen are 
food taken at home in special occasion such as '' Amiyo''. In Tchaourou, when children are asked 
for their preferences, they tend to choose what is rarely served at home. Students during a focus￾group state: "We do not want beans with maize, because we eat beans at home. We do not want 
the dough because the dough is not good, because we eat the dough at home’’. Based on these 
responses, it may be helpful to consider a greater diversity of dishes, combining local meals with 
some imported products for school canteens. 
4.3.4. Minimum acceptable diet
Table 28 below refers to the percentage of students receiving a minimum acceptable diet (MAD). 
In both the control and intervention schools, this percentage actually decreased from baseline to 
endline, no matter the sex or socioeconomic status of students. The impact estimate is not 
statistically significant at the level of 10% in the general population. To further understand the 
decrease, we explored the two components of MAD calculation. A MAD is defined as eating four 
or more of the seven target food groups2F
3, and a minimum frequency of three times the previous 
day. The percentage of students who ate at least three times decreased from baseline to endline 
in both arms by about 6 percentage points. Similarly, the percentage of students who ate four or 
more of the food groups dropped by 5 percentage points in the control schools and by 10 
percentage points in the intervention schools (results not shown). Table 28 further shows a 
negative and statistically significant impact among girls (-10.4, p<0.05).
3
Foods were classified into the seven food groups as specified by USDA: 1) Grains, roots and tubers, 2) Legumes and 
nuts, 3) Dairy products (milk, yogurt, cheese), 4) Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats), 5) Eggs, 6) 
Vitamin-A enriched foods, including vegetable oil, fruits and vegetables and 7) Other fruits and vegetables
58
Table 28. Percentage of students receiving a minimum acceptable diet 
 Period
Control 
schools
Intervention 
schools
Difference
Diff. in 
differences
Received a minimum acceptable diet
Endline 49.1 54.3 5.3 -4.3
Baseline 54.7 64.3 9.6
By sex
Female
Endline 50.5 49.3 -1.2 -10.4**
Baseline 55.5 64.7 9.2
Male
Endline 47.7 59.6 11.9
1.9
Baseline 54.0 64.0 10.0
By socioeconomic status
Poor
Endline 39.6 42.1 2.5 -6.1
Baseline 45.1 53.8 8.6
Middle
Endline 47.8 60.8 12.9
2.2
Baseline 56.6 67.4 10.8
Rich
Endline 56.4 64.1 7.8 -3.6
Baseline 60.4 71.9 11.4
For Difference in differences: *p<0.1; **p<0.05; ***p<0.01
The quantitative results suggest that the students feeding patterns did not satisfy a minimum 
food diversity quality, particularly within LRP intervention schools. This result is supported by the 
above discussions reporting a wide range of opinions regarding the quality of the meals served 
in the LRP school canteens as opposed to collective appreciation of quantity of foods served. 
While rules requiring that school canteens make meals available to students regardless of 
availability to pay are intended to promote improved nutrition among all students, this practice 
may limit resources to pay for a diversity of foods, like fish which is more expensive. Although 
this ensures that all students have access to the canteens, it does have implications for diversity
of ingredients and the perceived quality of meals. 
Furthermore, the decrease from baseline to endline in the indicator relating to minimum 
acceptable diet does not necessarily mean that children were fed better last year compared to 
this year. In contrary, LRP school canteens have rather made student eating patterns more 
consistent (with consistent ingredients as opposed to an occasional mango or cassava root here 
or there). This greater consistency could be a contributor to this indicator demonstrating lower 
diversity of foods, as opposed to greater access to consistent meals. Qualitative data supports 
this idea that the nutritional status of children actually improved. For example, a COGES member 
in Tchaourou states: “I noticed that there are fewer cases of diseases this year in the school; no 
case of child fallen because of hunger. Also, the children have fattened with big cheeks. I say it's 
because they get to eat balanced all week long in the canteen”.
59
Through this interpretation of the data, it is understood that the meals provided by the canteen 
are not detracting from the nutritional status of children, but are rather contributing to healthier 
diet patterns, given that school canteen meals are valued as an important meal for students.
4.3.5. School attendance 
School attendance shows little difference between control and intervention schools when it 
comes to students’ regular attendance, although this information was only collected at endline. 
This data is provided in Table 29. The percentage of students who attended school at least 80% 
of the time is 0.7 percentage point higher in the intervention arm. Since different schools or 
classes within schools may have different schedules, the number of school days in the year show 
a very small variation across the two study groups. 
Table 29. Students regularly attending USDA supported classrooms/schools 
 Control 
schools
Intervention 
schools Difference
Average number of school days during the year 113.4 112.7 -0.7
Percentage of students who attended school at least 
80% of time 97.9 98.6 0.73
Number of students who attended school at least 80% 
of time 25,734 8,750 NA
Total number of students for whom attendance was 
recorded 26,289 8,872 NA
Total number of students for whom attendance was 
not recorded 3,885 1,456 NA
Total number of grade 2-6 students 30,174 10,328 NA
On the other hand, qualitative data shows that stakeholders perceive student attendance to have 
improved in LRP intervention areas. Teachers that were interviewed seemed to think that 
students’ attendance and attention in classes improved considerably in the LRP program areas. 
A teacher from a N'Dali intervention school states: 
In the school, the project was able to make changes to the attendance at class and on 
time, the attendance in class because the children ate well at noon and this is reflected in 
their behavior in the classroom especially if it is their favorite dish that is prepared. The 
children are happy and there is a good atmosphere in class.
For schoolchildren, the project has made it possible to improve their nutrition and indirectly 
improve their school experience. Indeed, many schoolchildren have an irregular school life 
because they cannot afford to eat when they are in school. A representative of APE of Suanin in 
N’Dali recounts examples of how the LRP project addressed student challenges: 
60
Many pupils have feeding difficulties. When their parents leave in the morning, they do 
not return until the evening and these children are left to their fate for lunch. Some are 
forced to sell a few items first before finding something to eat. They come back to school 
late at night. Others do not even come back because they did not find anything to eat. As 
a result, evening staffing was always lower than in the morning. The LRP is necessary for 
us to counter these problems
School staff report the greatest improvements in attendance among students whose homes are 
far from school. According to interviews, prolonged absence that turns into school dropout
decreased because students no longer had to leave school before the end of the day to eat. A 
School Principal in 
Thanks to this canteen, the absenteeism of students from farms in a village 
located about 3.5km has dropped considerably. The students are diligent and the 
dropouts have dropped. For the year passed on the same date there were a hundred long￾term absentees who ended up being classified as dropouts at the end of the school year. 
But this year on the same date there are only about thirty long-term absentees.
Other stakeholders who were interviewed reported a reduction in illnesses due to poor nutrition 
and poor hygiene practices thanks to the provision of school meals. The school 
Principal explains: 
The formerly frequent vomiting is no longer observed in schoolchildren. Hygiene practices 
have become more prevalent. Washing of hands with soap and water has become 
widespread among students. The quantity and quality of students' meals improved with 
regard to unsatisfactory rations to which their scholarship at the level of private catering 
was entitled.
Finally, the school canteen has created motivation and interest among schoolchildren to go to 
school, whether or not they have constraints. Here is the statement of a teacher in Tchaourou: 
Without a canteen, you had to scold the child several times before going to school. But 
now they are more eager to go to school. Especially when they know that the Watche will 
be prepared. In Pèrèrè, it is reported that children are excited to go to school. 
However, it is necessary to note how the activities of the school canteen have the potential to 
encroach on the learning time of some schoolchildren. For example, students in N’Dali (
reported that they spend time searching for firewood 
for the kitchen after school, encroaching on their studying time. And some girls from N’Dali are 
pulled out of class to help with cooking (e.g. wash bowls and pots and sometimes to clean the 
kitchen). While these roles for students were not part of the original project plans, COGES 
members identified these tasks as student contributions. These cases can be detrimental to the 
achievement of academic performance outcomes and contrary to the positive effects of the 
school canteen.
61
4.3.6. Effects on students’ families
It is necessary to note benefits to both students and their families. In describing his report, the 
head of the SAS states:
During our field trip to the in N'Dali commune, I had the opportunity to attend 
a lunch time for school children. The students who eat at this LRP canteen are happy to 
participate in the meals and show a very happy air. This emotional satisfaction that 
emerges from the eyes of these students is very important for their life in general and 
their school life in particular. 
Also, the presence of these canteens in schools allows parents to be less concerned about the 
food of their children at school and to be able to go about other occupations. A parent of a 
student of the in Pèrèrè expresses it in these terms: 
The canteen LRP too relieved the parents in the cooking of the lunch. Thanks to this 
canteen, the mothers of school children no longer bothered at noon to provide food for 
the children. Fathers can go about their business freely. They can go to the field, or travel 
without worrying about what the schoolboy will eat at noon. 
Further, the provision of school meals by the canteens has contributed to a reduction in disputes 
among parents in regards to the meals they are able to provide for their children. Families feel 
more comforted knowing that all children are better cared for with the addition of the school 
meal.
4.3.7. Lessons learned
For some schoolchildren, the LRP school canteen provides at least one well-balanced meal per 
day. A parent in Tchaourou says it in these terms: 
When I take the case of at noon, all children go home to a single 
parent who still has no means to support needs of these. The child comes to school with 
a yam tuber. That's what he eats at 10H and sometimes at 12H at his host. This happens 
every day, without variation. This exposed children to diseases related to chronic 
malnutrition. Today all this is finished. Because the LRP project has brought the solution.
CRS management has also concluded that this project created joy in students school life, in these 
terms: “On the students’ side, this project makes joy in the students school life; knowing that 
they will have access to foods in school canteens taking them to school with joy”.
In the opinion of all the children in the intervention communes, it is necessary to renew the LRP 
school canteen, considering the numerous advantages and the solutions that it has brought to 
them. However, some lessons are learned from the process and should be taken into account in 
the future. Students suggest that their involvement in the preparation of meals for the supply of 
wood, the washing of pots and other utensils during school hours is disadvantageous for them, 
particularly girls, and can impede valuable learning time. Furthermore, while students appreciate 
62
that school meals are prepared with local products, there are some specific meals or methods of 
preparation that are unfavorable, and their rotation out of the school menu should be 
considered. 
4.4. Government and commune level partnerships
4.4.1. Government level actors 
The LRP project brought together several governmental actors; the Department of School 
Feeding (DAS), the School Food Service (SAS) of the Departmental Directorate of Maternal and 
Primary Education (DDEMP), the Ministry of Planning, and the Division of Regulation and Control 
of Vegetable Products (DRCPV) of the Departmental Directorate of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries (DDAEP). 
Indeed, the involvement of the different actors in the LRP Project responds to a specific and 
strategic need for the successful implementation of its two intervention arms, namely school 
feeding and the strengthening of agricultural producers for the supply of quality products at 
school canteens. The DRCPV is solicited on behalf of the DDAEP for its expertise in the field of 
quality control. The control is done at the time of purchase by the samples that are made and 
sent to the lab for toxicity analysis (presence of pesticides, germs, etc.). Control is also periodically 
done in the field by the DDAEP technicians who visit the LRP canteen school stores every three 
months. Appropriate recommendations are made according to the findings. The DDEMP through 
the SAS was involved in the project steering committee in all phases of the project, namely the 
preparatory phase and the implementation phase. The SAS was represented at project framing 
workshops, launching the project, selecting offers from producer cooperatives for the supply of 
agricultural products, and evaluation missions during the implementation of the project. This 
made it possible to make proposals and recommendations as much as necessary. Interest in the 
LRP project's local procurement approach has increased at the level of government structures 
and this is proven with the Ministry of Planning, which has also joined the steering team.
4.4.2. Commune level actors 
The LRP project has been strongly deployed at the local level in close relation with communes. In 
particular, two committees were formed to be the functional arms of communes in the LRP 
project; a Procurement Committee (CPC) and a Supervision Committee (CLOC) were set up in 
each of the four intervention communes. The creation of these committees was ratified by 
decrees taken at the commune levels.
The Procurement Committee (CPC) is composed of three members from the commune, namely 
the Responsible of Planning Service, the Chair or his representative (e.g., The First Deputy in most 
of the four intervention centers) and the Responsible of Social Affairs Service. The CPC is set up 
to take ownership of the local process of purchase of agricultural products of the LRP project in 
order to support its continuity following completion of the LRP project. To this end, the LRP 
project has considered their involvement in all stages of the selection process as well as their 
63
responsibility for the purchase of small lots of local agricultural products, in this case maize, at 
the commune level.
The Supervision Committee (CLOC) is composed of two members, namely a representative of the 
civil society and a head of the school district intervening at the commune level. The CLOC is set 
up to oversee monitoring and control of the local supply system with the intention of continuing 
the local supply approach for the school canteen. 
CRS management summarized the responsibilities of the CPC and CLOCs by stating:
The municipal procurement committees and the municipal supervision committees were 
set up in the various intervention communes to participate in the LRP project processes 
to strengthen their capacity to implement a local initiative in this direction. The 
procurement committees should be empowered to buy maize at the local level while 
supervision committees are involved in the process of controlling and ensuring its proper 
functioning. The supervision committees ensure compliance with the conditions of 
organization and implementation, regarding the purchase of agricultural products by 
procurement committees and the use of the products by the COGES.
Supply Committees and Supervisory Committees collaborated with the municipal authorities of 
the four intervention communes, the rural and agricultural development projects working in the 
intervention areas (ProAgri and PASDeR), and the Organizations of Agricultural Producers 
(Alliance Karité Benin, Regional Union of Producers of the Borgou and Alibori Departments, and 
Regional Union of Rice Producers) who formed the project management team.
At the communal level, the creation of the Procurement Committees and the Supervision 
Committees in the intervention area is the signal of the local anchoring of the project. These two 
communal structures were involved in the implementation of the project according to a practical 
learning process based on training and experience (e.g. participation in the LRP process steps). 
On the other hand, sharing the role with the URP as a sub-recipient of the project in carrying out 
the capacity building activities of producers has strength. Likewise, because of their proximity to 
producers, the involvement of umbrella organizations (in general, in the pre-selection of 
cooperative suppliers of agricultural products, in the audit of the existence of these cooperatives, 
and the assistance and advice in the different stages of the sales process of the LRP project) has 
supported their ability to honor their commitment. PASDER and ProAgri have contributed their 
expertise in the field of agricultural education and training for the reinforcement of the 
capabilities of the producers with regard to the interventions already carried out at their level. 
The various trainings have reinforced the capacities of stakeholders and have helped to fill in the 
remaining gaps (e.g. the writing of bidding documents). 
In practice, the CPCs and CLOCs did not have autonomy throughout the time of the LRP project; 
these two committees do not have internal regulations, statutes, or operating budgets. It is 
therefore difficult to assess the level of functioning of these committees and their achievements. 
64
Members meet as needed to prepare for participation in meetings initiated by the LRP. Members' 
expenses for attending these meetings are directly funded by the LRP project. These committees 
usually do not make decisions, but execute the CRS guidelines. A CPC member at Parakou states: 
The effectiveness of its activities is closely linked to initiatives coming directly from CRS. 
Given the way the committee operates, we cannot talk about decisions coming from this 
body. The committee executes orders that reach it in accordance with the invitation and 
guidelines of the LRP Project.
In this same line, a member of the Supervision Committee states: 
We cannot talk about a budget for a committee that does not even have a work schedule. 
I think things work according to the invitations and choices of CRS. We intervene just to 
help solve a social problem and our expertise is solicited as a specialist in a field in the 
service of the state that employs us.
Nevertheless, through their involvement in the LRP project, these committees played several 
roles in familiarizing LRP stakeholders with the reality of the local food procurement approach 
for school canteens. For the CPCs, these activities or roles include:
- Participation in training on the supply approach of school canteens with local products;
- Publication of calls for tenders in the partner radios of the town halls;
- Participation in the workshops of the offers of suppliers of agricultural products;
- Participation in the verification of the existence of the pre-selected cooperatives;
- Participation in the delivery of food to the LRP project. When it was still necessary to 
deliver to the communal stores retained by the LRP project before distributing it to the 
schools, the presence of the members of the supply committee was required. But after, 
when the delivery was made directly to schools, this role was removed.
These roles and activities were similar among the Supervision Committees’ members who also 
participated in monitoring and evaluation with the CRS team. 
4.4.3. Satisfaction
Various institutional actors (governments, communes, project staff) find a certain pride with 
their participation in this model of school feeding. However, it is important to stress the 
difficulty of ensuring a balanced sharing of roles that has occurred in such a multi-stakeholder 
environment. In particular, with the value chain approach promoted by the government, 
producer organizations linking to specific value chains are better suited to provide technical 
support for their members. While the LRP project considered the URP as key project partner for 
the implementation of activities concerning all producers, the URPR would be more appropriate 
to carry out the activities in favor of its members that include the Producer Associations of rice. 
This has created some frustrations and has somewhat disrupted the participation of the URPR 
and ProAgri (which also supports the URPR). On the other hand, some difficulties in relations 
are reported, particularly in connection with communication (e.g. SAS/DDEMP and ProAgri 
staffs reported a late sending of meeting invitations to them) or the absence of partnership 
65
agreements. For example, the absence of partnership agreement has enabled actors from 
DDAEP involving in the LRP project to use official cars for field trips.
4.4.4. Challenges and opportunities
The short implementation period for the LRP project posed challenges in strengthening local 
capacity of CPCs and CLOCs. For example, the procurement of small lots of maize, which are 
planned to be carried out by the CPCs at the communal level to give them more opportunity for 
practical experience, was not effective. One key aspect is the fact that the Government is not 
supporting an active role of the Mayor’s offices in the management of school canteens, and the 
Town Halls are not involved in canteen management. The short implementation time of only one 
year limited possibility for the transfer of function to these committees, and an extended 
implementation timeline may foster improved partnership with government entities. A project 
timeline of three years would be recommended to achieve increased sustainability. As indicated 
in qualitative interviews, local stakeholders suggest an extended timeline of five years. 
Furthermore, the low level of institutionalization and the current financial difficulties at the level 
of the communes explains the reluctance of CRS to entrust financial resources to these 
committees during its pilot stage. A member of CRS management states: 
It's a learning project; it was not clear at the outset what the roles of these committees 
were. Given the temporary nature of these committees, which also do not have a strong 
institutional base combined with the financial difficulties facing our municipalities, it was 
difficult to keep the project money by these procurement committees for the purchase 
of the products as planned.
Opportunities to overcome such challenges include the review of current plans, programs or 
school feeding strategies at national level to consider the inclusion of these committees in larger 
plans. The LRP project has contributed to and complemented the interventions of the Beninese 
government, local governments and even other partners in support of rural development in 
general. The head of the SAS states: 
School feeding in the form of school canteen is a concern of the Beninese government 
that is currently investing itself. It is therefore a need of the State - to be accompanied by 
other structures to cover the largest number of students in our Department (Borgou￾Alibori), why not all the students of Benin - that the project LRP came to fill.
In addition, the Director of the Facilitation and Management Unit of PASDeR explains: 
These government policies place greater emphasis on market access for small producers. 
Likewise, the LRP project, through its approach based on the supply of local agricultural 
products to school canteens, contributes. 
Further, all stakeholders approve of the project mission, which has also been revered by others 
not directly involved in the project. For example, the Head of the SAS states: "The school canteen 
66
model of LRP based on the local supply of products is in itself the innovation of the project; this 
approach will not be long in schooling all over the country and beyond in the next years ". CRS 
management also reports that the project has already received visits and solicitations at national 
and regional level to share its successes. They state: 
Several delegations have been here already in the intervention area to learn about the 
local procurement approach. The CRS Burkina-Faso has already contacted us and several 
Skype discussions are being conducted with them and it is preparing a visit mission, after 
which the CRS Burkina-Faso also plans to experience.
4.4.5. Lessons learned and sustainability
When asked about lessons learned, committee members noted how the local supply approach is 
relevant for school feeding, and transparency in the selection of local suppliers contributes to the 
success of the local procurement approach. A member of a Procurement Committee states: 
The LRP allowed us to have a very useful procurement experience in terms of quality 
standards. transparency and impartiality. We are happy with the way the process was 
conducted. We have also acquired procurement know-how that will serve us in similar 
initiatives in the future.
Furthermore, the training has shown to be effective in developing local capacities. A committee 
member explains: 
We, too, a member of the committee, received some training that has now made us able 
to make the supply in a professional way, which is an asset for the mayor who can exploit 
the resource people we have become in this area through the LRP. 
In terms of sustainability, the involvement of the Procurement and Supervision Committees in 
the LRP project gives them the experience necessary for continuation of these roles in future 
endeavors. A member of a Procurement Committee in Pèrèrè states: 
The training sessions were done on the mechanisms for the sustainability of school 
canteens through the learning of supplier selection procedures and the examination of 
offers. The appropriation of this practice by the purchasing committee allows the
continuation of this activity.
