1
September 2016
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was 
prepared independently on behalf of Catholic Relief Services.
Baseline Evaluation Report: Phase III of the Food for 
Education Program in Sierra Leone
BASELINE EVALUATION 
OF THE FOOD FOR 
EDUCATION PROJECT 
(PHASE III) IN SIERRA 
LEONE 
Program: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Agreement Number: FFE-636-2015/018-00
Funding Year: Fiscal Year 2015
Project Duration: 2015-2018
Implemented by: Catholic Relief Services
Evaluation Authored by: Catholic Relief Services
September 12, 2016 
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. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this report can be made available upon request by 
emailing FAS.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov. 
CONTENTS
Baseline Evaluation Report: Phase III of the Food for Education Program in Sierra Leone ............................1
Contents..........................................................................................................................................................................4
Table of Figures.............................................................................................................................................................5
List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................................6
Acronyms........................................................................................................................................................................7
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................8
Background of the project......................................................................................................................................8
Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions...................................................................................................8
Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations.....................................................................................................9
Main findings............................................................................................................................................................10
Conclusion and Recommendations....................................................................................................................11
Introduction..................................................................................................................................................................17
Country Context....................................................................................................................................................17
Project Background................................................................................................................................................18
Intervention Logic...................................................................................................................................................19
Evaluation Purpose & Questions.............................................................................................................................21
Evaluation Purpose.................................................................................................................................................21
Evaluation Questions.............................................................................................................................................21
Evaluation methods.....................................................................................................................................................21
Sampling and Sample Size......................................................................................................................................22
Data Quality, Management, and Analysis..........................................................................................................25
Lessons Learned and Limitations........................................................................................................................26
Findings..........................................................................................................................................................................27
What is the status of the main strategic objectives of the project?...........................................................27
What is the starting status of the identified project performance indicators?........................................50
What are the determinants of school attendance?........................................................................................52
How appropriate is the design to the context? ..............................................................................................59
How could integration of the two strategic objectives be enhanced or further leveraged to deepen 
positive program results?......................................................................................................................................60
Conclusions & Recommendations..........................................................................................................................60
Annexes.........................................................................................................................................................................67
Annex A. Scope of Work.....................................................................................................................................67
Annex B. Data Collection Tools.........................................................................................................................68
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Results Framework for the FFE III Program .............................................................................................19
Figure 2. Mean and Median scores in Phonemic Awareness (out of 10) ...........................................................29
Figure 3 Mean and Median scores on the phonemic awareness word list test................................................29
Figure 4. Teacher attendance rate on the day of the survey. ...............................................................................32
Figure 5 Availability of school supplies and materials.............................................................................................33
Figure 6 Availability of desks and benches in observed classrooms....................................................................33
Figure 7 Availability of text books or readers in observed classrooms.............................................................34
Figure 8 Scatter plot showing enrolment in class 1 and the number of Class 1 English Texts available....35
Figure 9 Availability of learner materials....................................................................................................................35
Figure 10 Area 1: Teachers Demonstrate good instructional practice ..............................................................37
Figure 11. Area 2 Teacher uses a variety of pupil assessment techniques........................................................38
Figure 12 Teachers’ self-assessment of knowledge and skills in various teaching techniques ......................39
Figure 13 Percentage of students showing attentive behaviors in class.............................................................40
Figure 14 Hunger status of children............................................................................................................................40
Figure 15 Average student attendance rate on day of survey ..............................................................................41
Figure 16 Percentage of 6-12-year-old in the population reported being attending school..........................42
Figure 17 Main reason why child aged 6-12 years were not attending school .................................................42
Figure 18 Status of School Infrastructure ..................................................................................................................44
Figure 19 Status of water facilities in observed schools.........................................................................................44
Figure 20 Status of toilet facilities in observed schools..........................................................................................45