On the other hand, a lack of a funding strategy for these committees to ensure their participation 
in the local procurement of school canteens following completion of the LRP project threatens 
sustainability. While all costs were covered by the LRP project, there is no source of sustainable 
funding for the support of these committees. In particular, it should be noted that the Town Halls 
to which these committees are affiliated are less inclined to support a school canteen initiative 
that would entail a financial burden, because of other priorities and limited resources. A member 
of a communal authority interviewed in Parakou states: "The LRP is an initiative external to the 
city council but which fills a void left in the state of project. The Town Hall has other priorities, 
and also the resources are limited. So, there is no budget reserved for school canteens". 
67
Currently, the Ministry of Education does not have a blanketed approach requiring Town Halls to 
support school canteens. Rather, government involvement in school canteens is according to the 
diverse initiatives of different agencies that support government involvement in school canteens, 
and that vary by area of implementation. 
According to government authorities, a second phase of the project is needed so that producers 
and parents can improve their experience in the supply and management of school canteens. 
Government structures, such as School Food Service (SAS) suggest that CRS intensify training and 
ensure that all equipment, including kitchen and storage facilities and devices for accessing 
drinking water in certain schools, are in place to improve the functioning of these canteens. 
Government structures, such as the School Food Service (SAS), has a good attitude towards the 
sustainability of the local supply approach for school canteens, and conveyed their intention to 
scale the program in the coming years. Likewise, the communal authorities are favorable for the 
continuity of the project. But government structures such as these rely on the renewal of the 
project with the accompaniment of the partner. The communal authority in Parakou states: "The 
aspiration of the communal authority is the renewal of this project with always the 
accompaniment of the partner. Otherwise the LRP will not be sustainable”. Government entities 
have not reserved resources or developed concrete strategies to continue to support the LRP 
school canteens. 
Furthermore, the local supply committees and the supervisory committees that would play a 
pivotal role in the replication of the LRP model have not had sufficient practical experience to 
autonomously procure commodities. These committees have witnessed the LRP / CRS project 
play a unifying role in intervention communities, but need additional experience acting 
autonomously at the municipal level. Hence, additional efforts to support government entities in 
scaling up this approach are needed. 
To ensure the sustainability of the project, CRS has advocated for sustainability measures with 
stakeholders and the funder. CRS has advocated with national actors (Government and WFP), 
requesting that the operation of the 80 intervention school canteens continue this next school 
year. CRS has also advocated among donors for the generalization of this local approach to supply 
school canteens in existing school canteen projects in Benin. One CRS staff member states: “Since 
the same donor is financing other school canteens with the approach of imported products from 
the United States, we try to convince him that the local approach is by far favored by the 
government and local actors”.
In addition to advocating for sustainability measures, CRS is capitalizing on its learning and 
opportunities for scale up by documenting the project approach. The main hope is that the 
government or WFP can draw inspiration from this documentation to develop improved school 
feeding strategies. A statement from a CRS staff member illustrates this: "The LRP project within 
it is very motivated to share the experience. Currently, everything is documented about the 
68
approach, and its implementation to serve as a guide to very specific actors from the 
Government, PTF supporting the Government school feeding program, and the WFP.
Factors that may impact the sustainability of the project include:
- The renewal of the project for the consolidation of achievements;
- The participation / contribution model of the beneficiaries;
- The institutional environment of producers (access to support services for producers);
- The inclusion of the approach by government in the national strategy of school feeding and 
the communal plans and budgets respectively.
The sustainability of this project depends on the government mainly on two levels:
- Taking into account advocacy to take charge of LRP canteens as soon as the project ends;
- The adoption and institutionalization of the local procurement approach as part of the 
development of the National School Feeding Strategy.
5. Results: Comparison Study
While the study was originally designed to compare the LRP and the McGovern-Dole (MGD) 
systems, we ended up including the WFP system. Since the three programs do not necessarily 
use the same commodities, we are using the following categories:
• Maize in LRP and WFP, and SFCM (soy-fortified cornmeal commodity) in MGD
• Rice: in all three systems
• Legumes: Cowpea in LRP; peas and lentils in MGD; beans in WFP 
• Cooking oil (Shea butter in LRP; VEGO in MGD; Vitamins A &D enriched oil in WFP). 
During a meeting on September 9, 2019 that brought together staff members from WFP, MGD 
and LRP to review the preliminary results of the comparison study, the scope of the study was 
somewhat revised. The discussions revealed among other things, that cost data is not 
comparable between WFP on the one hand, and LRP and MGD on the other hand. Tables on costs 
will therefore feature LRP and MGD only. The cost data collected from the LRP and MGD relates 
to:
• Purchase of commodities; 
• Delivery of commodities to the programs’ stores
• Distribution of commodities to beneficiary schools. 
We have slightly modified the label of the first indicator, from “cost per meal” to “commodity 
costs per meal”, as the original label may be misleading (we are estimating not a cost per meal, 
but a commodity cost per meal. All costs were provided in US dollars ($). Where applicable, an 
exchange rate of 1$=580 CFA Francs (the local currency) is used in the analysis. 
We also collected data on the number of days corresponding the following three procurement 
phases: 
69
• Purchase contracting time;
• Purchase contracting to delivery to the programs’ central stores;
• Delivery to beneficiary schools. 
5.1. Cost differences
The first indicator of interest is the cost (from purchase to distribution) differential between local 
market commodity and MGD. Table 30 shows the differentials in commodity cost per MT, across 
the MDG and LRP programs. As can be seen, the LRP system has higher average commodity cost 
per MT on three out of the four target commodities, compared to the MGD system. For example, 
LRP’s rice is about 10% more expense than MGD’s fortified rice , and cowpea is about 30% more 
expensive than the equivalent in the MGD system. 
Table 30. Differentials in commodity cost per MT ($/MT) between LRP and MGD systems
MGD System LRP System Differentials
SFCM/Maize 887.68 287.60 -600.07
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 848.82 1,099.34 250.52
Rice 817.74 903.91 86.17
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 1,402.18 1,874.94 472.76
The different steps for the calculation of the second indicator, the cost per meal differential 
between local school feeding approach and MGD, are captured in Tables 31a-d and Table 32. 
Table 31a shows the weekly (Monday-Friday) composition of canteen menus, as it relates to the 
target commodities. For example, in LRP supported school canteens, 175 grams of maize are
included in each student’s meal on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and 175 grams of rice 
included on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The schedule is similar in MGD schools with regard to SFMC 
and rice. 
Table 31a.Quantities of commodities in the weekly school canteens' rations (in grams) in LRP and 
MGD systems
 MGD System LRP System Days in the week 
SFCM/Maize 175 175 Monday, Wednesday, Friday
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 30 30 All five days
Rice 175 175 Tuesday, Thursday
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 8 10 All five days
70
From the Minister of Education’s order fixing the schedule for the school year 2018-20193F
4, we 
derived the number of school days as shown in Table 31b.
Table 31b. Number of school days during the 2018-2019 school year
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday total
First Term 14 14 14 13 14 69
2nd Term 13 13 13 12 13 64
3rd Term 8 9 8 8 9 42
Total 35 36 35 33 36 175
Table 31c presents the differentials in commodity cost per student during the school year 2018-
2019. The commodity cost per student for the school year is obtained by multiplying the 
corresponding unit cost in Table 30 by the corresponding quantity in Table 31a and by the 
corresponding number of days in Table 31b. Overall, commodity cost per student and per school 
year is estimated at $25.30 in the LRP systems, compared to $32.76 in the MGD systems. The 
cost is therefore lower in LRP by $7.46 (or 4,325 CFA Francs). 
Table 31c. Differentials in commodity cost per student during the school year 2018-2019
MGD System LRP System Differentials
SFCM/Maize 16.47 5.34 -11.13
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 4.46 5.77 1.32
Rice 9.87 10.91 1.04
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 1.96 3.28 1.32
Total in $/student 32.76 25.30 -7.46
Total in CFA Francs/student 19,001 14,675 -4,325
Note: Exchange rate of 1$ = 580 CFA Francs
Finally, the indicator of interest is derived by dividing the total row in table 31c by the total 
number of school days (175 days), as shown in Table 31d. The average commodity cost per meal 
and per student is lower in the LRP model, at $0.14 (or 84 CFA Francs), against $0.19 (or 109 CFA 
Francs) in the MGD system. 
4
Arrêté Interministériel no 2018/081 fixant le calendrier de l’année scolaire 2018-2019 dans les 
établissements des enseignements maternel, primaire, secondaire général, technique et professionnel.
71
Table 31d. Differentials in average commodity cost per meal and per student between LRP and 
MGD systems ($/meal)
MGD System LRP System Differentials
In $ 0.19 0.14 -0.04
In CFA Francs 109 84 -25
Note: Exchange rate of 1$ = 580 CFA Francs
To further illustrate the differentials in cost per meal, we identified from the full list of meals 
served and their composition, the following meals that appear to be comparable content-wise 
across the two systems. These are:
• Dambou: Maize (175g), Cowpea (30g) and shea butter (10g) in LRP; SFCM (175g), lentils (30g) 
and VEGO (8g) in MGD
• Zampiti: Maize (175g), Cowpea (30g) and shea butter (10g) in LRP; SFCM (175g), lentils (30g) 
and VEGO (8g) in MGD;
• Wake: Rice (175g), Cowpea (30g) and shea butter (10g) in LRP; Rice (175g), lentils (30g) and 
VEGO (8g) in MGD;
• Pasta: Maize (175g) and Cowpea (30g) in LRP; SFCM (175g) and LENTILS (30g) in MGD;
• Rice: Rice (175g) and Cowpea (30g) in LRP; Rice (175g) and peas (30g) in MGD. 
Table 32 shows the commodity cost for these five meals. As can be seen, commodity cost of 
Dambou/Zampiti and pasta (maize/soy pasta) is approximately 50% lower in the LRP system. The 
commodity cost of wake and rice is slightly lower (by 7% and 15%, respectively) in the MGD 
system. 
Table 32. Differentials in commodity cost for specific, comparable meals between LRP and MGD 
systems ($/meal)
MGD System 
(US$)
LRP System 
(US$)
Differentials
US$ CFA Francs
Dambou/Zampiti 0.21 0.10 -0.11 -61
Wake 0.20 0.21 0.01 8 
Pasta 0.20 0.08 -0.11 -66
Rice 0.16 0.19 0.03 17
Qualitative data indicates that the supply mechanism in the MGD project was based on the high 
level of profitability of agriculture in the United States that makes US food products cheaper than 
those in Benin. But by including transportation costs from the United States to Benin and the cost 
of distributing these products to the beneficiary schools, this method of supply proves to be quite 
expensive; hence the following statement by a MGD staff member: 
72
The level of profitability of agriculture in the United States makes the value of food more 
advantageous than local production. However, this advantage is reduced or even lost in 
some cases depending on the costs that will be added from the United States to the 
beneficiaries' plates. 
However, WFP Staff in charge of program who combine three methods of supply (International, 
Regional and Local) think they have developed a strong mechanism to make supplies cheaper 
and quite faster. One staff member states: "We have no elements of appreciation and 
comparison to answer this question. However, we know that WFP's strategy enables cost￾effective and time-saving procurement; WFP has developed proven expertise in the field ". 
Finally, for the LRP staff in charge of program, the local procurement method favoring local 
cooperatives that has been adopted considerably reduces costs.
5.2. Time differences
The terms of reference for the study requested that time estimates be divided by the quantities 
to account for the fact that it takes longer to purchase and deliver larger quantities, suggesting 
that the underlying indicator is time per MT. The indicator time per MT may be questionable, 
since it implies that for example, it would take about five times longer to say, deliver 5 MT of rice 
to schools, compared to delivering 1 MT. Table 33 presents both the average time (in days) and 
average time per MT (in days/MT), for the total time and for each of the three segments
(purchase contracting, delivery to central stores, and delivery to beneficiary schools). These four 
variables correspond to the four target indicators on time differentials. 
Table 33 shows that the total time (from contracting to delivery to beneficiary schools) is 
substantially shorter in the LRP model, compared with the WFP and MGD systems. Purchase 
contracting time is the shortest in the WFP system and the longest in the MGD system. There is 
no delivery to central stores in the LRP system. Time for delivery to schools is almost the same in 
both the LRP and MGD programs, and substantially longer in the WFP. 
Table 33. Time differentials between LRP and MGD systems (days)
WFP 
System (1)
MGD 
System (2)
LRP System 
(3)
Differentials
(3)-(1) (3)-(2)
1a. Total time from purchase contracting to delivery to schools (days)
SFCM/Maize 120 198.0 120.5 0.5 -77.5
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 120 198.0 106.3 -13.7 -91.7
Rice 120 198.0 108.3 -11.7 -89.7
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 120 198.0 87.0 -33.0 -111.0
1b. Total time from purchase contracting to delivery to schools per MT (days/MT)
SFCM/Maize 0.03 5.08 1.49 1.46 -3.59
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 0.07 6.45 7.42 7.34 0.97
Rice 0.03 3.77 3.92 3.90 0.15
73
WFP 
System (1)
MGD 
System (2)
LRP System 
(3)
Differentials
(3)-(1) (3)-(2)
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 0.09 7.67 5.85 5.75 -1.83
2a. Purchase contracting time (days)
SFCM/Maize 90.0 180.0 118.3 28.3 -61.8
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 90.0 180.0 102.8 12.8 -77.2
Rice 90.0 180.0 106.2 16.2 -73.8
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 90.0 180.0 85.0 -5.0 -95.0
2b. Purchase contracting time per MT (days/MT)
SFCM/Maize 0.02 4.62 1.46 1.44 -3.16
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 0.05 5.86 7.17 7.12 1.31
Rice 0.02 3.43 3.85 3.83 0.42
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 0.07 6.98 5.71 5.64 -1.26
3a. Delivery to central stores time (days)
SFCM/Maize 5 15.0
Not 
applicable Not applicable Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 5 15.0
Rice 5 15.0
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 5 15.0
3b. Delivery to central stores time per MT (days/MT)
SFCM/Maize 0.00 0.38
Not 
applicable Not applicable Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 0.00 0.49
Rice 0.00 0.29
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 0.00 0.58
4a. Delivery to beneficiary schools time (days)
SFCM/Maize 25 3.0 2.3 -22.8 -0.8
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 25 3.0 3.5 -21.5 0.5
Rice 25 3.0 2.2 -22.8 -0.8
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 25 3.0 2.0 -23.0 -1.0
4b. Delivery to beneficiary schools time per MT (days/MT)
SFCM/Maize 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.02 -0.05
Legume (Cowpea, beans, lentils) 0.01 0.10 0.24 0.23 0.15
Rice 0.01 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.02
Cooking oil (Shea butter, VEGO …) 0.02 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.02
5.3. Food supply mechanisms
Supply mechanism for MGD school canteens
The food supply process for MGD canteens is done through an order addressed to the sponsor in 
the United States. Effective delivery times in CRS central stores are 6-7 months. Following 
consumption forecasts, a quarterly distribution plan is then developed to route these products 
to the beneficiary schools.
74
Supply mechanism for LRP school canteens
As part of the LRP project, the process of supplying school canteens is done in several stages, 
namely:
- Needs assessment: it is based on a calculation of the rations of the children by day of class 
for the different products. School principals of intervention schools are encouraged to 
review and provide information on the total enrollment of their schools. On this basis, the 
need for each targeted product (rice, maize, beans, shea butter) are defined for the school, 
the municipality, and all the intervention schools.
- The drafting of tender documents: For the drafting of the call for tender, the needs 
assessment data are used. The call for tender presents the quantities to be provided for 
each school, according to communes.
- The publication of tender documents on the partner radios and by posters in communes: 
The call for tenders is broadcast on the partner radios (Deman FM, Fraternité FM, Nord FM, 
Nonsina FM, Béké FM, Suti dera FM Nikki) with the support of communes who have benefit 
contracts with the radios in their area.
- The reception, the counting and the analysis of the offers: A mixed counting and analysis 
committee made up of the managers of CRS, the members of the communal committees 
of supply and the members of the communal committees of supervision is put in place. The 
members of this committee meet in a workshop for the pre-selection of suppliers.
- Pre-selection: Several criteria are taken into account, particularly whether the tenderers 
belong to the project area. In cases where the supply capacity of the cooperatives 
belonging to the intervention zone is considered insufficient to satisfy the demand (for 
products such as beans and rice for example), the selection may be extended to 
cooperatives not belonging to the project area.
- Verification of the credibility of shortlisted suppliers (formal existence, not belonging to 
money laundering networks): After the pre-selection of the cooperative suppliers, 2-3 
members of the committee of counting make a field trip for the investigation of real and 
formal existence of these cooperatives. This step is recorded by filling in the 
characterization forms of each cooperative (formal existence, capacity and resources). 
These forms are sent to CRS headquarters in Cotonou. CRS then assigns a vendor code 
number to identify the cooperatives with CRS.
- Verification of product quality and price negotiation: The Central Laboratory for Sanitary 
and Food Safety is asked to sample products from different cooperatives for quality tests.
- Contract signature and launch of the purchase: When the test results are conclusive, the 
contract is signed and the purchase is launched for corn and cowpeas. For rice and shea 
butter, the contract is first signed, then the transformation or processing started.
Upon delivery, the DDAEP packaging agents are on site to check the compliance of the delivered 
products with the samples taken. After delivery, the cooperative keeps three copies of the 
delivery slip and three copies of the receipt slip. The delivery man has the different vouchers 
75
signed and two copies are deposited to the LRP project facilitators who are in the field. A copy of 
the contract, a copy of the delivery note and a copy of the receipt slip is then sent to the collection 
receipt for payment. After processing the files, the payment is made via the CLCAM or by bank 
transfer. As recognized by a Project Manager at CRS, the administrative procedure at the level of 
CRS creates a big delay and causes a lot of problems to producers who sometimes took loans 
from microfinance institutions. Similarly, delays between withdrawals and the signing of 
contracts mean that when the market price is better, producers are tempted to sell their product 
on the market.
Supply mechanism for WFP school canteens
WFP purchases at 3 different levels: international, regional (e.g. iodized salt in Dakar), and local 
(maize and beans). After the purchase the food is stored in their different stores in the 
departments. Distribution in beneficiary schools is on a quarterly basis and in several stages:
- Estimate of food requirements for schools from school enrollment and daily ration per 
child.
- Development of food allocation plans by quarter, taking into account the number of 
working class days in the quarter.
- Development of Food Allocation Vouchers from the allocation plans developed.
- Signing of plans and food allocation vouchers. These benefit vouchers are drawn up by 
municipality, and take into account the quarterly food needs for the municipality.
- Delivery of allocation plans to the Supply Chain Unit for the execution of the plans.
For transportation, the private carrier service is used for distribution in schools (carrier shortlist, 
tender, contract, transparent process, etc.). At the level of school canteens, the COGES receive 
the food by doing the usual checks and sign the car letters that attest that the service was 
rendered.
5.4. Appreciation of meals by children
In this section we quantitatively analyze the appreciation of the quality of the meals and the 
services of the canteen among students who reported eating at the school canteen. As can be 
seen in Table 34, the percentage of students who reported liking the meals served at the canteen 
was close to 95% in the two groups. The percentage of students who reported feeling full after 
eating at the school canteen was also high, at around 92%+, with little variation across the three 
groups. About 23% of students in MGD schools and 21% of students in LRP schools declared there 
was often a delay in meal service hours. 
76
Table 34. Appreciation of meals among students who declared eating at school canteen
MGD System LRP System Differentials
1. Liked the canteen meals (%) 93.9 94.9 1.0
2. Felt full after eating at the school 
canteen (%) 91.1 92.0 1.0
3. Delays in meal service hours (%) 23.4 21.4 -2.0
Sample size 850 1,511 NA
Note: Figures are weighted.
5.5. Externalities on local economy
The municipal authorities do not perceive a direct influence of the MGD and WFP projects on the 
local economy, while stakeholders perceive a positive effect of the LRP project on the local 
economy. The communal authority of Gogounou (MGD zone) explains that the commune has no 
interaction with the MGD project: "The food is brought from elsewhere without the town hall 
knowing the supply circuits”. In contrast, the positive impact of the LRP project on the local 
economy is quite perceptible, particularly compared to the PAM project. A communal authority 
states: 
WFP uses imported food while LRP favors local food for the benefit of parents and local 
producers. The community is more motivated by the idea that children eat what is 
produced by them. LRP canteens also contribute to the local economy because of the 
opportunities to sell the products it creates to local producers. Under LRP, beneficiaries 
are doubly relieved and motivated to produce well and wholesale. This is good for their 
activities, and for the economic fabric of the municipality. 
The local supply approach of school canteens of the LRP project is therefore an initiative with 
strong potential for promoting the local economy.
5.6. Satisfaction of project beneficiaries
As described by municipal authorities, the beneficiaries' satisfaction after the implementation of 
the LRP project is quite noticeable among producers as well as parents and schoolchildren. 