Figure 21 Students’ knowledge of good health and hygiene .................................................................................46
Figure 22 Cook’s knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices..................................................47
Figure 23 Food groups contained in students’ diet on the day prior to the survey........................................48
Figure 24 Access to Preventative Health Services in project schools................................................................49
Figure 25 Distribution of responses for Doers and Non-Doers on Question “Do you think your child 
will be successful in life if they don’t attend school?” .............................................................................................53
Figure 26 Distribution of responses for Doers and Non-Doers on Question “How bad a problem is it if 
a child does not go to school?”....................................................................................................................................54
Figure 27 When a child goes to school does that mean that he or she will get a good paying job or a 
successful business?.........................................................................................................................................................54
Figure 28 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers to the Question “To what degree does a child 
completing school help make you (respondent) a better person?” ....................................................................55
Figure 29 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers in Social acceptability questions...........................................55
Figure 30 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers on the Question: “Do you think it is sometimes God’s 
will that children don’t go to school...........................................................................................................................57
Figure 31 Responses by doers and non-doers on the disadvantages of schooling ..........................................59
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 : Number of sample pupils and schools allocated by chiefdom.............................................................23
Table 2 Number of sample households by chiefdom..............................................................................................24
Table 3 Response Rates for different units...............................................................................................................24
Table 4. Percentage of students who answered comprehension questions by class and gender................28
Table 5 Number of letters identified correctly........................................................................................................30
Table 6 Scoring guidelines for teacher observations ..............................................................................................36
Table 7 Availability of kitchen equipment..................................................................................................................49
Table 8 Key Performance Indicators: Baseline Value and End of Project Targets...........................................50
7
ACRONYMS
CRS Catholic Relief Services
CSR Country Status Report (on Education)
CTA Community Teacher Association
DEO District Education Office
DTM Diagnostic Teaching Methods
FFE Food for Education
ILA International Literacy Association
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MC Mother’s Club
MEST Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
MICS Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
NP Northern Polytechnic
PQTR Pupil Qualified Teacher Ratio
PTR Pupil-Teacher Ratio
SCR School Census Report
SILC Savings and Internal Lending Committee
SMherC School Management Committee
TALLE The Association of Language and Literacy Educators
TLM Teaching and Learning Materials
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WAEC West African Examination Council
WASSCE West African Senior Secondary Certificate Examination
WFP World Food Programme
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In Sierra Leone literacy levels among children in primary schools are low and the quality of schooling and 
education is poor. In addition, many children suffer from malnutrition, which in turn affects their 
cognitive development. Schools are a good setting to improve the literacy skills and nutritional and 
health status of students, and the Food for Education (FFE) Program sponsored by the United States 
Department of Agriculture, aims to do that. 
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been implementing the United States Department of Agriculture’s 
Food for Education Program (FFE) since 2008. The project has been implemented in selected chiefdoms 
of Koinadugu district in Northern Sierra Leone, and its key objective is to reduce hunger and improve 
literacy for its beneficiaries. Implementation has been in 3 different phases (I, II, and III). 
Phase III, which is the focus of this baseline evaluation, runs from December 2015 to September 2018. 
The two main goals of the FFE III project are: (1) improved literacy of school-age children and (II) 
improved health and dietary practices of students and communities. Under goal 1 (improved literacy), 
there are three sub-objectives (improved quality of literacy instruction, improved student attentiveness, 
and improved student attendance) and multiple activities (e.g. teacher training, school feeding, provision 
of teaching and learning materials). Under goal II (improved health and dietary practices) the sub￾objectives are to increase hygiene practices of students and cooks, increase knowledge of safe food 
preparation and storage practices, increase knowledge of nutrition, increase access to clean water 
and sanitation services, and increase access to food storage tools and equipment. The project hopes 
to achieve these objectives primarily through training, setting up of WASH clubs, and provision of 
supplies and WASH facilities. 
EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The purpose of this baseline evaluation is to establish the current status of the strategic objectives of the 
project and serve as a benchmark to gauge the success of the intervention. The main evaluation 
questions were:
1. What are the characteristics of students, schools, and communities at the start of FFE III? What
is the starting point of the identified strategic objectives?
9
2. What is the starting status of the identified project performance indicators?
3. What are the determinants of school attendance?
4. How appropriate is the design to the context and to what extent is the program likely to have
to adopt different approaches in different communities?
5. How could integration of the two strategic objectives be enhanced or further leveraged to
deepen positive program results
Evaluation Design, Methods, and Limitations
The evaluation utilizes a mixed-methods approach, consisting of quantitative and qualitative approaches 
that complement each other. These methods included a desk review of project-related documents, 
interviews with key informants (head teachers, chair of school management committees, cooks etc.), 
focus group discussions with local stakeholders, and household surveys. The evaluation also included 
reading assessment of students, classroom and teacher observation and pupils’ survey in a representative 
sample of schools. 
The evaluation employed a two-stage cluster sampling approach where evaluators randomly selected 
schools (from within a list of project schools) as clusters and sampled pupils and teachers within schools. 
Schools were selected using a proportional to size approach from the intervention chiefdoms. 
Households with children of school going age were randomly selected from within school communities, 
but no attempt was made to match students and households. Children in classes 2 and 3 were selected 
to participate in the reading assessment survey. Enumerators randomly selected 15 students in each of 
those grades to participate in the reading assessment. Sample sizes were derived to ensure we had the 
necessary statistical power to drive our analysis. In total, 60 schools were sampled and 900 households 
were surveyed; 800 students were sampled from classes 2 and 3 to take the reading assessment test.