Producers have easy access to agricultural markets and sell their products faster; parents are less 
concerned about feeding their children at school and can attend to other occupations; and 
students have access to healthy food, quality and quantity. However, there are some 
shortcomings. In N'Dali, for example, "Producers feel that the grouped sale process and the 
related procedure are embarrassing. Moreover, they deplore the impossibility of modifying the 
selling price once adopted in the contract of service provision whatever the fluctuation of the 
price on the market”. In Parakou, a fundamental question remains at the center: "Why should 
77
children pay when we talk about poor areas?”. Similarly, the use of shea butter for cooking meals 
is not much appreciated by schoolchildren, which slightly reduces the rate of adherence to LRP 
canteen meals. Finally, the project promised to build kitchens and storage warehouses in some 
schools, but this expectation has not been filled. To ensure higher satisfaction with the program 
among beneficiaries, these aspects of the project would need to be improved. 
Stakeholders and beneficiaries of WFP and MGD school canteens recognize that these canteens 
provide a solution to school feeding problems for schoolchildren, but the lump-sum contributions 
requested from parents, especially in the MGD project area, is not feasible. Indeed, the PME-FCB 
canteen (Global Partnership for Education of the Common Budget Fund) which preceded MGD 
in this area, was free. As a result, the MGD canteen in Gogounou is facing serious difficulties in 
terms of membership due to the contributions required to access meals. More and more 
students no longer eat in the canteen for lack of contributions. This has implications for school 
attendance and academic performance. A municipal authority expresses it in these terms: "Free 
access is a central factor so that canteens in rural areas can effectively play the role of maintaining 
and improving the performance of schoolchildren". The disappearance of free access to school 
canteens has been a central contributor to the lack of satisfaction among beneficiaries of MGD 
canteens.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1. Conclusion
The LRP final evaluation was a comprehensive measure of the relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the LRP project. In addition to comparing quantitative 
indicators compared to the baseline evaluation, a significant amount of qualitative data from 
interviews and focus group discussions provided an in-depth understanding of the project design, 
implementation and management; contributing to greater clarity of lessons learned. 
The LRP endline evaluation results indicate that through the LRP project, Producer Associations 
were strengthened significantly. Organizational capacity increased among 75% of all Producer 
Associations in the intervention group, compared to 50% in the control arm. The LRP project 
trainings provided producers with important skills on production, harvest and storage practices 
that were implemented in the field, and more individual producers chose to sell their products 
through Producer Associations. This high level of organizational capacity results in timely delivery 
of commodities, adequate quantity of food, and high-quality commodities, as reported by COGES 
members. 
Aside from strengthening the production side of school canteens, the LRP project also 
contributed to improved capacity of COGES. A large majority of the cooks and store keepers 
surveyed reported having acquired capacity in various aspects of their work, and COGES scores 
in canteen and stock management reached 77.3%. The overall COGES organizational capacity 
score reached 62.1%. Quality of the services provided by COGES was enhanced with mutual 
78
monitoring of role compliance, thanks to the training of COGES members on multiple areas of 
work. 
The resulting meals served to students through school canteens contributed to little or no 
positive changes in student diets. While the percentage of students who consumed the same 
foods at school and at home increased from baseline to endline by 11.6% (compared to 5.3% in 
the control schools), students reported that they prefer to eat foods at school that are notserved 
at home. Furthermore, the percentage of students receiving a minimum acceptable diet actually 
decreased from baseline to endline in both arms, and there was no significant change in school 
attendance among students. As demonstrated through qualitative data, some students were 
actually detracted from school to assist with the operation of the canteen in some circumstances. 
When comparing the LRP model to the MGD system, the LRP system has higher average 
commodity cost per MT on three out of the four target commodities, compared to the MGD 
system. The average commodity cost per meal and per student is lower in the LRP model, at $0.14 
(or 84 CFA Francs), against $0.19 (or 109 CFA Francs) in the MGD system. In terms of time 
differentials, the total time (from contracting to delivery to beneficiary schools) is substantially 
shorter in the LRP model, compared with the WFP and MGD systems. 
The success factors of the LRP project include:
- The approach is appropriate in addressing a dual concern within the beneficiary community: 
market access and school feeding;
- The project approach is anchored in national development strategies such as promoting 
access to markets for producers, promoting local consumption, and supporting school 
feeding by school canteens in poor people;
- The innovative collaborative system is based on a network of institutions capable and 
supported by the principles of complementarity, participation and learning;
- Training is developed and implemented (in local language) according to capacity needs for 
beneficiaries, especially COGES members;
- There is great mobilized interest of the local population and the different actors involved at 
various levels.
Factors limiting the success of the LRP project are:
- Administrative delays in signing contracts with producers;
- The heaviness of standard contracts offered to producers;
- The delay in the payment of bills;
- Lack of capacity of cooperatives to operate under a formal contract;
- Short timeframe for program implementation that limits the deployment of program 
strategies.
79
6.2. Lessons Learned
Many stakeholders have learned from the LRP experience. Overall, the LRP project has 
demonstrated that the local sourcing approach is feasible and preferred by all actors, and various 
stakeholders agree that local products can provide quality, culturally accepted meals to 
schoolchildren. One SAS member also notes that mobilization of resources and collaboration 
between various sectors can lead to successful school canteen projects. As explained by PAsDeR, 
the integrated local approach of the LRP project should be considered for other projects 
concerning rural communities. 
When considering the overall LRP approach, CRS staff suggest that, given the many challenges 
faced by schools, an integrated school canteen program with improved access to safe drinking 
water, basic sanitation (WASH) and health care would be more appropriate for these populations 
in general, and for schoolchildren in particular. 
Finally, lessons regarding administrative processes were also learned. For example, CRS staff note 
that the administrative process for contracting with producers needs to be revised to alleviate 
slowdowns. Also, the DRCPV has learned that written agreements are important in developing 
agreements between parties. Agreements should be well documented to improve collaborations 
and further support positive relationships. 
With regard to the approaches or content of the approach, the lessons learned are:
- The exclusive use of shea butter is not appreciated by students;
- Payments of contributions not made compulsory for access to the canteen do not exclude 
the poorest; but some poorer schools require additional support for the purchase of 
condiments to improve the quality of their meals
- Heavy standard contracts (length with a lot of information in the content) are difficult to 
operate for producer associations; these types of contracts with producers should be 
revised to a simple 1-2 pages format to alleviate the problem of administrative slowness
- The contractual models with producer associations that consider the possibilities of 
advances to producers would enable them to implement training and to respond more 
effectively to contractual obligations
- Specific training according to the needs of the actors and their roles make them more 
effective for the success of the intervention. Local actors such as the village chief or 
district chiefs are more likely to be interested in sustaining the initiative than communes 
that are on a larger scale and are less interested in school canteens.
6.3. Limitations
The following limitations should be acknowledged. First, it is generally accepted by the scientific 
community that a project like LRP needs some time, at least 18-24 months to generate impact at 
the population level. Conducting an endline evaluation about 11 months after the baseline is 
certainly not ideal. Second, the very short time for data collection (to meet the deadlines set by 
80
CRS), coupled with the variety of questionnaires and interview guides (10 individual interview 
guides and 6 group interview guides), may have had some impact on data quality. The training 
and the supervision mechanism put in place were designed to mitigate the risks on data quality. 
It appears there were few missed opportunities for probing during the qualitative interviews, for 
example on the positive and negative externalities of the LRP, MGD and WFP systems on the local 
economy. 
Third, it appears that out of the 24 Producer Associations identified in the intervention arm (22 
were interviewed), only eight were part of the 34 Producer Associations interviewed at baseline. 
We may have two different populations at baseline and endline, which may limit the relevance 
of our estimate change over time. In particular, the indicator on the “Percentage of Producer 
Associations demonstrating increased organizational capacity” is based on only 8 Producer 
Associations in the intervention group (and 10 in the control group). This small sample size of 
Producer Associations could have implications for external validity of the relevant indicators. 
Fourth, collecting data on cost and time is always challenging, as a given cost or time may have 
different meanings for different persons. For example, what does the cost of transportation and 
distribution mean if commodities are delivered using project vehicles? We also noticed above 
that transportation and distribution costs were not available at WFP.
Lastly, the quantitative methods do not control for possible cofounders, and did not explore 
possible threats to the integrity of the evaluation (such as non-equivalence at baseline, non￾compliance, spillover, systematic attrition) or common biases (e.g. confounding bias, selection 
bias, experimenter bias). 
6.4. Recommendations
Considering these results at the Producer Association, COGES and student levels, with support 
from additional qualitative insight, the following is recommended for future consideration of 
school canteen models: 
1. Evaluate PA training needs with members of these associations and involve all members 
during training. 
The basis for the LRP training plan was a consultation with GIZ and Suiss Coop to understand 
what training topics had been covered through their projects to ensure that the same topics were 
not addressed. The LRP project approach did not take into account information from Producer 
Associations and opinions of their members to assess training needs. As a result, some training 
topics didn’t fit the needs of producers. For example, some trainings were replicated seeing that 
some associations had previously self-financed trainings offered under the LRP project to 
strengthen the performance of their producers and to be competitive. To avoid replication in the 
future, training needs should also be evaluated with members of associations. This evaluation 
can be done at the level of each association, and a training plan considering the needs of all of 
the associations can be developed. 
81
Similarly, CRS’ approach in the LRP project is to train only Producer Association leaders. But this 
approach has limitations because these leaders do not relay the information received to other 
members of their associations. To remedy this, one of these strategies can be used: either to 
involve all the members of the associations during the training sessions and to schedule the 
training sessions by producer association; or set up a monitoring system which obliges the leaders 
who participated in the trainings to organize training sessions at the level of their associations.
Finally, value chain approaches should be considered in the training program because producer 
organizations linking to specific value chains are better suited to provide technical support for 
their members. Rather than to select one representative Producer Association umbrella, such as 
URPBA to train all the Producers Associations involved in the project, it would be preferable for 
each Producer Association umbrella to organize training for its members. 
2. Consider contractual models that incorporate access to financial resources for producers 
before the sales process.
Most Producer Associations have difficulty accessing credit at the bank level, and the project 
approach does not allow advance payments to producers. So, due to lack of financial resources, 
some Producer Associations have not been able to produce the expected quantities on time and 
under conditions that guarantee quality in accordance with the standards required by the 
project. For this purpose, CRS can contract with the banks so that they grant credit to the 
Producer Associations that will be selected after a call for tenders; or proceed with a payment 
advance that will allow these associations to acquire all the resources necessary to comply with 
the requirements of the call tender. These pre-financing methods may be specified in the calls 
for tender and it will be up to each Producer Association to choose the method that suits it. The 
chosen method will then be specified in the contract signed between CRS and the association 
itself.
3. Design Contracts with PAs in a format of 1 to 2 pages maximum and in simple and 
understandable terms that allow producers to better control contract processes.
The contract sale process is quite new for most Producer Associations. The contracts offered to 
them are generally very long and difficult to manage. It would be better to design rather short 
and precise contracts, explaining in simple terms the different procedures that will be adopted 
for the order, the purchase, the delivery and the payments.
4. Respect the deadlines set in the contracts, particularly with regard to the purchase and 
payment of invoices
Delays by CRS are reported regarding the purchase and payment of invoices. This causes
enormous damage to producers: they face price fluctuations on the market, but also struggle to 
repay the credits they have contracted to meet the requirements of the call for tender. To avoid 
these delays, project managers must ensure that all administrative and financial measures are in 
place before issuing a tender. 
82
5. Consider duly signed partnership protocols between the main institutional actors of the 
project
The partnership agreement sustains relations between partners by clarifying the roles and 
procedural arrangements at each institutional level. In contrast, the absence of agreement may 
hinder and compromise effective participation. For example, the absence of agreement has 
prevented actors from DDAEP technicians involved in the LRP project from using official cars for 
field trips, seeing justification and written documentation is needed prior to arranging such 
resources. It is therefore important to consider duly signed protocols between the main 
institutional actors of the project. 
6. Transfer supervisory functions to government entities to increase likelihood of 
sustainability
The implementation period of the project is considered very short by the various stakeholders. 
Producer Associations, COGES, CPC and CLOC are not yet sufficiently equipped to take charge of 
the various activities without external support. To increase the likelihood of sustainability,
supervisory functions should be transferred to government and community entities. Concrete 
support measures that can be provided to Producer Associations and COGES should be discussed 
with government and community leaders to ensure the appropriate transfer of responsibility. 
7. Involve community leaders in the management of school canteens (COGES)
COGES should be open to a maximum of actors and if possible, reflect the diversity of 
stakeholders (parents, school principal, teachers, farmers, managers of companies or
institutions, mayors or their representatives, community leaders/local elected representatives, 
religious leaders ...). This diversity of actors makes it possible to guarantee a diversity of sources 
of support for the school canteen, and therefore an improvement in the quality of meals served 
to students. Community leaders such as village chiefs, district chiefs and religious leaders are key 
people to consider for better management of canteens. Being close to the community, it is easier 
for them to mobilize the community and encourage them to get involved in the smooth operation 
of school canteens. Similarly, these community leaders are likely to provide financial support that 
could solve the problem of the provision of condiments that many school canteens face. 
8. Encourage governmental authorities to review current plans, programs or school feeding 
strategies at national level and to allocate financial resources to the town halls for the 
management of school canteens. 
All government and community entities have appreciated the LRP model for school canteens, 
and are in favor of its continuity and scope. Current school feeding plans and programs at the 
national level must therefore be revised to include an approach based mainly on the supply of 
school canteens with local products. For this approach to be fully functional, it must be managed 
by a local entity such as town halls. But, the current political framework unfortunately does not 
allow the town halls to have a certain financial autonomy to manage the school canteens of their 
localities. All costs of the committees (procurement and supervision) formed within the town 
halls under the LRP project were covered by the project itself. Town halls have no sustainable 
83
source of funding to support these committees at the end of the project. Advocacy should 
therefore be addressed to government authorities for the review of school feeding programs and 
for the decentralization of the school canteen management process.
9. Promote an integrated approach including the WASH component 
Improving child nutrition should be accompanied by complementary measures that strengthen 
the nutritional status of children. The WASH component is a very important element for the 
smooth operation of school canteens. It is therefore appropriate to associate with any school 
canteen project the establishment of drinking water points accessible to students, and necessary 
for the preparation of meals, for the dishes, cleaning and sanitation of the kitchen. In addition, 
awareness activities on hygiene during preparation and consumption of meals and on 
environmental sanitation should be incorporated into future school canteen efforts. 
10. Reduce financial contributions and promote in-kind contributions from parents
Being in rural areas, parents are often solicited to contribute financially to the operation of 
schools. This makes it difficult to get another financial contribution from them for school 
canteens. The adoption of a school canteen model promoting an in-kind contribution from 
parents can be a solution to this problem. In addition, the in-kind contribution of parents is also 
part of a vision of sustainability for school canteens. Two different models can be adopted:
- A supply of canteens by parents with the products of their own harvests. This model has 
the advantage that it allows a direct involvement of parents of students in the project and 
that the food supplied will be directly consumable. But this model does include a risk of 
poorly diversified food supply, irregular supply, and high dependence on the quality and 
quantity of the families' crops.
- The establishment of collective school fields that will be cultivated by parents of students. 
For this, it is first necessary to discuss this possibility with the local administrative 
authorities. With this model, it is possible to couple the food crop to the cash crop (for the 
purchase of unproduced food). This gives some autonomy to the school in school canteen 
management. Small spaces can also be reserved in these fields for the cultivation of 
condiments necessary for seasoning meals in the canteen. But these fields will require 
trained and available staff to organize and monitor activities to ensure optimal production. 
Parents can also participate in the construction of infrastructure (kitchens, shops, improved 
stoves, handwashing devices, and school fields), collection of firewood and water. 
11. Identify means of motivation for cooks and storekeepers to maintain compliance and 
quality
The current means of remuneration for cooks and storekeepers pose important problems. They 
are paid from weekly or monthly students/parents subscription for access to school canteen. 
However, in most cases, students/parents do not assume it. In practice, cooks and storekeepers 
work without pay. Although these tasks are done on a voluntary basis, regular motivation of these 
actors is an important factor in sustaining the activities of the canteen. The design of school 
canteen models should include this aspect. Here are different possibilities: 
84
- Inclusion of canteen fees in school fees and the elimination of canteen-specific payments;
- Partial payment of the costs of remuneration of cooks and storekeepers by local authorities 
(village chiefs, district chiefs, mayors ...). Should this option be chosen, these local 
authorities should be included in the COGES and budgeted as soon as the project is 
designed; 
- Establishment of income-generating activities by schools (cash crop in school fields, small 
livestock).
These different possibilities can be combined to ensure not only a long-term commitment of 
these actors, but also a better quality of meals served in the canteen. 
12. Consider a greater diversity of dishes, combining local meals with some imported products 
for school canteens 
The diversity of meals in the school canteen seems to be an essential aspect for canteen 
utilization. The LRP approach prioritizes the consumption of similar meals at home and at school, 
however the quantitative survey reveals that some students have preferences for meals that they 
do not consume regularly at home. It is therefore useful to consider a supply model combining 
local products with some imported products for school canteens. This diversification of food 
products would also ensure a more o complete nutritional intake for students. 
13. Obtain student feedback and opinion regarding meal plans at the local level to ensure 
greater satisfaction in regard to meal quality
The quality of meals was considered poor in some municipalities for two reasons: the regular use 
of shea butter for cooking meals; and the absence of condiments and foods containing animal 
protein (meat, fish). In general, student preferences vary from one community to another. It is 
therefore important for COGES to ensure that student feedback concerning quality of meals is 
taken into consideration for future meal planning. 
To improve the quality of meals, a local oil (peanut oil, coconut oil, palm oil) can be used 
alternately with shea butter. With regard to the intake of protein-containing foods, two 
possibilities are presented: 
- Sources of input can be developed in schools such as fish farming and small livestock. This 
will also be an income-generating activity that can be mobilized for the functioning of the 
canteen (motivation of the cooks, supply of other foodstuffs); 
- Contracts can be signed with local breeders (as in the case of Producer Associations).
14. Solicit a sufficient number of cooks to avoid school girls’ involvement in cooking activities
Qualitative interviews with students indicate that some school canteens are obliged to involve 
young girls in the preparation of meals in the canteen so that meals are ready and served on 
time. This has the potential to negatively impact their academic performance. Contracts with 
schools benefiting from school canteens must clearly specify the prohibition of any participation 
of students in the management of such canteens. All the operating and management procedures 
of the canteen should be discussed with school principals before the implementation of the 
canteen. Similarly, a preliminary evaluation must be made to determine the number of people 
85
needed for good kitchen management (preparation, cooking, dishes, hygiene, wood …). Project 
leaders must ensure that the number determined for each school is available through community 
volunteers and respected throughout the project implementation period.
7. Appendix Tables – Summary Results
Tables AX1. Producer Associations 
Tables AX2. COGES
Tables AX3. Students 
Tables AX4. Cost and Time Differentials between LRP and the MGD and WFP systems
8. Annexes
Annex 1. Data collection tools
Annex 4. Highlights of key review meetings
i
8. Annexes
Table of contents
Annex 1: Data Collection Tools.................................................................................................................1
Part I: Impact Study (Endline) ...................................................................................................................1
I. Quantitative Surveys......................................................................................................................1
1. COGES - Representatives............................................................................................................1
2. COGES - Cooks............................................................................................................................7
3. COGES – Storekeepers..............................................................................................................10
4. Students...................................................................................................................................13
5. Students – Attendance.............................................................................................................16
6. Producer Associations..............................................................................................................17
7. Individual Producers.................................................................................................................22
II. Individual Interviews....................................................................................................................27
1. School Principals.......................................................................................................................27
2. Parent Associations..................................................................................................................30
3. Government authorities...........................................................................................................32
4. Municipal authorities (Mayor / Representative in charge of economic/social affairs).............34
5. Local Supply Committees (CPC) and Local supervision committees (CLOC) .............................37
6. Producer Associations..............................................................................................................38
7. OP Faitières..............................................................................................................................40
8. PASDeR/ProAgri .......................................................................................................................43
9. LRP Staff in charge of program.................................................................................................45
III. Focus group discussions...........................................................................................................46
1. Parents.....................................................................................................................................46
2. Mothers....................................................................................................................................48
3. Teachers...................................................................................................................................50
4. COGES ......................................................................................................................................52
5. Producer Associations..............................................................................................................55
6. Students...................................................................................................................................58
IV. Direct Observations..................................................................................................................60
1. COGES Observation (Cooks and Storekeepers) ........................................................................60
2. COGES Observation (community involvement in the buying process) .....................................62
3. Inventory of infrastructures .....................................................................................................63
ii
Second Part: Comparative study on costs and times..............................................................................64
I. Quantitative Surveys....................................................................................................................64
1. Sheet for LRP/FFE/PAM Staff in charge of procurement and logistics......................................64
2. COGES - Representative ...........................................................................................................67
3. Students...................................................................................................................................67
II. Individual Interviews....................................................................................................................67
1. LRP/FFE/PAM staff in charge of procurement and logistics .....................................................67
2. Communes...............................................................................................................................67
3. Government authorities...........................................................................................................67
III. Focus Group Discussions..........................................................................................................67
1. COGES ......................................................................................................................................67
Annex 4. Highlights of key review meetings...........................................................................................72
September 19th Webinar.....................................................................................................................72
Discussion with FFE and PAM staff......................................................................................................72
1
Annex 1: Data Collection Tools
Part I: Impact Study (Endline)
I. Quantitative Surveys
1. COGES - Representatives
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
COGES - Representatives’ Questionnaire (LRP, FFE2, PAM)
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou". CRS implemented school canteens in 
some Borgou schools (mechanisms designed to provide food to students on school days). I would like to 
speak with you as a member of the committee that manages the school canteen. We are interested in 
the management capacity of the canteen by the COGES, as well as your appreciation of any changes 
caused by the project. The survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. Answers you give to the 
questions will be recorded using a smartphone. Your identity will be kept confidential and we will not 
associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any questions. Similarly, if necessary, 
you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Q01. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
Q02. Can we start now? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
Q03. Date: _____________________ Start time of the interview: ___H / ___Min 
Q04. Type of school: 1 = LRP Intervention, 2 = LRP control, 3 = FFE2/PAM Comparison
Q05. Commune: Parakou 1; N'Dali=2; Pèrèrè=3; Tchaourou=4; Kalalé=5; Gogounou=6; Kandi=7;
Malanville=8
Q06. School Name and ID: _________________________________________
Section A. Respondent Identification 
Q07. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
Q08. Respondent’s name: ______________________________________________________ 
Q09. Respondent’s age: __/__
Q10. Respondent's Level of Education: 0 = none, 1 = Alphabetization in local language, 2 = Primary, 3 = 
Secondary first cycle, 4 = Secondary second cycle, 5 = University
Q11. If Q10 = 2-5, last class completed: 11 = CI, 12 = CP, 13 = CE1, 14 = CE2, 15 = CM1, 16 = CM2, 21 = 
6
ème, 22 = 5ème, 23 = 4ème, 24 = 3ème, 31 = 2nde, 3 2= 1ère, 33 = Tle, 41 = Bac+1, 41 = Bac+2, 43 = Bac+3, 44
= Bac+4, 45 = Bac+5, 46 = Bac+6, 47 = Bac+7
[IF Q04 (TYPE OF SCHOOL) = 3 (FFE2/PAM COMPARISON), GO DIRECTLY TO SECTION H]
Section B: Knowledge of canteen management before the implementation of the LRP project (Type of 
school = LRP Intervention, LRP Control)
Q12. Does this school have a canteen right now (aside from food vendors)? 0 = No, 1 = Yes (if Yes, skip 
to Q16)
Q13. Has this school ever had a canteen in the past? 0 = No, 1 = Yes (if No, skip to Q44)
Q14. Why did the canteen stop activities? 1 = end of the supporting project, 2 = Bad management, 3 = 
other reasons
Q15. If other reasons, please explain.
Q16. Is/Was there a COGES? 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Q17. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive training on cooking food? 0 = No, 1 
= Yes (if No, skip to Q20)
Q18. When was the last training on cooking food?
2
Q19. How many people have been trained for this school?
Q20. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. How to cook some commodities to ensure good nutritional meal quality
b. Quantity of commodities
c. How to make a traditional firebox to ensure comfort during cooking
d. Other (specify)
e. Don’t remember
Q21. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on stock management? 
0 = No; 1 = Yes (If No, Skip to Q24)
Q22. When was the last training on stock management?
Q23. How many people have been trained for this school?
Q24. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. How to fill in the stock registers
b. How to organize stock products 
c. How to handle spoiled/expired foods
d. Other (specify)
e. Don’t remember
Q25. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on hygiene? 0=No; 
1=Yes (If No, Skip to Q29)
Q26. When was the training on hygiene? 
Q27. How many persons have been trained on hygiene for this school?
Q28. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. Hand washing
b. Kitchen cleaning
c. Cleaning utensils
d. Garbage management in kitchens
e. Food preparation
f. Other (specify)
g. Don’t remember
Q29. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on nutritious foods? 0 =
No; 1 = Yes (If No, Skip to Q33)
Q30. When was the training on nutritious foods? 
Q31. How many persons have been trained on nutritious foods for this school?
Q32. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. Energy foods (carbohydrate and lipids)
b. Health foods (fruits and vegetables)
c. Mental force food (protein)
d. Other (specify)
e. Don’t remember
Q33. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on food storage? 0 =
No; 1 = Yes (If No, Skip to Q37)
Q34. When was the training on food storage? 
Q35. How many persons have been trained on food storage for this school?
Q36. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. Cleaning the storeroom and its environment before storage
b. Commodity piling techniques
c. Hygiene during storage
d. Commodity pests and rodents
e. Other (specify)
3
f. Don’t remember
Q37. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on ration 
measurement? 0 = No; 1 = Yes (If No, Skip to Q41)
Q38. When was the training on ration measurement? 
Q39. How many persons have been trained on ration measurement for this school?
Q40. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. Measurement unit
b. Rationing
c. Other (specify)
d. Don’t remember
Q41. Did any person involved in the canteen management receive any training on canteen data 
collection? 0 = No; 1 = Yes (If No, Skip to Q45)
Q42. When was the training on canteen data collection? 
Q43. How many persons have been trained on canteen data collection for this school?
Q44. What are the topics on which they were trained?
a. Student satisfaction
b. Quality of the meals
c. Quantity of meals
d. Other (specify)
e. Don’t remember
Q45. Do you understand why school canteens are important? 0 = No; 1 = Yes (If No, skip to Q47)
Q46. If yes, what do school canteens contribute to?
a. Improved school enrolment
b. Improved school attendance
c. Improved students’ nutritional status
d. Improved performance
e. Poverty reduction
f. Other (specify)
g. Don’t know
If Q12 = No, stop
Q47. Names of the cooks and the storekeepers
Name Role Mobile phone number
[IF Q04 (TYPE OF SCHOOL) = 2 (LRP CONTROL), STOP]
Section C. Knowledge of canteen management after the implementation of the LRP project (type of 
school = LRP Intervention)
Q48. When was the LRP canteen installed (or started their activities) in this school? (2017, 2018 or 2019)
Q49. In what month did the LRP canteen start activities in this school? (January = 1, February = 2, March 
= 3, April = 4, May = 5, June = 6, July = 7, August = 8, September = 9, October = 10, November = 11, 
December = 12)
Q50. What are the objectives / results of the LRP canteen? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Use of local products for school feeding programs (01)
4
b. Increased local capacity for food production (02)
c. Improvement of students’ nutrition (regularity, quantity, quality, hygiene, etc.) (03)
d. Variation of meals of students (04)
e. Promoting the quality of culturally accepted meals for students (05)
f. Reduction of student absenteeism (or delay) (06)
g. Reduction of school drop-out (07)
h. Increased academic success (08)
i. Strengthening the organizational and operational capacities of associations (09) (COGES 901; 
OPA 902; APE 903; Directors 904; Teachers 905; Parents 906; Mothers 907; Students 908; Local 
authorities 909; Other authorities 910; Other 988 (specify) ………)
j. others (specify) : …………………………………………………..
Q51. In your opinion, has the school canteen:
a. reduced school absenteeism?
b. reduced student delay?
c. reduced school drop-out?
d. improved the number of students enrolled in the school?
Q52. Has the school canteen improved the school performance of students? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip 
to Q53)
Q52.1. If Yes, what has improved?
a. Punctuality
b. Attendance (active participation in class, discipline, etc.)
c. Punctuality and diligence
d. Report card
e. Frequency (number or percentage) of transition to higher class
Q53. Has the school canteen improved student nutrition? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q54)
Q53.1. If Yes, what has improved?
a. the meal schedule is regular
b. meals are sufficient (quantity)
c. meals are varied and well prepared (quality)
d. the meals are hygienic 
Q54. Has the school canteen helped to reduce poverty in the community? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, Skip 
to Q56)
Q55. If Yes, why?
a. Flow of agricultural food products
b. Improvement of economic activities
c. Increase in jobs
d. Revenue improvement
e. Disease reduction in school
f. Increase in school attendance
g. Other (specify): ……..
Q56. Was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? 
a. Yes; Main reason: ……………….
b. No; Main reason: ………………. 
Q57. Do you receive products for the school canteen on time? (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Q58. Are the quantities received sufficient to cover the needs of the children in the school? (Yes = 1, No 
= 0)
Q59. Are the food products of good quality? (Yes = 1, No = 0)
Section D. Internal functioning of COGES (type of school = LRP intervention)
5
Q60. Do you have rules and regulations for COGES? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q61. Are COGES meetings scheduled? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q63)
Q62. If yes, what is the frequency of COGES meetings? 1 = occasionally, 2 = regularly; specify the 
regularity of the meetings: ..........
Q63. How do you call meetings? (Multiple responses) 
a. Regularly scheduled 
b. Invitation letter
c. Phone call
d. Social networks / SMS
e. Oral communication
Q64. What are the decision-making modes?
a. Consensus
b. Restricted committee
c. President of COGES
d. Other (specify): …………
Q65. Is there a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the objectives/results of the canteen? (0 = 
No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q67)
Q66. What are the means of monitoring?
a. satisfaction survey with students
b. inventory control
c. monitoring the distribution of meals
Q67. Is there a permanent mechanism for collecting complaints, observations and suggestions?
a. suggestion box
b. focal points (class delegates, teachers, nurses)
c. monitoring and evaluation sheets(daily or weekly)
d. other (specify): ………
Q68. Do COGES members mobilize the entire community for the smooth operation of the canteen 
(loading, unloading of products, volunteers in various activities, local contributions)? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q69. Do the COGES members ensure the mobilization of resources (contributions, provisions to 
supplement the contributions of the LRP, provision of infrastructures, etc.)? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q70. Do all COGES members have the same level of information? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Section E. Implementation of learning outcomes in canteen management
Q71. Does your school have a hand washing device? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q73)
Q72. Which ones:
a. Tippy-Tap
b. Handwashing device (DLM)
c. Other (specify): ……………………
Q73. When do students wash their hands? [Unique choice] (1= before each meal, 2 = after each meal, 3 
= before and after each meal, 8 = other (to be specified) ...............)
Q74. What items do students use to wash their hands at school?
a. soapy water
b. simple water
c. disinfected water
d. Other (specify)…………………
Q75. Do you have fixed hours for the service of daily meals to students? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to 
Q75.2)
Q75.1. If YES, are these schedules regularly respected? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q75.2. Is there any menu programming? (If No, skip to Q74.5)
6
Q75.3. If YES, how often is this programming established? (1 = per day, 2 = per week, 3 = per month, 8 = 
other (specify) ........................
Q75.4. Are the planned menus regularly respected? (If yes, skip to Q80)
Q75.5. If No, why?
a. Sold out
b. Leftover meal
c. Other (specify)………………………..
Section F. Lessons Learned and Sustainability of the Project (School Type = LRP Intervention)
Q76. According to you, is it necessary to renew this school canteen experience? 1 = No, 2 = Yes
If yes, why? 
a. The canteen relieves parents
b. The canteen promotes children's nutritional balance
c. The canteen promotes attendance and improves academic performance
Other (specify)………………………..
[WE WILL NOW ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS TO MAKE A COMPARISON WITH OTHER PROJECTS WITH 
SIMILAR OBJECTIVES].
Section G. Evaluation of costs per canteen meal (School type = LRP intervention, FFE2/WFP 
comparison)
Q77. How much does an average meal cost in the canteen? _/ _ / _ / 
Q78. Is the cost different for different meals? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q80)
If Yes, 
a. What is the minimum price? _/ _ / _ / 
b. What is the maximum price? _/ _ / _ / 
Q79. If yes, why?
a) The price of foods
b) The time taken to prepare meals
c) Other (specify)
Q80. Is the cost of a meal in the canteen different from that of other school food vendors? (0 = No, 1 = 
Yes) (If No, skip to Q82)
Q81. If yes, is it higher or lower? (0 = higher, 1 = lower)
Q82. Is the cost of a meal affordable for all students in the school? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q83. Do you receive products for the school canteen on time? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q84. Are the quantities received sufficient to cover the needs of the children in the school? (0 = No, 1 = 
Yes)
Q85. Are the food products of good quality? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
End date and time Thank you for your collaboration
7
2. COGES - Cooks
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
COGES - Cooks’ Questionnaire (LRP)
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou". CRS implemented school canteens in 
some Borgou schools (mechanisms designed to provide food to students on school days). I would like 
to speak with you as a cook with the school canteen. We are interested in the management capacity of 
the canteen by the COGES, as well as your appreciation of any changes caused by the project. The 
survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. Answers you give to the questions will be recorded 
using a smartphone. Your identity will be kept confidential and we will not associate your name with 
what you say. You may decline to answer any questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw 
momentarily or permanently.
1. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
2. Can we start now? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
3. Date: |__|__|.|__|__|.2019 Start time: |__|__|h|__|__|min
4. Type of school: LRP Intervention = 1; LRP Control = 2
5. Commune: Parakou = 1 ; N'Dali = 2 ; Pèrèrè = 3 ; Tchaourou = 4 ; Kalalé = 5 ; Gogounou = 6 ; Kandi =
7 ; Malanville = 8
6. School: |__|__|__|
Section A. Respondent Identification 
Q1. Respondent’s sex: (0 = Female; 1 = Male)
Q2. Respondent’s name: ………………………….
Q3. Respondent’s age: |__|__|
Q4. Respondent’s education: 0 = none, 1 = Alphabetization in local language, 2 = Primary, 3 = 
Secondary first cycle, 4 = Secondary second cycle, 5 = University
Q5. If Q4 = 2-5, last class completed: 1 1= CI ; 12 = CP ; 13 = CE1 ; 14 = CE2 ; 15 = CM1 ; 16 = CM2 ; 21 = 
6
ème ; 22 = 5ème ; 23 = 4ème ; 24 = 3ème ; 31 = 2nde ; 32 = 1ère ; 33 = Terminale ; 41 =Bac+1 ; 41 = Bac+2 ; 43 =
Bac+3 ; 44 =Bac+4 ; 45 =Bac+5 ; 46 = Bac+6 ; 47 = Bac+7
Section B. Knowledge of food and canteen management (School type = LRP intervention, LRP control)
Q6. Do you know some commodities which provide energy? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q8)
Q7. If yes, give one example
Q8. Do you know some commodities which provide mental force (protein)? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to 
Q10)
Q9. If yes, give one example
Q10. Do you know some commodities which provide health? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q12)
Q11. If yes, give one example
Q12. Do you know some consequences of malnutrition? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, Skip to Q14)
Q13. If yes, give one example
Q14. Does your school have a device with a faucet for hand washing? 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Q15. What do students use for hand washing at school?
Q16. How often should a kitchen be swept to ensure proper hygiene? 1= Before each utilization, 2=
After each utilization, 3= At the end of each day, 4= when it is needed, 5= other (specify), 6= Don’t 
know
8
Q17. How often should a kitchen be washed to ensure proper hygiene? 1= Before each utilization, 2=
After each utilization, 3= At the end of each day, 4= when it is needed, 5= other (specify), 6= Don’t 
know
Q18. How often should pots and pans be washed to ensure proper hygiene? 1= Before each utilization, 
2= After each utilization, 3= At the end of each day, 4= when it is needed, 5= other (specify), 6= Don’t 
know
Q19. Is it important to boil the eating utensils (spoons, forks) after each use? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip 
to Q21)
Q20. If yes, why? 1 = to prevent the transmission of sicknesses from one user to another, 2 = other 
(specify), 3 = Don’t know 
Q21. How many times does (did) the canteen feed the students per day? 0=No; 1=Yes 
Q22. Does (did) the canteen serve breakfast? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q24)
Q23. If Yes: Does (did) the quantity given to each student depend on their age? 0=No; 1=Yes
Q24. Does (did) the canteen serve lunch? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q25)
Q25. If Yes: Does (did) the quantity given to each student depend on their age? 0=No; 1=Yes
Q26. Does (did) the canteen serve afternoon tea? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q28
Q27. If Yes: Does (did) the quantity given to each student depend on their age? 0=No; 1=Yes
Q28. Does (did) the canteen serve dinner? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, Stop)
Q29. If Yes: Does (did) the quantity given to each student depend on their age? 0=No; 1=Yes
[IF TYPE OF SCHOOL = LRP CONTROL, STOP].
Section C. Knowledge of project and practices in food, nutrition and hygiene (School type = LRP 
intervention)
Q30. In what year was the LRP canteen installed (or started their activities) in this school? (2017, 2018 
or 2019)
Q31. In what month did the LRP canteen start their activities in this school? (January = 1, February = 2, 
March = 3, April = 4, May = 5, June = 6, July = 7, August = 8, September = 9, October = 10, November = 
11, December = 12)
Q32. What are the objectives / results of the LRP canteen? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Use of local products for school feeding programs (01)
b. Increased local capacity for food production (02)
c. Improvement of students’ nutrition (regularity, quantity, quality, hygiene, etc.) (03)
d. Variation of student meals (04)
e. Promoting the quality of culturally accepted meals for students (05)
f. Reduction of absenteeism (or delay) of students (06)
g. Reduction of school drop-out (07)
h. Increased academic success (08)
i. Strengthening the organizational and operational capacities of associations (09) (COGES 901 ; OPA 
902 ; APE 903 ; Directors 904 ; Teachers 905 ; Parents 906 ; Mothers 907 ; Students 908 ; Local 
authorities 909 ; Other authorities 910 ; Other 988 (specify) ………)
j. others (specify) : …………………………………………………..
Q33. Has the school canteen improved student nutrition? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q35)
Q34. If yes, what has improved? (Multiple responses possible)
 a. the meal schedule is regular (1)
 b. the meals are sufficient (quantity) (2)
 c. the meals are varied and well prepared (quality) (3)
 d. the meals are hygienic) (4)
 e. Other (specify): …………. (8)
Q35. Was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? 
9
a. Yes=1; Main reason: ……………….
b. No=0; Main reason: ………………. 
Section D: Training received in canteen management (Type of school = LRP Intervention)
Q36. Has the project (LRP) led to the development of your cooking skills? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
If yes, what capacity did you acquire? What training did you receive? (Multiple responses possible)
Theme
Effectiveness Relevance Cost-effectiveness Sustainability 
Ac
qui
red 
cap
aci
ty
Have 
you 
receiv
ed 
traini
ng?
Total 
numb
er of 
traini
ngs
Numb
er of 
peopl
e 
traine
d
Did you 
need this 
training?
Do you think 
the training 
could have 
had other 
content?
What 
other 
content 
would you 
have 
liked? (list 
them)
Is it necessary 
to continually 
renew this 
training? (yes, 
no)
Mai
n 
reas
on
a. cooking 
food
b. hygiene 
c. nutritious 
food (02)
d. canteen 
planning (03)
e. ration 
measuremen
t (04) 
f. food 
monitoring 
(05)
g. other 
(specify) (88)
Q37. How often do cooks prepare meals promoted by the LRP project? (List the dishes you have 
prepared during the last week)
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
1
st meal
2
nd meal
3
rd meal
Section E. Lessons Learned and Sustainability of the Project (School Type = LRP Intervention)
Q38. In your opinion, is it necessary to renew this school canteen experience? (0 = no, 1 = yes) (If No, 
skip to Q39)
Q39. If Yes, why? …………………………………………………………………….
Q40. Names and roles of individual cooks
Q47. Names of the cooks and the storekeepers
Name Role Mobile phone number
End date and time Thank you for your collaboration
10
3. COGES – Storekeepers
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
COGES – Storekeepers’ Questionnaire (LRP)
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief 
Services (CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou". CRS implemented school canteens in 
some Borgou schools (mechanisms designed to provide food to students on school days). I would like 
to speak with you as a storekeeper with the school canteen. We are interested in the management 
capacity of the canteen by the COGES, as well as your appreciation of any changes caused by the 
project. The survey will take about 20 minutes to complete. Answers you give to the questions will be 
recorded using a smartphone. Your identity will be kept confidential and we will not associate your 
name with what you say. You may decline to answer any questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can 
withdraw momentarily or permanently
Q01. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q02. Can we start now? 0=No; 1=Yes
Q03. Date:: |__|__|.|__|__|.2019 Start time: |__|__|h|__|__|min
Q04. Type of school: LRP Intervention =1; LRP Control =2;
Q05. Commune: Parakou = 1 ; N'Dali = 2 ; Pèrèrè =3 ; Tchaourou = 4 ; Kalalé=5 ; Gogounou=6 ; 
Kandi=7 ; Malanville=8
Q06. School: |__|__|__|
Section A. Respondent Identification
Q07. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
Q08. Respondent’s name: ………………………….
Q09. Respondent’s age: |__|__|
Q10. Respondent’s education: 0=None, 1= Alphabetization in local language, 2=Primary, 3= Secondary 
first cycle, 4=Secondary second cycle, 5=University
Q11. If Q10 = 2-5, last class completed: 11= CI ; 12= CP ; 13 = CE1 ; 14 = CE2 ; 15=CM1 ; 16= CM2 ; 21= 
6
ème ; 22= 5ème ; 23= 4ème ; 24= 3ème ; 31= 2nde ; 32= 1ère ; 33= Terminale ; 41=Bac+1 ; 41=Bac+2 ; 
43=Bac+3 ; 44=Bac+4 ; 45=Bac+5 ; 46=Bac+6 ; 47=Bac+7
Section B. Management of a storage warehouse
Q12. How often should a food storeroom be swept to ensure proper hygiene? 1=After each utilization, 
2= At the end of each day, 3= when it is needed, 4= other (specify), 5= Don’t know
Q13. How often should a food storeroom be washed to ensure proper hygiene? 1=After each 
utilization, 2= At the end of each day, 3= when it is needed, 4= other (specify), 5= Don’t know
Q14. Do you use salt water to wash the storeroom? 0 = No, 1 = Yes
Q15. Does (did) the school have a register to record the type and quantity of commodities received for 
the canteen? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q17)
Q16. If Yes: Do (did) you fill the register at the time you received the commodities? 0=No; 1=Yes
Q17. Does (did) the school have a register to record the type and quantity of commodities used for the 
canteen every day? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q19)
Q18. If Yes: Do (did) you fill the register at the time you used the commodities for the canteen? 0=No; 
1=Yes
[IF Q04 (TYPE OF SCHOOL) = 2 (LRP CONTROL), STOP].
11
Section C. Knowledge of canteen/stock management in the LRP project (Type of school = LRP
Intervention)
Q19. In what year was the LRP canteen installed (or started their activities) in this school? (2017, 2018 
or 2019)? /__/__/__/__/
Q20. In what month did the LRP canteen start their activities in this school? (January = 1, February = 2, 
March = 3, April = 4, May = 5, June = 6, July = 7, August = 8, September = 9, October = 10, November = 
11, December = 12)
Q21. What are the objectives/results of the LRP canteen? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Use of local products for school feeding programs (01)
b. Increased local capacity for food production (02)
c. Improvement of students’ nutrition (regularity, quantity, quality, hygiene, etc.) (03)
d. Variation of student meals (04)
e. Promoting the quality of culturally accepted meals for students (05)
f. Reduction of absenteeism (or delay) of students (06)
g. Reduction of school drop-out (07)
h. Increased academic success (08)
i. Strengthening the organizational and operational capacities of associations (09) (COGES 901 ; OPA 
902 ; APE 903 ; Directors 904 ; Teachers 905 ; Parents 906 ; Mothers 907 ; Students 908 ; Local 
authorities 909 ; Other authorities 910 ; Other 988 (specify) ………)
j. other (specify) : …………………………………………………..
Q21. Has the school canteen improved student nutrition? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q23)
Q22. If yes, what has improved? (Multiple responses possible)
 a. The meal schedule is regular (1)
 b. Meals are sufficient (quantity) (2)
 c. Meals are varied and well prepared (quality) (3)
 d. The meals are hygienic (4)
 e. Other (specify): …………. (8)
Q23. Was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? 
Q23.1. If Yes; Main reason: …………………………………………………………………
Q23.2. If No; Main reason: …………………………………………………………………
Section D. Training received in canteen management (Type of school = LRP Intervention)
Q24. Did the LRP project provide capacity to storekeepers? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q26)
Q25. If yes, what capacity did you acquire? What training did you receive? (Multiple responses 
possible)
Theme Effectiveness Relevance Cost-effectiveness Sustainability
Q15.1. 
Acquir
ed 
capacit
y (0 = 
No ; 1 
= Yes)
Q15.2.
Have 
you 
receive
d 
trainin
g?
Q15.3.
Total 
numbe
r of 
trainin
gs
Q15.4
.
Numb
er of 
peopl
e 
traine
d
Q15.5.
Did you 
need this 
training?
(0 = No ; 1 
= Yes)
Q15.6.
Do you 
think the 
training 
could 
have had 
other 
content?
Q15.7.
What 
other 
content 
would 
you have 
liked? 
(list 
them)
Q15.8.
Is it 
necessary 
to 
continuall
y renew 
this 
training?
Q15.9.
Main 
reason
a. Stock 
management
b. Hygiene 
12
c. Food 
storage
d. other 
(specify)
Section E. Lessons Learned and Sustainability of the Project (School Type = LRP Intervention)
Q26. According to you, is it necessary to renew this school canteen experience? (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Q26.1. If Yes, why? Main reason………………………………………………………………………
Q26.2. If No, why? Main reason ……………………………………………………………………
End date and time Thank you for your collaboration
13
4. Students
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Students’ questionnaire (LRP, FFE2, PAM)
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I am working with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and their 
evaluation partner EVIHDAF. We are conducting a study and would like to ask you questions about your 
nutrition and the foods you eat at home and in your school canteen. The information collected will help 
CRS to understand how school canteens function in terms of quality and frequency of meals consumed. 
The survey will take about 30 minutes to complete. The information you provide will be kept confidential 
and will not be shared with other persons. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you can 
choose not to answer any questions or not to participate. If you would like to know more about the 
survey, you can contact the following persons at CRS and EVIHDAF [OFFER THE CONTACT INFORMATION 
OF CRS AND EVIHDAF]. Do you have any questions for me? [ANSWER THE QUESTIONS].
Q01. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q02. Can we start now? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Section A. Sociodemographic characteristics
Q03. Date: /__/__/ - /__/__/- 2019 Start time: /__/__/ H /__/__/ min
Q04. Zone Type: 1 = LRP Intervention; 2 = LRP control; 3 = FFE2/PAM Comparison
Q05. Commune: 1 = Parakou; 2 = N'Dali ; 3 = Pèrèrè ; 4 = Tchaourou ; 5 = Kalalé ; 6 = Gogounou; 7 = 
Kandi ; 8 = Malanville
Q05. School Name and ID (ID with 2 digits) /__/__/ 
Q07. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
Q08. Respondent’s name…………………………………………
Q09. Respondent’s age /__/__/ years
Q10. Respondent’s grade (1 = CI; 2 = CP; 3 = CE1; 4 = CE2; 5 = CM1; 6 = CM2)
Q11. Does your household have any of the following items?
Q12. What is the primary occupation of the head of your household? 0=Unemployed, 1=Agricultural 
Work, 2=Farmer 3=Day labourer, 4=Trader, 5= Office worker, 6=Artisan/Craftsman, 7= Retired, 8= other 
(specify)…………………………
[IF Q04 (SCHOOL TYPE) = 3 (FFE2/PAM COMPARISON), SKIP TO SECTION D].
Household Item Does your household have : (0=no, 1=yes)
a) Electricity 
b) Solar energy
c) Power generator
d) Radio 
e) TV
f) Phone 
g) Refrigerator
h) Bicycle
i) Motor bike
j) Car or Truck
K) Cart
l) Tractor 
m) Land or farming
n) Land in city for building
14
Section B. Food intake (School type = LRP Intervention, LRP Control)
Q13. Do you usually eat breakfast at home? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q14. Do you usually eat lunch? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q15. Do you usually eat dinner? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q16. Did you eat at home (in the morning) before departing for school yesterday? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q17. Did you eat during school yesterday (or the last school day)? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q18. Now I would like to ask you about meals you ate yesterday. What meals did you eat yesterday?
(FOR EACH MEAL, ASK SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS ABOUT MEAL COMPOSITION AND LOCATION)
Name of the 
meal
Describe the meal composition (e.g : rice+ 
cowpea+ tomato soup made of palm oil with 
egg and cow cheese)
Where did you eat the meal? 1=at home;
2= at school canteen; 3= at school 
vendors; 4= elsewhere
Q19. Food items, (multiple responses possible)
a. Porridge
b. Tea or coffee 
c. Any food made of maize 
d. Any food made of rice
e. Any food (bread, noodles etc.) made from cereals (sorghum, millet, wheat, etc.) 
f. Sweet potatoes that are yellow or orange inside, squash, carrots
g. Any foods made of fruit and green vegetable 
h. White potatoes, white yams, cassava, or any other foods made from roots 
i. Any dark green leafy vegetables 
j. Ripe mangos, papaya or watermelon
k. Any other fruits and vegetables
l. Liver, kidney, heart or other organ meats 
m. Any meat, such as beef, pork, goat, sheep, chicken, or duck
n. Eggs 
o. Fresh or dried fish or shellfish 
p. Cowpea
q. Soy, peas, lentils, nuts, or other legumes
r. Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products
s. Shea butter 
t. Any other oil, fats, or butter, or foods made with any of these items 
u. Any sugary foods such as chocolates, sweets, candies, pastries, cakes, or biscuits etc.
v. Any other solid or semi-solid food
w. Grubs, snails, insects, other small protein food
x. Foods made with red palm oil, palm nut, or palm nut pulp
Section C. Food at school (Zone type = LRP Intervention, LRP Control)
Q20. Is there a canteen in your school? (0 = No 1 = Yes) [If No, skip to Q25]
Q21. If Q20=yes, do you eat at the school canteen? (0 = No 1 = Yes)
Q22. If Q21 = no, why do not you eat at the canteen? (Multiple responses possible)
a. I do not like canteen food
b. I get hungry and eat before the canteen serves food
15
c. I get sick when I eat in the canteen
d. My parents refuse that I eat at the canteen
e. I bring food from home
f. Other (specify)
Q23. If Q21 = yes, Do you eat every school day at the school canteen? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q24. If Q23 = no, Why don’t you eat at the school canteen every school day?
a. I do not attend school every school day
b. Sometimes I do not have my counterpart
c. Sometimes I do not like the foods
d. I get hungry and eat before the school canteen serves food
e. Other (specify)
Q25. Do you usually buy food in school during the breaks? (10:15 AM or 12:00 or 4:00 PM or 5 PM) 
0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q27)
Q26. If yes, do you usually feel full after eating the food you buy during the school breaks? 0=No; 1=Yes
(Skip to Q29)
Q27. If Q25 = No, Why don’t you buy food in school during the breaks? 0=food provided by the canteen, 
1=no money to buy food, 2=don’t like the food sold, 3=other (specify)
Q28. If Q21 = No and Q25 = No, How do you eat? 0 = I do not eat anything, 1 = I go home to eat, 2 = I 
share friends' meals, 3 = I bring food from home
Q29. Are the foods that you eat at the school similar to the foods you eat at home? 0-No, 1=Yes
[IF Q04 (TYPE OF SCHOOL) = 2 (LRP CONTROL), STOP]
[THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS CONCERN THE COMPARISON SURVEY]
Section D: Appreciation of the quality of the meals and the services of the canteen (type of school = 
LRP Intervention, FFE2/PAM Comparison)
Q30. Do you like the canteen meals? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q31. Do you usually feel full after eating at the school canteen? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q32. How many meals a day are served at your school canteen? /__/__/
Q33. How many times a day do you eat meals in your school canteen? /__/__/
Q34. Are you satisfied with the number of meals offered daily by the canteen? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If yes, 
skip to Q36)
Q35. If No, how many times would you like to be served each day? /__/__/
Q36. Is there often a delay in meal service hours? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q37. Are you paying for something to eat at your school canteen? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If No, skip to Q39)
Q38. If Q37 = Yes, How much do you pay to eat at the school canteen? /__/__//__/
Q39. Are your parents always giving you money to eat at the school canteen? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If Yes, 
skip to end)
Q40. If No, why?
a. No money
b. Parents consider that the canteen is free
c. Other (specify): ………………………
End date and time Thank you for your collaboration
16
5. Students – Attendance
Observation sheet of class attendance
Investigator: Investigator Code: |___|___|
Commune: School: 
Type: 1- LRP Intervention; 2- LRP Control
N° N° Ech Name and surname
Class Sex October Novembe
r
Decembe
r
January Februar
y
March April
JO A JO A JO A JO A JO A JO A JO A
1
2
3
4
5
6
…
50
51
…
60
JO= Number of business days; A= Number of days of absence; Students 51 to 60 represent those on the reserve list
17
6. Producer Associations 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Producer Associations’ Questionnaire 
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I am working with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and their 
evaluation partner EVIHDAF. We are conducting a study and would like to ask some questions about 
production and post-harvest management practices, group sales, market access and the use of market 
information systems. The information collected will help us to assess the level of achievement of 
expected results and the quality of the school canteen supply system implemented. Firstly, we will be
able to learn from the different actions taken and then make recommendations to CRS and its partners 
for future school feeding programs based on local and regional food supply. The survey will take about 
20 minutes to complete. The information you provide will be kept confidential and will not be shared 
with other persons. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any 
questions or not to participate. If you would like to know more about the survey, you can contact the 
following persons at CRS and EVIHDAF [OFFER THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF CRS AND EVIHDAF]. Do 
you have any questions for me? [ANSWER THE QUESTIONS].
Q01. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q02. Can we start now? (0 = no; 1 = yes)
Q03. Date; |__|__|.|__|__|.2019 Start time: |__|__|h|__|__|min
Q04. Zone type: 1= LRP intervention, 2= LRP Control
Q05. Commune: Parakou = 1; N'Dali = 2; Pèrèrè =3; Tchaourou = 4
Q05. Association name and ID: ___________________________________
Section A. Respondent Identification 
Q06. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
Q07. Respondent’s name: ________________________
Q08. Respondent’s age: /__/__/ Years
Q09. Respondent’s education level: 0= none, 1= alphabetization in local language, 2= primary, 3= 
secondary first cycle, 4= secondary second cycle, 5= university
Q10. If Q9 = 2-5, last class completed: /_/_/_/…. (11= CI, 12= CP, 13 = CE1, 14 = CE2, 15=CM1, 16= CM2, 
21= 6ème, 22= 5ème, 23= 4ème, 24= 3ème, 31= 2nde, 32= 1ère, 33= Tle, 41=Bac+1 ; 41=Bac+2 ; 43=Bac+3 ; 
44=Bac+4 ; 45=Bac+5 ; 46=Bac+6 ; 47=Bac+7)
Section B: General information on the functioning of the association (type of zone = intervention LRP, 
Control LRP)
Q11. What is your main responsibility with this Producer Association? (President=1; Vice-president=2;
Secretary=3; Treasurer=4; Other (Specify)….…=8)
Q12. How long have you been working with this Producer Association? /_/_ /
Q13. How many producer members are part of your Producer Association? How many of them are 
women?
Q14. What is the most important crop on which the Association works? (Maize=1; Rice=2 ; Soy=3 ; 
Sorghum=4 ; Cowpea=5; Peanut = 6; Yam = 7; Cassava = 8; Sweet potato = 9; Other (Specify)…=88)
Q15. What is the total quantity (in tons) of this crop that the association was able to mobilize during the 
last crop year for group sales, warrantage, etc.? /__/__/__/__ / tons
Q16. Is there another crop on which this Association works? (Yes=1; No=0) If No, skip to Q19)
Q17. If yes, what is the second most important crop on which your association works? (Maize=1; Rice=2 ; 
Soy=3; Sorghum=4; Cowpea=5; Peanut = 6; Yam = 7; Cassava = 8; Sweet potato = 9; Other (Specify)…=88)
18
Q18. What is the total quantity (in tons) of this crop that the association was able to mobilize during the 
last crop year for group sales, warrantage, etc.? /__/__/__/__ / tons
Q19. What are the national, regional or communal organizations to which your Association belongs? 
(Multiple responses possible)
a. Agence Béninoise de Karité (ABK),
b. Union Régionale des Producteurs de Riz (URPR)/ Union Communale des Producteurs de Riz 
(UCPR)
c. Union Régionale des Producteurs (URP)/ Union Communale des Producteurs (UCP)
d. Other (specify)………………….
Q20. Have you ever been supported by ProAgri? (0=No; 1=Yes) (If No, skip to Q22)
Q21. If Q20 = Yes, which support did you receive?
a. Training on agricultural practices
b. Seed gift or subsidy
c. Material gift or subsidy
d. Other input gift or subsidy
e. Value chain management
f. Market access
g. Other (specify)………………..
Q22. Have you ever been supported by the PASDeR? (0=No; 1=Yes) (If No, skip to Q24)
Q23. If Q22 = yes, which support did you receive?
a. Training on agricultural practices
b. Seed gift or subsidy
c. Material gift or subsidy
d. Other input gift or subsidy
e. Value chain management
f. Market access
g. Other (specify)………………..
Q24. Do you have a fixed schedule for meetings of the management team? 0=No; 1=Yes, proof not 
presented; 2=Yes, proof seen (If No, skip to Q26)
Q25. If Yes: What is the frequency? 1= Weekly, 2= Twice a month; 3=Monthly; 4=Quarterly; 5=Twice a 
year, 6=Yearly; 7= other (specify) (Skip to Q27)
Q26. If No: How do you organize meetings of the management team?
a. When/if the president or his deputies wants
b. When/if any management team member wants
c. When/if any member requests
d. When/ if there is a project 
e. When/ if there is another opportunity such as product demand
f. Other (specify)
Q27. Do you have a fixed schedule for the activities of the producers in your Association? 0=No; 1=Yes, 
proof not presented; 2=Yes, proof seen (If No, skip to Q29)
Q28. If Yes: What is the frequency? 1= Weekly, 2= Twice a month; 3=Monthly; 4=Quarterly; 5=Twice a 
year, 6=Yearly; 7= other (specify) 
Q29. How do you support the farmers belonging to your Association?
a. Training on agricultural practices
b. Seed gift or subsidy
c. Material gift or subsidy
d. Other input gift or subsidy (specify)
e. Value chain management 
f. Market access
19
g. Credit access
h. Other (specify)
Q30. In the last 12 months, have you used the URP MIS to improve your marketing and 
commercialization strategies? 0=No, 1=Yes, proof not presented; 2=Yes, proof seen (If No, skip to Q32)
Q31. If Yes: For what purpose?
a. Producer prices
b. Local market prices
c. Regional market prices
d. International market price
Q32. Please provide me with a list of all members of the association showing their names and phone 
numbers. [IF POSSIBLE, TAKE A COPY OF THE LIST WITH YOUR PHONE OR COPY THE INFORMATION IN 
YOUR NOTEBOOKS, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL. DON’T KEY IN THE LIST IN YOUR TABLET; IT IS TO BE 
USED TO DRAW A RANDOM SAMPLE OF MEMBERS TO BE INTERVIEWED]
[ID Q04 (ZONE TYPE) = 2 (LRP CONTROL), STOP]
Section C. Knowledge and relations with the LRP project (Zone Type = LRP Intervention)
Q33. In what year did your collaboration with the LRP project begin? (2017, 2018 or 2019)
Q34. In what month did your collaboration with the LRP project begin? (January = 1, February = 2, March 
= 3, April = 4, May = 5, June = 6, July = 7, August = 8, September = 9, October = 10, November = 11, 
December = 12)
Q35. In your opinion, has the school canteen helped to reduce poverty in the community? (Yes = 1; No 
= 0) If No, skip to Q37)
Q36. If Q35= yes, Why?
a. Flow of agricultural food products
b. Improvement of economic activities
c. Increase in employment
d. Revenue improvement
e. Disease reduction in school
f. Increase in school attendance
g. Other (specify): ……..
Q37. According to you, was it necessary to implement a canteen in schools of the region? (Yes=1 ; No=0) 
Q38. If Q37= Yes; Main reason: ……………….
Q39. If Q37= No; Main reason: ……………….
Section D. Training received (Zone Type = LRP Intervention)
Q40. According to you, has the LRP project helped to develop capacities of members of your association? 
(Yes = 1, No = 0) (If No, skip to Q42)
Q41. If Q40= Yes, what capacity did you acquire? What training did you receive? (multiple responses 
possible)
Theme
Acqui
red 
capac
ity
Have 
you 
receive
d 
training
?
(0=no ;
If yes, 
main 
them
es 
cover
ed
Structure 
(s) 
a￾URP/UCP
b-ProAgri
c￾PASDER
Numbe
r of 
people 
trained
Did you 
need 
this 
training
?
Do you 
think 
the 
trainin
g could 
have 
had 
other 
20
1= Yes, 
proof 
not 
present
ed; 
2=Yes, 
proof 
seen)
d-Other 
(specify)
…
conten
t?
a. Organiz
ational 
capacity
b. Improved productivity
c. Harvest practices
d. Post-harvest practices
e. Storage practices
f. Marketing strategy
g. Market Information System 
(MIS) 
h. Other (specify)
Section E. Implementation of learning outcomes and observed changes (Zone type = LRP intervention)
Q42. Which of the trainings received could be implemented by your members? (Multiple responses 
possible)
a. Production level Improvement 
b. Harvest practices
c. Post-harvest practices 
d. Storage practices
Q43. Do you have rules and regulations in your Association? (0=No; 1=Yes) (If No, skip to Q45)
Q44. If Q43= Yes, was it with the intervention of the LRP project that you formalized your association 
(registration and possession of rules and regulations in your association)? (0 = no; 1 = yes)
Q45. Does your Association have scheduled meetings? (0 = no, 1 = yes) (If No, skip to Q47)
Q46. If Q45= Yes, what is the schedule (or frequency) of the Association's meetings? (1 = occasionally, 2 
= regularly; specify the frequency: ……….)
Q47. How do you call meetings? (Multiple responses possible) 
a. Regularly scheduled
b. Invitation letter
c. Phone call
d. Social networks / SMS
e. Oral communication
Q48. What are the decision-making modes?
a. consensus
b. restricted committee
c. President of the Association
d. other (specify): …………
Q49. What is the average duration (in minutes) of your meetings? /__/__/__/ min
21
Q50. What are the funding sources for the association? (Contributions = 1, Loans = 2, Partner support = 
3, other (specify) = 8)
Q51. Do you develop a budget? (0 = no, 1 = yes) (If No, skip to Q53)
Q52. Do your expenses reflect this budget? (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Q53. Does the office report the expenses incurred to the members of the Association? (0 = no, 1 = yes)
Q54. Had you done group sales before the LRP project? (0 = no, 1 = yes) (If No, skip to Q58)
Q55. If Q54=yes, do these group sales under the LRP project seem more advantageous to you? (0=no;
1=yes)
Q56. If Q55=no, why?
a. Low prices
b. Delay in payment
c. Truncated measurement units
d. Other (specify): ……
Q57. If Q56= yes, how are these sales more advantageous? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Easy flow of agricultural products/market guarantee
b. Decrease in the sell-out of agricultural products
c. Price advantage
d. Short payment deadline
e. Low transport costs
f. Local consumption (use of local products for children's nutrition)
g. Other (specify): ……
Q58. What are (were) your difficulties in selling your products to the LRP project?
a. Non-compliance with the delivery contract
b. Administrative burden at the LRP project level for payments
c. Conflicting relations with COGES
d. Other (specify)
Q59. Is your association able to make future commitments for the supply of agricultural products to 
other projects/structures? (0 = no; 1 = yes) (If No, skip to Q61)
Q60. If Q59=yes, was it the LRP project intervention that gave you that capacity? (0 = no; 1 = yes)
Q61. Do you think it is necessary to renew this project? (0 = no; 1 = yes)
Q62. Please provide me with a list of all members of the association showing their names and phone 
numbers. 
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
22
7. Individual Producers
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Producers’ Questionnaire (LRP)
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ___________________, and I am working with Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and 
their evaluation partner EVIHDAF. We are conducting a study and would like to ask some questions 
about production and post-harvest management practices, group sales, market access and the use of 
market information systems. The information collected will help us to assess the level of achievement 
of expected results and the quality of the school canteen supply system implemented. Firstly, we will 
be able to learn from the different actions taken and then make recommendations to CRS and its 
partners for future school feeding programs based on local and regional food supply. The survey will 
take about 20 minutes to complete. The information you provide will be kept confidential and will not 
be shared with other persons. Your participation in this survey is voluntary and you can choose not to 
answer any questions or not to participate. If you would like to know more about the survey, you can 
contact the following persons at CRS and EVIHDAF [OFFER THE CONTACT INFORMATION OF CRS AND 
EVIHDAF]. Do you have any questions for me? [ANSWER THE QUESTIONS].
Q01. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q02. Can we start now? (0=No; 1=Yes)
Q03. Date; Start time: |__|__|.|__|__|.2019 Start time: |__|__|h|__|__|min
Q04. Zone Type: 1= LRP intervention, 2= LRP Control
Q05. Commune: Parakou = 1; N'Dali = 2; Pèrèrè =3; Tchaourou = 4
Q06. Association name and ID: _________________________________
Section A: Respondent Identification 
Q07. Respondent’s name: _______________________________
Q08. Respondent’s age: / __/ __/ Years
Q09. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
Q10. Respondent’s education level 0= none, 1= alphabetization in local language, 2= primary, 3= 
secondary first cycle, 4= secondary second cycle, 5= university
Q11. If Q3 = 2 to 5, last class completed: 11= CI, 12= CP, 13 = CE1, 14 = CE2, 15=CM1, 16= CM2, 21= 
6
ème, 22= 5ème, 23= 4ème, 24= 3ème, 31= 2nde, 32= 1ère, 33= Tle, 41=Bac+1 ; 41=Bac+2 ; 43=Bac+3 ; 
44=Bac+4 ; 45=Bac+5 ; 46=Bac+6 ; 47=Bac+7
Section B: Producer activities within this Association (Zone type = LRP intervention, LRP control)
Q12. Which Producer Association do you belong to?
Q13. Last season, did you produce any of the following crops? (LIST CROPS ONE BY ONE. IF YES, ASK 
SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS).
Crops
Did you 
produce 
(0=no, 1= 
yes)
Area sown 
(hectare) 
Quantity produced last season
Unit of measurement 1= 
Basin, 2= Bag, 3= cart, 
4=other (specify)
Weight that 
contain the unit 
(kg)
Quantity 
produced (unit 
of measure)
Maize
Rice
Cowpea 
23
Shea 
collection
Roots and 
tubers
Other 
cereals
Other 
leguminous
Vegetables 
& fruits
Q14. Did you receive any training from your Producer Association in the following areas? (LIST 
TRAINING AREAS ONE BY ONE. IF YES, ASK SUBSEQUENT QUESTIONS)
Training thematic Did you 
receive 
(0=no, 
1=Yes, 
proof not 
presented; 
2=Yes, 
proof 
seen)
If yes, 
main 
topics 
covered
If Yes, Did 
you ever use 
the 
techniques 
the 
Association 
taught you? 
0=No; 1=Yes
If No: why 
1=Difficult to 
implement, 
2=Costly to 
implement, 
3=Access to 
equipment, 4= 
other (specify)
If Yes: were 
you 
satisfied 
with these 
techniques? 
0=No; 
1=Yes
If No why? 
1= the 
promised 
results 
were not 
obtained 
2= other 
(specify)
Production level 
improvement
Harvest practices
Post-harvest 
practices
Storage practices
Marketing and 
commercialization 
strategies
Market 
Information 
System (MIS)
Other (specify)
Q15. In the last 12 months, did you sell your product through a group sale organized by your 
Association? 0=No; 1=Yes (If No, skip to Q18)
Q16. If Yes: Were you satisfied with the group sale? 0=No; 1=Yes (If Yes, skip to Q18)
Q17. If Q16=No: Why were you not satisfied with the group sale? 
a. Price was low
b. I was not paid on time
c. Did not trust the scale used
d. Did not trust management team
e. Other (specify)
[IF Q04 (ZONE TYPE) = 2 (LRP CONTROL), STOP]
24
Section C: Knowledge of the LRP project (Zone Type = LRP Intervention)
Q18. In your opinion, was it necessary to set up this school canteen based on the purchase of local 
products? 
Yes=1; Main reason: ……………….
No=0; Main reason: ………………. 
Q19. In your opinion, has the school canteen helped to reduce poverty in the community? (Yes = 1; No 
= 0) If yes, yhy?
a. Flow of agricultural food products
b. Improvement of economic activities
c. Increase in employment
d. Revenue improvement
e. Disease reduction in school
f. Increase in school attendance
g. Other (specify): ……..
25
Section D: Training received (Zone Type = LRP Intervention)
Q20. Do you think that the LRP project has enabled you to acquire technical and management skills for your farm? (Yes = 1, No = 0) (If No, skip 
to Q22)
Q21. If yes, what capacity did you acquire? What training did you receive? (Multiple responses possible)
Effectiveness Relevance Cost-effectiveness Sustainability 
Theme Have you 
received 
training?
(0=No ;
1= Yes, proof 
not presented; 
2=Yes, proof 
seen)
If yes, 
main 
themes 
covered
Structure 
a￾URP/UCP
b-ProAgri
c-PASDER
d- Other 
(specify)…
Number 
of 
people 
trained
Did you 
need this 
training?
Do you 
think 
the 
training 
could 
have 
had 
other 
content?
What 
other 
content 
would 
you like? 
(list 
them)
Is it necessary 
to continually 
renew this 
training? 
(1=yes ; 0=no)
Main reason
b. Production 
level 
improvement
c. Harvest 
practices
d. Post-harvest 
practices
e. Storage 
practices
f. Marketing and 
commercialization 
strategies
g. Market 
Information 
System (MIS)
h. Other (specify)
26
Section E: Implementation of learning outcomes and observed changes (Zone type = LRP intervention)
Q22. Which of the trainings received did you put into practice? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Good production practices
b. Harvest practices
c. Post-harvest practices
d. Storage practices
e. Climate-smart production practices
Q23. Have your yields increased using the new techniques learned? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Q24. Have you participated in the group sales of your Association as part of the LRP Project? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
(If No, skip to Q30)
Q25. If Q24= Yes, what product and quantity did you provide to your association?
Q26. Have you been satisfied with group sales as part of the LRP project? (0 = No, 1 = Yes) (If yes, skip to 
Q28)
Q27. If Q26= no, why?
a. Low prices
b. Delay in payment
c. Truncated measurement units
Q28. If Q26=Yes, do these group sales under the LRP project seem more advantageous to you? (0=no; 1=yes)
Q29. If Q28= Yes, why? (Multiple responses possible)
a. Easy flow of agricultural products/market guarantee
b. Decrease in the sell-out of agricultural products
c. Price advantage
d. Short payment deadline
e. Low transport costs
f. Local consumption (use of local products for children's nutrition)
g. Other (specify): ……
Q30. Do you think it is necessary to renew this project? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
27
II. Individual Interviews
1. School Principals
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with School Principals
INRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which 
evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In order to appreciate the 
level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen supply system in place, we would 
like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 minutes to complete. On the one hand, this 
discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried out and, on the second hand, to make 
recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school feeding programs based on a local and regional 
food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are 
accurately translated. Your identity will be kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. 
You may decline to answer any questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
1. Do you wish to participate in this survey? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
2. Can we start now? (0 = No; 1 = Yes)
Section A: General Information and Respondent Identification 
3. Commune (Parakou=1; N'Dali=2; Pèrèrè=3; Tchaourou=4; Kalalé=5; Gogounou = 6; Kandi=7; Malanville=8)
4. School Identification Number: /___ //___ /
5. Information on the number of students in the school
Registered Present Absent Abandonment
Boys
Girls
Total
6. Respondent’s sex: 0=Female; 1=Male
7. Respondent’s name_______________________________
Section B: LRP project evaluation 
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: According to you, was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? Why or why not?
Question 2: Do you think the LRP project was necessary? Why or why not?
In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach? Why? (Quantity and quality of meals served, cultural acceptability 
of meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen at your school? (Quantity and quality of 
meals served, cultural acceptability of meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)
Question 3: Tell us about COGES
a) composition (different positions with their responsibilities, assignment of positions) 
b) Mission and contribution of the COGES
c) COGES operating rules 
d) Methods of communication (meetings, various notes, evaluation sheets or pupil satisfaction surveys, 
activity reports, telephone communications, use of ICTs, etc.)
28
e) Decision-making methods
Question 4: What are your relationships with other actors in the school, as part of this LRP project? (COGES, 
chef, APE, ME, teachers, nurse/responsible for medical care, students/student leaders, OPA, CRS-LRP, other 
schools, etc.). What is the nature or form of the relationship with each of them? What do you think of this 
relationship: a good thing, why? A wrong approach, why? What do you suggest?
Question 5: Is there a mechanism to monitor and evaluate the objectives and results of the canteen (or 
project)? Who ensures the organization of servicesto students? Are there rules relating to: meal times, volume 
of food, menus, etc.? How do you ensure compliance with these rules?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 6: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? And what are the expected results?
Question 7: Have you received training as part of this project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained?
Question 8: Has the LRP project facilitated the supply and availability of nutritious foods in your school?
Question 9: Has the implementation of this project improved school performance and reduced absenteeism 
of some students at school?
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 10: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 11: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 12: What are the internal or external factors that have prevented the achievement of these results?
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 4: Project Impact 
Question 13: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What impact has 
the training had? What were the contributing factors?
Question 14: Which of the training components received have not been implemented? Why? What changes 
could not be made according to the expectations of the project? What are (have been) your difficulties?
Question 15: What other changes do you think the project has promoted in the school?
Question 16: What other changes did you notice? To whom do you attribute them?
Question 17: According to you, what are the aspects that have not changed in your school since the 
establishment of the canteen (Good nutrition, delay, attendance, absence from school, school performance, 
hygiene, diseases, etc.)? Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change? (Short project 
duration, insufficient resources, no training, etc.)
Question 18: According to you, have there been other changes in your environment in terms of the dynamics 
of socio-economic life that you can relate to the intervention of the LRP Project?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 5: Project sustainability
Question 19: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
Question 20: What actions would you have planned to ensure school canteen continuity in terms of 
organization at the local level or with the support of a partner?
Question 21: Have there been any sharing of experiences (constraints, lessons learned) with other schools 
with or without school canteens?
29
The sixth part of our discussion is about learning
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 22a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 22b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 22c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals.
Item 7: Comparative questions with other projects
Question 23: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experimenced other school 
canteens? (If No, end survey)
Question 24: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
• What are the benefits of your school canteen (LRP)? Why?
• What are the shortcomings of this canteen in your school (LRP)? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
30
2. Parent Associations 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with Parent Associations (APE)-a COGES representative or a key 
informant
INTRODUCTORY FORM 
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which 
evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In order to appreciate the 
level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen supply system in place, we would 
like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 minutes to complete. On the one hand, this 
discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried out and, on the second hand, to make 
recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school feeding programs based on a local and regional 
food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are 
accurately translated. Your identity will be kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. 
You may decline to answer any questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What are the problems (or questions) in your school that the canteen is supposed to help solve? 
(Daily food, delay, attendance in class, academic performance, hygiene, illness, etc.)
Question 2: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP 
project? (If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into 
account? (Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 3: Did you participate in the decision-making meeting on the composition of COGES? Was your 
opinion taken into account during this meeting?
Question 4: Have you been associated (did you give your opinion) in the designation of COGES members? 
Question 5: Are you a member of COGES? How many APE members belong to COGES? What are their roles 
on this committee?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 6: Before the implementation of this canteen, how did your children get food when they were at 
school?
Question 7: What are the advantages that you perceive since the implementation of this canteen in your 
child's school (ease of access, good school feeding, and lower financial cost)?
Question 8: Are there any negative aspects related to the presence of this canteen in your child's school?
Thank for your responses. Let’s talk about the impact of the project
Item 3: Impact of the project 
Question 9: What changes have you noticed since the implementation of this school canteen? (good nutrition 
at school, marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Which of these changes can you attribute to the arrival of the school 
canteen? To whom do you attribute the others?
Question 10: What has not changed in the school since the arrival of this school canteen? (Good nutrition, 
marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change?
Question 11: Tell us about what you liked in the implementation of the school canteen.
Question 12: What did not you like in the implementation of the canteen at your school?
31
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Sustainability of the project 
Question 13: Do you think that it is necessary to continue this school canteen? (If yes, under what conditions 
and in what forms?)
The fifth part of our discussion concerns lessons learned.
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 14a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 14b. Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 14c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others?
The sixth and final part of our discussion focuses on the comparison of the LRP project with other projects with 
similar objectives.
Item 6: Comparative Questions with other projects
Question 15: Before the establishment of this canteen, have you known or experienced other school 
canteens? (If No, end survey)
Question 16: If yes, compared to school canteens that you have known or experienced in the past: 
a) What are the benefits of your school canteen (LRP)? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of this canteen in your school (LRP)? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
32
3. Government authorities
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with Government authorities (SAS/DDEMP, DDAEP/MAEP)
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Localization of the community
Department : Commune : Village : 
Phone : Email : 
Zone Type: LRP intervention = 1; FFE2 / PAM comparison = 2
[IF ZONE TYPE = FFE2/PAM COMPARISON, GO DIRECTLY TO SECTION B]
Section A: Assessment of the LRP project
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 2: In the implementation,
a) What did you like as an approach? Why? (Quantity and quality of meals served, cultural acceptability 
of meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen at your school?
Question 3: Do national policies consider and take into account support for producers and their access to local 
markets and school canteens, and the food security of schoolchildren? If yes, which ones? What is the degree 
of consideration?
Question 4: . What is the nature of your relationship with each of the actors involved in the project (COGES, 
APE, Directors and teachers, CRS-LRP, OP Faitière, producer associations, etc.)? What do you think of each 
relationship? Are these relationships good or bad? Why? What do you suggest to maintain or improve the 
relationship?
Question 5: Are there any information systems at your level to follow the activities of this project so that you 
can capitalize on these experiences if necessary? If yes, name them.
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 6: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 7: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 8: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
33
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 3: Project Impact 
Question 9: Have the LRP project contributed to the government's objectives of supporting producers in their 
access to local markets and school canteens, and in terms of the food security of school children? 
Question 10: What did you like in the implementation of school canteens through the LRP project? What didn’t 
you like in the implementation of school canteens through the LRP project?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Project sustainability
Question 11: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
Question 12: Which of the expected or unexpected results of the project are likely to be maintained beyond 
the implementation of the project?
Question 13: What are the main internal or external factors that could influence the success or failure to 
achieve the sustainability of the results achieved?
Question 14: Are there government policies, procedures or priorities that contribute to the sustainability of 
the results of this project? If yes, which ones and how?
Question 15: In view of the results achieved, is the government ready to continue local purchases and local 
management of school feeding? (If No, skip to Q17)
Question 16: If yes, what measures have been taken to integrate it into national and municipal plans?
The fifth part of our discussion is about learning.
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 17a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 17b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 17c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now? Are there any strengths in this project that you are planning to or have already 
capitalized?
Question 18: Do you think that the stakeholders have acquired the application and replicability capacities of 
the local procurement approach?
Section B: Comparison of the LRP project with FFE2 and PAM projects
N. B: Please consider the questions in this section with the eyes of LRP or FFE2 or PAM according to the 
reference project for the purpose of comparison
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals. 
Item 6: Comparative questions with other projects 
Question 19: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
(If No, skip to Q21)
Question 20: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past:
a) What are the benefits of your school canteen of LRP/FFE2/WFP project? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of this canteen of LRP/FFE2/WFP project? Why?
Question 21: To what extent is the procurement approach developed by the LRP/FFE2/WFP project more 
cost-effective and timely than the approaches taken by other projects?
Question 22: What are the positive or negative externalities resulting from the LRP/FFE/WFP project 
procurement approach to the local economy compared to the approaches adopted by the other projects?
Question 23: Do the beneficiaries of this project (producers, population, students, COGES) seem satisfied to 
you? What appreciation do they show of this project?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
34
4. Municipal authorities (Mayor / Representative in charge of economic/social affairs) 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with Municipal authorities (LRP, FFE, PAM) 
Date of the interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Localization of the community
Department : Commune : Village : 
Phone : Email : 
Zone Type: LRP intervention = 1; FFE2 / PAM comparison = 2
[IF ZONE TYPE = FFE2/PAM COMPARISON, GO DIRECTLY TO SECTION B]
Section A: Assessment of the LRP project
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 2: What are the problems (or questions) in your school that the canteen is supposed to help solve? 
(daily food, delay, attendance in class, academic performance, hygiene, illness, etc.)
Question 3: Was the selection of your municipality as part of the LRP project necessary? Why?
Question 4: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP project? 
(If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into account? 
(Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 5: In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach? Why? (Quantity and quality of meals served, cultural acceptability 
of meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen in your municipality?
Question 6: Do municipal policies consider and take into account support for producers and their access to 
local markets and school canteens, and the food security of schoolchildren? If yes, what is the degree of 
consideration in the PDC, and allocated budgets, etc.?
Question 7: Are the LRP project responses to these concerns well-suited? 
Question 8: What is the nature of your relationship with each of the actors involved in the project (COGES, 
APE, Directors and teachers, CRS-LRP, OP Faitière, producer associations, etc.)? What do you think of each 
35
relationship? Are these relationships good or bad? Why? What do you suggest to maintain or improve the 
relationship?
Probe: What are the communal committees for the supply of local products? What are the municipal 
supervision committees? What role did they play in your commune in relation to the LRP project? According 
to these committees, did they fulfil their roles as planned? Are you satisfied? Why or why not?
Question 9: Are there any information systems at your level to follow the activities of this project so that you 
can capitalize on these experiences if necessary? If yes, name them.
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 10: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 11: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 12: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 13: Have you received training as part of this project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained? In which concepts did you improve your knowledge?
Question 14: Did purchases of small lots work at the commune level? If yes, what strategies did you adopt?
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project 
Question 15: Has the project been implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
Question 16: What are the internal or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of the 
project? 
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 4: Project Impact 
Question 17: What changes have you noticed since the arrival of this school canteen? (Sale of agricultural food 
products, improvement of development tax payment capacity, reduction of food poisoning, improvement of 
economic activities, improvement of income, etc.). Which of these changes do you attribute to the arrival of 
the school canteen? To what do you attribute others?
Question 18: What are the aspects that have not changed in your school since the establishment of the 
canteen (sale of agricultural food products, improvement of development tax payment capacity, reduction of 
food poisoning, improvement of economic activities, improvement of income, etc.)? Can the school canteen 
change them? If yes, why was there no change?
Question 19: What did you like in the implementation of the LRP canteen in your municipality? 
What did not you like in the implementation of the canteen in your municipality?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 5: Sustainability of the project
Question 20: Have institutional relations been formalized between the project actors at the local level? To 
what extent do such relationships guarantee the continuity of the project or the emergence of a school 
canteen project based on local products with or without external support?
Question 21: Do you think that it is necessary to renew this school canteen? (If yes, under what conditions 
and in what forms?)
Question 22: Which of the expected or unexpected results of the project are likely to be maintained beyond 
the implementation of the project?
Question 23: What are the main internal or external factors that could influence the success or failure to 
achieve the sustainability of the results achieved?
Question 24: Are there government policies, procedures or priorities that contribute to the sustainability of 
the results of this project? If yes, which ones and how?
36
Question 25: In view of the results achieved, is the government ready to continue local purchases and local 
management of school feeding?
Question 26: If yes, what measures have been taken to integrate it into national and municipal plans?
The fifth part of our discussion is about satisfaction and learning.
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 27a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 27b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 27c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to share 
with others now?
Question 28: Do you think that the stakeholders have acquired the application and replicability capacities of 
the local procurement approach?
Section B: Comparison of the LRP project with FFE2 and PAM projects
N. B: Please consider the questions in this section with the eyes of LRP or FFE2 or PAM according to the 
reference project for the purpose of comparison
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals. 
Item 6: Comparative questions with other projects 
Question 29: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
(If No, skip to Q31)
Question 30: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
a) What are the benefits of your school canteen of LRP/FFE2/WFP project? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of this canteen of LRP/FFE2/WFP project? Why?
Question 31: To what extent is the procurement approach developed by the LRP/FFE2/WFP project more 
cost-effective and timely than the approaches taken by other projects?
Question 32: What are the positive or negative externalities resulting from the LRP/FFE/WFP project 
procurement approach to the local economy compared to the approaches adopted by the other projects?
Question 33: Do the beneficiaries of this project (producers, population, students, COGES) seem satisfied to 
you? What appreciation of this project do they show?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
37
5. Local Supply Committees (CPC) and Local supervision committees (CLOC)
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with CPC and CLOC 
Date of the interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORMULA
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Localization of the community
Department : Commune : Village : 
Phone : Email : 
Zone Type: LRP intervention = 1; FFE2 / PAM comparison = 2
Q1. Do you have statutes and regulations for the committee? If, yes, was it with the intervention of the LRP 
project that you created this committee?
Q2. Does the regulation schedule meetings?
Q3. If yes, what is the calendar (or the frequency) of the association’s meetings? How do you convene 
meetings? 
Q4. How are decisions made in the committee?
Q5. What are the sources of funding for your committee?
Q6. Do you develop a budget? If yes, do your expenses reflect this budget?
Q7. Does the office report to other members/LRP Project on the expenses incurred? (0=no; 1=yes)
Q8. What are your roles in supply, monitoring of the procurement process, and distributing products as part 
of the LRP project? What is your appreciation of your collaborations as part of this project?
Q9. What are (were) your difficulties in managing your roles in the LRP project? (Easy relationships, conflicting 
relationships with other actors (COGES, CRS-LRP)
Q10. Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention and you want to share with 
others, or take advantage now? Are there any strengths in this project that you are planning or have already 
capitalized?
Q11. Do you think it is necessary to renew this project? If yes, under what conditions and in what forms?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
38
6. Producer Associations 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with members of Producer Associations
Date of the interview: 
Investigator Name: 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Location of the association
Department : Commune : Village : 
Denomination : Initials : Phone : 
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 2: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP project? 
(If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into account? 
(Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 3: Did you participate in the decision-making meeting on the composition of COGES? Was your 
opinion been taken into account during this meeting?
Question 4: Have you participated (did you give your opinion) in the designation of COGES members? 
Question 5: Are you a member of COGES? How many OPA members belong to COGES? What are their roles
on this committee?
Question 6: In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach (local procurement)? Why? 
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 7: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 8: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 9: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 10: Have you received training as part of LRP project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained?
39
Probe: Have you been trained on: improvement production practices and post-harvest management, group 
selling practices, market access and the use of market information systems? (If No, skip to Q12)
Question 11: Did you really need these trainings? Is there a difference between these trainings and those you 
have received in other projects in terms of the specificity of training approaches or content?
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 12: Has the project allowed your association to have better financial benefits? If yes, what were the 
most profitable activities?
Question 13: What are the internal or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of 
other project activities?
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 4: Project Impact 
Question 14: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What effects have 
they had? (improvement of production practices and post-harvest management, [new farming practices 
including climate smart practices, access to appropriate equipment, infrastructure and techniques for storage 
and conservation], improvement of group selling practices, use of market information systems and market 
access[guaranteed access to markets, warrantsupport, decrease in the price of agricultural products, position 
improvement over traders])? What were the contributing factors to these effects?
Question 15: Which of the training components received have not been implemented? Why? What changes 
could not be made according to the expectations of the project? What are (have been) your difficulties?
Question 15a: What are the benefits of the LRP project for your socio-economic life?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 5: Project sustainability
Question 16: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
The sixth part of our discussion is about learning
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 17a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 17b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 17c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
Question 18: Does your participation in this project make your association able to take future commitments 
for the supply of agricultural products to other school canteen projects/structures or other sales to 
institutions such as WFP? If yes, how?
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals.
Item 7: Comparative questions with other projects
Question 19: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
(If No, end survey)
Question 20: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
• What are the benefits of your school canteen (LRP)? Why?
• What are the shortcomings of this canteen in your school (LRP)? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
40
7. OP Faitières
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with OP faitières
Date of the interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Location of the association
Department : Commune : Village : 
Denomination : Initials : Phone : 
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP 
project? (If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into 
account? (Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 2: Did you participate in the decision-making meeting on the composition of COGES? Has your 
opinion been taken into account during this meeting?
Question 3: Have you participated (did you give your opinion) in the designation of COGES members?
Question 4: Are you a member of COGES? How many OP Faitières members belong to COGES? What are their 
roles on this committee?
Question 5: In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach (local procurement)? Why? 
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen of your school?
Question 6: Do you think that your participation in this project has had a positive impact on the local school 
feeding model? Why or why not?
Question 7 What support or facilitation did you give to Producer Associations to ensure compliance with LRP 
contracts in terms of: capacity building on climate-smart farming practices, organizational management, and
use of information systems on agricultural markets?
Question 8: What was your role in the management of Producer Associations' supply contracts for agricultural 
products for the LRP project? Was it a good or bad approach? Why?
Question 9: What are the challenges your association had to respond to? How did you deal with these 
challenges? Have there been conflicts related to non-compliance with commitments? What were the 
resolution mechanisms?
41
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 10: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 11: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
a) What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why? What factors have contributed to the 
achievement of these results?
b) What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why? What factors have hindered the 
achievement of these results?
Question 12: Have you received training as part of LRP project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained?
Probe: Have you been trained on: organizational capacity building (formalization, application of regulatory 
documents, maintenance of administrative and management documents), improvement production practices 
and post-harvest management, group selling practices, market access and the use of market information 
systems
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 13: Has the project provided financial benefits to your Association? If yes, what were the most 
profitable activities?
Question 14: What are the internal or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of 
other project activities?
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 4: Project Impact 
Question 15: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What changes have 
they made (organizational reinforcement [holding regular meetings, collective decision making, group 
agreement], improvement of production practices and post-harvest management, [new farming practices 
including climate smart practices, access to appropriate equipment, infrastructure and techniques for storage 
and conservation], improvement of group selling practices, use of market information systems and market 
access [guaranteed access to markets, decrease in the price of agricultural products, position improvement 
over traders])? What were the contributing factors?
Question 16: What are the positive/negative effects of the training on climate change on your productivity?
Question 17: What changes could not be made according to the expectations of the project? What are (were) 
your difficulties?
Question 18: Does your participation in this project make your association able to facilitate future 
commitments of producer associations for the supply of agricultural products to other school canteen 
projects/structures or other sales to institutions such as WFP? If yes, how?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 5: Project sustainability
Question 19: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
The sixth part of our discussion is about satisfaction and learning
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 20a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 20b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
42
Question 20: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now? 
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals.
Item 7: Comparative questions with other projects
Question 21: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
a. What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
b. What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
43
8. PASDeR/ProAgri
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with other project managers (PASDeR, ProAgri)
Date of the interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Localization of the community
Department : Commune : Village : 
Phone : Email : 
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 2: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP project? 
(If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into account? 
(Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 3: In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach (local procurement)? Why?
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the LRP canteen?
Question 4:
What is the nature of your relationship with each of the actors involved in the project (COGES, APE, Directors 
and teachers, CRS-LRP, OP Faitière, producer associations, etc.)? What do you think of each relationship? Are 
these relationships good or bad? Why? What do you suggest to maintain or improve the relationship?
Question 5 Was it necessary for the LRP Project to train producers? Was it a duplication of the trainings you 
already gave? 
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 6: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 7: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 8: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 9: Is there complementarity in your interventions?
44
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 3: Project Impact 
Question 10: Have the project interventions improved some of your practices in terms of: strengthening 
organizational capacities of Producer Associations and individual producers, improvement of production 
practices and post-harvest management, group selling practices, use of market information systems and 
market access?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Project sustainability
Question 11: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
Question 12: What are the main internal or external factors that could influence the success or failure of the 
sustainability of the results achieved?
The fifth part of our discussion is about satisfaction and learning.
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned 
Question 13a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 13b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 13c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to share 
with others now?
The sixth and final part of our discussion focuses on the comparison of the LRP project with other projects with 
similar objectives.
Item 6: Comparative Questions with other projects 
Question 14: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
Question 15: If yes, compared to school canteens that you have known or experienced in the past:
a) What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
45
9. LRP Staff in charge of program
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Individual Interview Guide with LRP Staff in charge of program
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: Have your expectations been met with regards to different actors facilitating the project 
implementation? Why or why not?
Question 2: Have your expectations of the project results been met? Why or why not? 
Question 3: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 3a: Are you satisfied with the overall progress of the project?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 4: Were the planned activities to achieve the transformations described in the project's theory of 
change completed?
Question 5: What specific events attracted your attention during the project implementation process and 
which are important to the project or its results? Why?
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 6:
a- What are the communal supply committees? What are the communal supervision committees? What 
is their role in the LRP project?
b- How is the supply of local products organized? Please describe
c- What are the different advantages observed with regards to the supply approach according to the 
target zones or communes?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Sustainability of the project
Question 7: In the event of continuing project activities, what may be necessary to improve in your opinion?
Question 8: What contribution do you expect from the community or Producer Associations (free supply of 
school feeding products for example)?
The fifth part of our discussion is about learning.
Item 5: Lessons learned
Question 9: What are the strengths of the project approach? (In relation to the participation of different 
actors)
Question 10: What are the challenges of the project? Why?
46
III. Focus group discussions
1. Parents 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Focus group discussions with Parents
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What are the problems (or questions) in your school that the canteen is supposed to help solve? 
(Daily food, delay, attendance in class, academic performance, hygiene, illness, etc.)
Question 2: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP project? 
(If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into account? 
(Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 3: Did you participate in the decision-making meeting on the composition of COGES? Was your 
opinion been taken into account during this meeting?
Question 4: Did you participate (did you give your opinion) in the designation of COGES members? 
Question 5: Are you a member of COGES? How many APE members belong to COGES? What are their roles 
on this committee?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness 
Question 6: Before the implementation of this canteen, how did your children get food when they were at 
school?
Question 7: What are the advantages that you perceive since the implementation of this canteen in your 
child's school (ease of access, good school feeding, and lower financial cost)?
Question 8: Are there any negative aspects related to the presence of this canteen in your child's school?
Thank for your responses. Let’s talk about the impact of the project
Item 3: Impact of the project 
Question 9: What changes have you noticed since the implementation of this school canteen? (good nutrition 
at school, marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Which of these changes can you attribute to the arrival of the school 
canteen? To what do you attribute the others?
47
Question 10: What has not changed in the school since the arrival of this school canteen? (Good nutrition, 
marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change?
Question 11: What did you like in the implementation of the school canteen?
Question 12: What did not you liked in the implementation of the school canteen?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Sustainability of the project 
Question 13: Do you think that it is necessary to continue this school canteen? (If yes, under what conditions 
and in what forms?)
The fifth part of our discussion concerns lessons learned.
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 14a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 14b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 14c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
The sixth and final part of our discussion focuses on the comparison of the LRP project with other projects with 
similar objectives.
Item 6: Comparative Questions with other projects 
Question 15: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
Question 16: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
a) What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
48
2. Mothers
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Focus group discussions with mothers
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: What are the problems (or questions) in your school that the canteen is supposed to help solve? 
(Daily food, delay, attendance in class, academic performance, hygiene, illness, etc.)
Question 2: Have there been any information meetings for mothers (or their representatives) about the 
prospects of implementing the LRP project? If yes, number of meetings. What was said during those meetings?
Question 3: Were the opinions of mothers (or their representatives) solicited and/or taken into account on 
aspects of conception or implementation of this project? If yes, what aspects? If not, why? How was this 
helpful (or unhelpful)??
Question 4: Have you been asked to give your opinion on the composition of the COGES?
a) If yes, was your opinion taken into account? How was this helpful (or unhelpful)?
b) If not, why was your opinion not solicited or taken into account? How was this helpful (or unhelpful)??
Question 5: Have you been involved (or given your opinion) in the designation of COGES members?
a) If yes, was your opinion taken into account? How was this (helpful (or unhelpful)??
b) If not, why was your opinion not solicited or taken into account? How was this (helpful (or unhelpful)?? 
Question 6: Do mothers have a place (or a position) in the COGES?
a) If yes, how many positions? What are these positions? How was this helpful (or unhelpful)?? 
b) If No, why do they not have positions in the COGES? How was this helpful (or unhelpful)?? 
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 7: Before the implementation of this canteen, how did your children get food when they were at 
school?
Question 8: What are the advantages that you perceive since the implementation of this canteen in your 
child's school (ease of access, good school feeding, and lower financial cost)?
Question 9: Are there any negative aspects related to the presence of this canteen in your child's school?
49
Thank for your responses. Let’s talk about the impact of the project
Item 3: Impact of the project 
Question 10: What changes have you noticed since the implementation of this school canteen? (good nutrition 
at school, marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). 
Question 11: Which of these changes can you attribute to the arrival of the school canteen? To what do you 
attribute the others?
Question 12: What has not changed in the school since the arrival of this school canteen? (Good nutrition, 
marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change?
Question 13: What did you liked in the implementation of the school canteen?
Question 14: What did not you liked in the implementation of the school canteen?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Sustainability of the project 
Question 13: Do you think that it is necessary to continue this school canteen? (If yes, under what conditions 
and in what forms?)
The fifth part of our discussion concerns lessons learned.
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 16a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 16b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 16c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
The sixth and final part of our discussion focuses on the comparison of the LRP project with other projects with 
similar objectives.
Item 6: Comparative Questions with other projects 
Question 15: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experimeced other school canteens?
Question 16: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
a) What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
b) What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
50
3. Teachers
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Focus Group Discussion with Teachers
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: According to you, was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? Why or why not?
Question 2: Do you think the LRP project was necessary? Why or why not?
In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach? Why? (Quantity and quality of meals served, cultural acceptability of 
meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the canteen at your school? (Quantity and quality of meals 
served, cultural acceptability of meals, financial participation, local supply of products, etc.)?
Question 3: What are the problems (or questions) in your school that the canteen is supposed to help solve? 
(Daily food, delay, presence and attendance in class, academic performance, hygiene, illness, etc.).
Question 4: Have teachers or teacher representatives participated in information meetings on the prospects 
of implementing the LRP project? (If yes, number of meetings). What was said during these meetings? Was
their opinion been taken into account? (Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 5: Have teachers or teacher representatives taken part in decision-making meetings on the 
composition of COGES? Was their opinion been taken into account?
Question 6: Have teachers or teacher representatives been associated (or given their opinion) in the 
designation of COGES members? Are teachers members of COGES? How many teachers participate in COGES? 
What are their roles on this committee?
Question 7: Tell us about:
a) The COGES composition (different positions and their responsibilities, assignment of positions) 
b) Missions and objectives of the COGES
c) COGES operating rules 
d) Methods of communication (meetings, various notes, evaluation sheets or pupil satisfaction surveys, 
activity reports, telephone communications, use of ICTs, etc.)
e) Decision-making methods
Question 8: What are your relationships with other actors in the school, as part of this LRP project? (COGES, 
chef, APE, ME, teachers, nurse/responsible for medical care, students/students leaders, OPA, CRS-LRP, other 
schools, etc.). What is the nature of your relationship with each of them? Do you think this relationship is good 
or bad? Why? What do you suggest to improve the relationship?
51
Question 9: Who ensures the meal service for students is organized? Are there rules relating to: meal times, 
food volumes, menus, etc.? How do you ensure compliance with these rules?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 10: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 11: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 12: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 7: Have you received training as part of this project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained?
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 3: Project Impact 
Question 15: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What effects have 
they had? What were the contributing factors to these effects?
Question 16: Which of the training components received have not been implemented? Why? What changes 
could not be made according to the expectations of the project? What are (have been) your difficulties?
Question 17: What other changes do you think the project has promoted in the school?
Question 18: What other changes did you notice? To what do you attribute them?
Question 15: According to you, what are the aspects that have not changed in your school since the 
establishment of the canteen (Good nutrition, delay, attendance, absence from school, school performance, 
hygiene, diseases, etc.)? Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change? (Short project 
duration, insufficient resources, no training, etc.)
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Project sustainability
Question 20: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
Question 21: What actions would you have planned to ensure school canteen continuity in terms of 
organization at the local level or partnerships?
Question 22: Have there been any sharing of experiences (constraints, lessons learned) with other schools 
with or without school canteens?
The fifth part of our discussion is about satisfaction and learning
Item 5: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 23a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 23b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not
Question 23c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals.
Item 6: Comparative questions with other projects
Question 24: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens?
Question 25: If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past: 
• What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
• What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
52
4. COGES 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Focus Group Discussion with COGES members
Date of interview : 
Investigator name :
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Number of participants
Male : Female : Total :
Type of school : LRP Intervention = 1 ; FFE2/PAM Comparison = 2 
[IF ZONE TYPE = FFE2/PAM COMPARISON, GO DIRECTLY TO SECTION B]
Section A: Assessment of the LRP project
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: According to you, was it necessary to implement a canteen in the school? Why or why not?
Question 2: Do you think it was necessary to implement the LRP canteen that you manage? Why or why not?
Tell us about the different COGES you represent.
Question 3: Tell us about:
- The COGES composition (different positions and their responsibilities, assignment of positions) 
- Missions and objectives of the COGES
- COGES operating rules 
- Methods of communication (meetings, various notes, evaluation sheets or pupil satisfaction surveys,
activity reports, telephone communications, use of ICTs, etc.)
- Decision-making methods
- What is your relationships with other actors? (Chef [Provision of Products, Cooking Utensils and Other, 
Storage, Inventory Management], APE, ME, Principals and Teachers, Nurse /responsible for medical 
care, Class Managers, OPA [Identification, Procurement],], CRS-LRP, other COGES, etc.). What is the 
nature of your relationship with each of them? Do you think this relationship is good or bad? Why? 
What do you suggest to improve the relationship?
53
- Who ensures the meal service for students is organized? Are there rules relating to: meal times, food 
volumes, menus, etc.? How do you ensure compliance with these rules?
Let's look at the effectiveness aspect of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 4: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
Question 6: What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 6: What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why?
Question 7: In the Project implementation:
- What did you like as an approach? Why? 
- What didn’t you like in the implementation of the school canteen?
The part we are now discussing is the cost-effectiveness of the project
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 8: Have you received training as part of this project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained? 
Probe: Have you been trained on inventory management, quantities to be served, hygiene rules, schedules, 
different forms of communication, etc.? Tell us about it.
Question 9: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What changes have 
they made? What were the contributing factors?
Question 10: Which of the training components received have not been implemented? Why? What changes 
could not be made according to the expectations of the project?
Question 11: What are your difficulties in the functioning of COGES?
Let's talk about the impact of the project within the school.
Item 4: Project impact
Question12: What changes have you noticed since the implementation of this school canteen? 
Question 13: What other changes have there been in the school and not related to the arrival of school 
canteens? To what do you attribute these other changes?
Question 14: What has not changed in the school since the arrival of this school canteen? (Good nutrition, 
marketing of local products, organization of producers, presence and attendance in class, academic 
performance, hygiene, diseases, etc.). Can the school canteen change them? If yes, why was there no change?
Let's take a look at the sustainability of the project.
Item 5: Sustainability of the project 
Question 15: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
Question 16: What actions would you have planned to ensure school canteen continuity in terms of 
organization at the local level or partnerships?
Thank for your responses. Let’s talk about satisfaction and lessons learned
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 17a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 17b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 17c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
Question 18: Have there been any sharing of experiences (constraints, lessons learned) with other schools not 
benefiting from school canteens?
54
Section B: Comparison of the LRP project with FFE2 and PAM projects
N. B: Please consider the questions in this section with the eyes of LRP or FFE2 or PAM according to the 
reference project for the purpose of comparison
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals. 
Item 7: Comparative questions with other projects (specify the questions in relation to the school canteen 
project LRP or FFE or PAM in the presence)
Question 19:
• Describe your food supply mechanism for your school canteen.
• Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens? If yes, 
compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced: 
- What are the benefits of your school canteen? Why?
- What are the shortcomings of your school canteen? Why?
Question 20: What are the criteria on which the cost of a meal in the school canteen is based on your project?
Question 21: Do you think that the cost of a canteen meal is affordable for all students in the school? Do you 
think students are satisfied with this cost?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
55
5. Producer Associations
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Focus Group Discussion with Producer Associations
Date of interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the second hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
Location of association 
Department : Commune : Village : 
Denomination : Initials : Phone : 
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: Did you participate in the information meetings on the prospects of implementing the LRP project? 
(If yes, number of meetings). What was said in those meetings? Has your opinion been taken into account? 
(Have your proposals been accepted and used?)
Question 2: Did you participate in the decision-making meeting on the composition of COGES? Was your 
opinion taken into account during this meeting?
Question 3: Did you participate (did you give your opinion) in the designation of COGES members? 
Question 4: Are you a member of COGES? How many OPA members belong to COGES? What are their roles 
on this committee?
Question 5: In the implementation, 
a) What did you like as an approach (local procurement)? Why? 
b) What didn’t you like in the implementation of the LRP canteen?
Question 6: Do you think that your participation in this project has had a positive impact on the local school 
feeding model? Why or why not?
Question 7: Tell us about:
a) Your Association composition (different positions and their responsibilities, assignment of positions) 
b) Missions and objectives of the Association
c) Association operating rules
d) Methods of communication (meetings, various notes, evaluation sheets or pupil satisfaction surveys, 
activity reports, telephone communications, use of ICTs, etc.)
e) Decision-making methods
56
- Question 8: What is your relationship with other actors? (COGES [Contract management, readiness to 
respond, quality of the products provided, constraints to meet the demand, management of conflicts 
related to failures in compliance with the terms of contract, satisfaction with product prices and 
payment methods], APE, Directors and teachers, CRS-LRP [identification and selection criteria in the 
project], OP faîtières [intermediation for the contracting with the COGES, contribution to facilitate the 
realization of the contracts], other producer associations, etc.). What is the nature of your relationship 
with each of them? Do you think this relationship is good or bad? Why? What do you suggest to 
improve the relationship?
Question 9: What were the constraints you faced in managing your relationships with other actors? What 
solutions have you developed? Which of these constraints have been discussed within the association? Which 
of these constraints have been discussed with other actors (CRS-LRP and COGES)? Why?
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 10: What can you tell us about the school canteens of the LRP project?
Question 11: What are the objectives of the LRP canteen? What are the expected results?
a) What are the expected results that seem to be achieved? Why? What factors have contributed to the 
achievement of these results?
b) What are the results that do not seem to be achieved? Why? What factors have hindered the 
achievement of these results?
Question 12: Have you received training as part of LRP project? If yes, what are the topics on which you were 
trained?
Probe: Have you been trained on: strengthening organizational capacities (formalization, application of 
statutory regulatory documents, maintenance of administrative and management documents, admissibility to 
members), improvement production practices and post-harvest management, group selling practices, market 
access and the use of market information systems?
Question 13: Did you really need these trainings? Is there a difference between these trainings and those you 
have received in other projects in terms of training approaches or content?
The third component relates to the cost-effectiveness of the project.
Item 3: Cost-effectiveness of the project
Question 14: Has the project allowed your association to have better financial benefits? If yes, what were the 
most profitable activities?
Question 13: What are the internal or external factors that have hindered the effective implementation of 
other project activities?
Thank you for your answers. Now let's talk about the impact of the project.
Item 4: Project Impact 
Question 16: What are the aspects of the training that you could implement quite easily? What effects have 
they had?: strengthening organizational capacities (formalization, application of regulatory documents, 
maintenance of administrative and management documents), interest for the production of crops targeted by 
the LRP, improvement of production practices and post-harvest management [new farming practices 
including climate smart practices, access to appropriate equipment, infrastructure and techniques for storage 
and conservation], improvement of group selling practices, use of market information systems and market 
access [guaranteed access to markets, warrantsupport, decrease in the price of agricultural products, position 
improvement over traders])? What were the contributing factors?
Question 17: What are the positive/negative effects of strengthening your capacity on climate change on your 
productivity?
Question 18: Which of the training components received have not been implemented? Why? What changes 
could not be made according to the expectations of the project? What are (have been) your difficulties?
57
Question 19: Does your participation in this project make your association able to take future commitments 
for the supply of agricultural products to other school canteen projects/structures or other sales to 
institutions such as WFP? If yes, how?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 5: Project sustainability
Question 16: Do you think it is necessary to renew this school canteen experience? If yes, under what 
conditions and in what forms?
The sixth part of our discussion is about learning
Item 6: Satisfaction and lessons learned
Question 21a: What were your expectations at the start of the LRP project?
Question 21b: Have your expectations for this project been met? Why or why not?
Question 21c: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to 
share with others now?
Let's move on to the last part of our discussion about comparing the LRP project to other projects with similar 
goals.
Item 7: Comparative questions with other projects
Question 22: Before the establishment of this canteen, had you known or experienced other school canteens? 
If yes, compared to school canteens that you had known or experienced in the past:
• What are the benefits of the LRP school canteen? Why?
• What are the shortcomings of the LRP school canteen)? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
58
6. Students
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP))
Focus Group Discussion with Students
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Hello. My name is ........................, and I work for the firm EVIHDAF, a partner of Catholic Relief Services 
(CRS), which evaluates the LRP project "Bèsèn Diannou", which has been in implementation since 2018. In 
order to appreciate the level of achievement of the expected results and the quality of the school canteen 
supply system in place, we would like to have a discussion with you. This discussion will take about 30 
minutes to complete. On the one hand, this discussion will allow us to learn from the various actions carried 
out and, on the other hand, to make recommendations to CRS and its various partners for future school 
feeding programs based on a local and regional food supply. If you approve, we would like to record the 
discussion to make sure your thoughts, opinions and ideas are accurately translated. Your identity will be 
kept confidential and we will not associate your name with what you say. You may decline to answer any 
questions. Similarly, if necessary, you can withdraw momentarily or permanently.
SHEET IDENTIFICATION 
Sheet’s number (Use a 2-digit number. e.g. 01, 02, 10, 30 ...): /________/ 
Investigator’s name: ………………………………………/ Date of investigation: J /___/ M/___/2019
Start time: /___/ H/___/Mn End time: /___/ H/___/Mn 
Supervisor's name: ……………………………………………/ Date of supervision: J /___/ M/___/2019
Questions Tick the right answers
Commune 1_ Parakou ; 2_ N’Dali ; 3_ Pèrèrè ; 4_ Tchaourou
Number of schoolchildren Boys Girls Total
Our first round of discussion will focus on the relevance of the LRP project
Item 1: Relevance of the project
Question 1: Do you think it was necessary to implement a canteen in the school? Why or why not?
Question 2: Are schoolchildren or representatives of schoolchildren members of COGES? If yes, what is their 
role within COGES?
Question 3: Is the opinion of the schoolchildren taken into account when planning the meals? If yes, who 
considers their opinion?
Question 4: Is the opinion of schoolchildren on the quantity and quality of the meals served taken into 
account? If yes, who considers their opinion?
Question 5: If a meal is not enough for a school child, can he or she ask for additional meal service? Tell us 
about your experiences.
Question 6: Are parents of students involved in canteen management? If yes, how? If not, why?
Question 7: Are students’ mothers involved in canteen management? If yes, how? If not, why?
Question 8: Are school principals involved in canteen management? If yes, how? If not, why?
Question 9: Are teachers involved in canteen management? If yes, how? If not, why?
59
Let's move on to the second part of the discussion about the effectiveness of the LRP project
Item 2: Project effectiveness
Question 10: In the functioning of the school canteen, what did you like? Why?
a) Composition of dishes: Why?
b) Amount of meals served: Why?
c) Quality of meals served: Why?
d) Local meals: Why?
e) Number of meals served per school day: How much and why?
f) Hours of meals : Why?
g) Meal Costs: Why?
h) Fewer diseases at school: Why?
i) Less absence or delay of schoolchildren in class: Why?
Question 11: What did not you like in the implementation of the school canteen?
a) Composition of dishes: Why?
b) Amount of meals served: Why?
c) Quality of meals served: Why?
d) Local meals: Why?
e) Number of meal served per school day: How much and why?
f) Hours of meals : Why?
g) Meal Costs: Why?
Thank for your responses. Let’s talk about the impact of the project
Item 3: Impact of the project 
Question 12: Before the implementation of this canteen, how did you get meals at school?
Question 13: What are the advantages that you perceive since the implementation of this canteen in your 
school (ease of access, good school feeding, and lower financial cost)?
Question 14: Are there any negative aspects related to the presence of this canteen in your school?
The next part we will focus on is the sustainability of the project
Item 4: Sustainability of the project 
Question 15: What can disturb the functioning of your school canteen?
The last part we will focus on is the lessons learned
Item 5: Lessons learned
Question 16: Through this school canteen experience, what has caught your attention that you want to share 
with others?
Question 17: Do you think that it is necessary to continue this school canteen? Why?
End date and time Thank for your collaboration
60
IV. Direct Observations 
1. COGES Observation (Cooks and Storekeepers)
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Direct observation sheet COGES (Cooks and Storekeepers)
Commune: Parakou=1; N'Dali=2; Pèrèrè=3; Tchaourou=4; Kalalé=5; Gogounou=6; Kandi=7; Malanville=8 
School ID /___ //___ /
Body and dress hygiene
1 Do the cooks wash their hands before preparing the kitchen? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
2 Do the cooks protect their heads while cooking? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
3 Do the cooks wash their hands before handling food (use of starch, crushing or cutting of 
condiments, etc...) and after a break or rest? (No=0 ; With water only =1 ; With water and 
soap or ashes =2) 
4 Do cooks have nails well cut? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
5 Do cooks carry beauty materials that can rust? (Rings=1 ; Earrings =2 ; Bracelets=3 ; Necklace 
=4 ; No=0) [multiple responses possible]
6 Do the cooks wear kitchen uniforms? (Aprons, vests, blouses, etc.) ? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
7 Do the cooks wear clean clothes? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
Food hygiene
8 Are the foods used for the preparation of meals of good quality (absence of weevils, cereals 
without holes, undamaged, etc.)? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
9 Are the foods washed before preparation? (Yes=1 ; No=0 ; Not applicable=2)
10 Are the meals placed on a tray before and during the service? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
11 Is the food is sorted before use? (Yes=1 ; No=0 ; Not observed)
12 Is the water used for the preparation clear (colourless, odourless)? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
Is the water used for the dishes clear (colourless, odourless)? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
Dishes
13 Are cooking tools washed well with soap and water? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
These are pots, pans, basins, buckets, knives, bowls etc ... They must be washed with soap and 
water before and after each preparation.
14 Are the utensils (bowls, ladles, spoons, dishes) not dropped on the ground? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
15 Are the utensils rinsed with potable water at each step (change of food)? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
16 Are the utensils that are in contact with raw food immediately washed with clean water and 
soap? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
17 Are the dished placed far from where the meals are prepared? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
The investigator may consider that the distance is far if it is more than 100 m from the place 
where the meals are prepared.
Cooking and preparation
18 Are the foods well cooked? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
19 Are canned foods used in food preparation? (No=0 ; Yes=1 ; Not applicable=2)
20 Are expiry dates correctly respected? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
21 Are thepots covered before, during and after cooking? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
61
22 Are dishes from previous days recycled? (Yes=1 ; No=0 ; Not applicable=2)
23 If yes, are they hygienic (non-sticky, without mold or smell of fermentation, etc.)? (Yes=1 ; 
No=0)
Conservation
24 After cooking, are the foods well preserved (kept hot in a well-covered container)? (Yes=1 ; 
No=0)
25 Are cooked foods that are not consumed well preserved (kept refrigerated)?Yes=1 ; No=0)
Service 
26 Do cooks ensure that meals are hot when they are distributed (reheating as needed)? (Yes=1 ; 
No=0)
27 Do cooks serve meals in clean bowls/plates? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
Environmental hygiene
28 Are the surroundings of the kitchen well cleaned? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
29 Is the kitchen cleaned before and after the preparation and cooking of meals? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
30 Is wastewater discharged away from the meal preparation area? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
31 Is kitchen waste cleared every day? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
32 Is the kitched far from unsanitary areas (WC, channels, sumps, pile of garbage)? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
Hygiene in the store
33 Is the store well swept? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
34 Number of times swept per day /__/__/
35 Storage mode (In bags =1 ; In bulk =2 ; In basins =3 ; other (specify)=8)
36 Are the products on pallets? (Yes=1 ; No=0)
62
2. COGES Observation (community involvement in the buying process)
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Direct observation sheet COGES (community involvement in the buying process)
Commune: Parakou=1; N'Dali=2; Pèrèrè=3; Tchaourou=4; Kalalé=5; Gogounou=6; Kandi=7; Malanville=8 
School ID /___ //___ /
Q01. Are parents of students/community members present during inventories? (0=No, 1=Yes)
Q02. Is the opinion of the parents of students/community members considered when the orders are made? 
(0=No, 1=Yes)
Q03. Are there parents of students/community members when receiving delivered products? (0=No, 1=Yes)
63
3. Inventory of infrastructures 
Project evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Infrastructure Inventory Sheet
Commune: Parakou=1; N'Dali=2; Pèrèrè=3; Tchaourou=4; Kalalé=5; Gogounou=6; Kandi=7 ; Malanville=8 
School ID /___ //___ /
Section A. Inventory in kitchens
Location of the kitchen (Within the school =1 ; Out of school=2)
Is there a cafeteria for students? (Oui=1 ; Non=0)
If not, where do they eat? (In the classrooms =1 ; Under a tree =2 ; in the school yard =3 ; other 
(specify)=8)
Is there a hand washing device for children? (0=No, 1=Yes)
If yes, which ones: 1=Tippy Tap, 2=DLM, 3= other (specify)____________________
Structure used for cooking (Outdoors =1 ; Tent/Hangar=2 ; Well-built =3 ; other (specify)=8) 
If <>1, nature of the walls of the kitchen (Clay =1 ; Brick =2 ; Straw =3 ; Attic =4 ; sheet metal 
=5 ; Woods=6 ; other (specify)=8)
If <>1, nature of the kitchen roof (Sheet metal/Tile=1 ; Straw=2 ; Tile=3 ; other (specify)=8)
IF <>1, nature of the kitchen floor (Groupnd=1 ; Cement=2 ; Tile=3 ; other (specify)=8)
Type of cooking firebox used
Number of fireboxes for cooking meals
Presence of a fridge
Section B. Inventory in Stores
Nature of store walls (Clay =1 ; Brick =2 ; Straw =3 ; Attic =4 ; Sheet metal =5 ; Woods=6 ; 
other (specify)=8)
Nature of the store roof (Sheet metal/Tile=1 ; Straw=2 ; Tile=3 ; other (specify)=8)
Nature of the store floor (Ground=1 ; Cement=2 ; Tile=3 ; other (specify)=8)
Location (Within the school in a location of its own =1 ; Within the school in a classroom =2 ; 
Within the school in the Director's office =3 ; Out of school at home =4 ; Out of school at a 
community store =5)
What are the stored foods?
Are they in sufficient to keep the stock filled?
64
Second Part: Comparative study on costs and times
I. Quantitative Surveys
1. Sheet for LRP/FFE/PAM Staff in charge of procurement and logistics
Project Evaluation Bèsèn Diannou Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP)
Data collection sheet with LRP, FFE and PAM Staff in charge of purchases and finances
Date of interview : 
Investigator Name : 
INTRODUCTORY FORM
Location of association 
Department : Commune : Village : 
Denomination : Initials : Phone : 
Section A: Collection of quantitative data
Project (LRP=1; FFE2=2; PAM=3)
Q1. Take stock of the food supply operations you have done in the past 12 months by completing the 
following table:
(See next page)
65
Sheet of food supply operations for school canteensa
Product
b
Wave of 
purchase
Quantity 
(in tons)
Amount
Cost of 
transport 
(until 
delivery)
Duration 
(in days) 
of the 
purchase 
process)
c
Number 
of days 
from 
order to 
delivery
Duration 
(days) of 
the 
distribution 
of products 
to 
beneficiary 
schoolsd
Cost of 
transportation 
of product 
distribution to 
beneficiary 
schoolsd
Number of 
beneficiary 
schools 
consideredd
Number of 
Km counted 
for 
distribution 
in the 
beneficiary 
schoolsd
Number of 
target 
students 
considered 
or 
estimatedd
Maize
1
2
3
4
Other wave 
(to be 
completed)
Soy
1
2
3
4
Other wave 
(to be 
completed))
Rice
1
2
3
4
Other wave 
(to be 
completed)
Shea 
butter
1
2
66
3
4
Other wave 
(to be 
completed)
Other 
products 
(to be 
specified 
and 
completed)
1
2
3
4
Other wave 
(to be 
completed)
a: Please prepare for us documents on these procurement operations such as registers, slips, purchase/orders contract with suppliers, carriers, etc.
b: You can add lines to supplement the food products bought for the benefit of the canteen as part of your project whose name is not on the form or 
also add lines to inform the waves of purchase made when there is an amountmore than what is mentioned.
c: The duration (in days) of the purchase process includes the time from the launch of the tender (submission, selection of suppliers and signature of 
contract) or the time of launching or negotiation of the order until the signing of the order contract.
d: Please provide data by target commune if possible.
Q2. How much do you consider a dish offered by the canteen to Students? /__ /__ /__ /__ /
Section B: Collection of qualitative data
Q3. Describe your food supply mechanism for your school canteen.
Q4. Do you think that the method of supplying your project is faster and cheaper than the methods of supplying other projects? Why?
Q5. Which products are the least expensive and easily accessible on the market?
Q6. What strategy do you use to reduce delivery times in schools to avoid selling out?
67
2. COGES - Representative
See Section G of the corresponding questionnaire in the Endline study
3. Students
See Section D of the corresponding questionnaire in the Endline study
II. Individual Interviews
1. LRP/FFE/PAM staff in charge of procurement and logistics
Following the sheet of LRP/FFE/PAM Staff
2. Communes
See Section B of the corresponding Interview Guide in the Endline Study
3. Government authorities
See Section B of the corresponding Interview Guide in the Endline Study
III. Focus Group Discussions
1. COGES
See Section B of the corresponding Interview Guide in the Endline Study
68
 
dissemination. 
69
70
71
72
Annex 4. Highlights of key review meetings
September 19th Webinar 
A webinar was organized on September 19, 2019 to review and discuss the evaluation 
finding and identify areas of further improvements. In attendance were CRS staff including: 
Blandine Ekpodile (LRP Director), Marie Rongeard, Stacy Prieto, Megan, Caitlin, Thierry Yabi 
(MEAL Coordinator for Benin-Togo), and Brice Denakpo (MEAL LRP). From the evaluation 
team, Jean Christophe Fotso and Paul Kouete Jimmy were in attendance.
The meeting began with a presentation by Jean Christophe, with focus on the methodology, 
key findings and the recommendations. Followed a session for questions and answers 
during which the CRS team made comments and suggestions, and sought clarifications from 
the evaluation team. Major findings were discussed, their interpretation revisited, and 
suggestions made to improve on the report. 
Discussion with FFE and PAM staff 
After reviewing the preliminary findings from the comparative study, a review meeting was 
organized on September 9, 2019 to harmonize understanding of the different cost and time 
variables, and ensure that data is comparable across the three programs. Participants 
included: Blandine Ekpodile, Salimanou Issa and Brice Denakpo from LRP; Simplice
Gangbadjo from MGD/FFE; Wilfried Chigblo and Armelle Korogone from WFP; Thierry Yabi 
from CRS; and Jean Christophe Fotso from the evaluation team. During the meeting, a 
number of adjustments were proposed, such as the inclusion of a description of meals 
served weekly to students in the datasets. Another key outcome of the meeting was the 
realization that the indicator on cost per meal will not apply to WFP, given the way their 
information system is structured. Following the meeting, the analysis was further refined.
73