There were some limitations to the evaluation methods. For one, we could only select from 
beneficiaries (students, teachers, cooks etc.) who were present in the school on the day of the survey. 
Since student absenteeism in relatively high, it is possible that we may have introduced some selection 
bias into our sample if those children who were absent were different in some meaningful way from 
those who are not. Second, because we had to employ a large number of enumerators, inter-rater 
reliability is a valid concern as different enumerators may interpret observations differently. Finally, 
because we did not visit schools that were not part of the project (no controls), the analysis in this and 
future surveys can make limited arguments about changes caused by the project.
10
MAIN FINDINGS 
The table below summarizes the status of key performance indicators related to the project at the time 
of the baseline survey (June 19-29th 2016). The evidence shows that the literacy levels of students were 
quite low as only about 8 percent of children in class 2 could read and understand grade-level text. 
About half of students were found to be attentive or engaged in class, and only about 27 percent of 
teachers used a variety of assessment techniques to test for children’s understanding, which is the 
foundation of the diagnostic teaching method. Absenteeism was relatively high as only about two-thirds 
of students attended school regularly (present for more than 80 percent of school days). At baseline,
levels of all key indicators were quite low. School meals, which were a feature of Phase I and II had not 
started at the time of survey.
INDICATORS Baseline Comment
Girls Boys
Percent of students who, by the end of 
two grades of schooling, demonstrate 
that they can read and understand the 
meaning of grade level text (girls/boys)
8.3 7.9 Percent of class 2 students who 
scored at least 80 percent in a 
reading comprehension test
Percent of students in target schools 
who are identified as attentive or very 
attentive during class/instruction 
(girls/boys)
49 52 Composite index of attentive 
behaviors 
Number of teachers in target schools 
who demonstrate use of new and quality 
teaching techniques or tools as a result 
of USDA assistance
The baseline found that 27 
percent of teachers observed 
demonstrated the use of variety 
of assessment techniques, which 
is a foundation of DTM
Number of students regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
9,169 9,776 From monitoring data. This 
translates to about two-thirds of 
students
Number of students enrolled in project 
supported schools
13,715 14,748 As of April 2016. From monitoring 
data
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations 
(PTAs) or similar ‘school’ governance 
structures supported as a result of 
USDA assistance
1,728 SMCs
3,840 Mother clubs
From monitoring data.
Percent of school-age children receiving 
a minimum acceptable diet
55% 52% Percent of school-aged children 
who report consuming at least 4 
out of 7 food groups on the day 
11
Conclusion and Recommendations 
Status of main strategic objectives
The two main strategic objectives are to improve literacy among primary school students and to 
increase the use of good health and dietary practices. 
Improved literacy
Despite some progress in the reading skills of children since the FFE started doing work in this area, the 
literacy levels of students are still very low. Less than 10 percent of children in class 2 could read and 
understand grade level text. And students scored poorly in phonemic awareness, familiar word reading, 
and comprehension. 
Despite two prior rounds of the FFE project, schools were poorly resourced in terms of school supplies 
and teaching and learning materials; and where materials exist they are not being used properly. In fifty￾six percent of classrooms observed there were either no textbooks or only the teacher had one. Only 
35 percent of schools had teacher guides provided by the Ministry of Education. The school 
environments, especially the provision of water and sanitation facilities, were also very poor.
prior to the survey, as defined by 
the FFE Indicator Handbook. 
Percent of students in target schools 
who achieve a passing score on a test of 
good health and hygiene practices
55% 44% Percent of students who could 
name at least 6 of 10 good 
hygiene practices
Number of WASH Clubs formed by 
CRS
0 45 percent of head teachers 
interviewed during baseline 
revealed that the school did 
already have a WASH club
Percent of food preparers at target 
schools who achieve a passing score on 
a test of safe food preparation and 
storage
71% Percent of cooks who could name 
at least 5 of 10 safe food 
preparation practices
Number of students receiving 
deworming medication(s)
28,463 From CRS Monitoring data
Number of schools using an improved 
water source
102 From CRS Monitoring data
Percent of students in target schools 
who indicate that they are hungry or 
very hungry during the school days
94% Reported being very hungry or 
somewhat hungry at the time of 
the survey
12
Classroom observations of teachers show low levels of proficiency in basic teaching skills such as lesson 
preparation, using a variety of teaching methods, and checking for children's understanding during the 
class. Teachers themselves acknowledged that they know very little about how to teach students how to 
read – 81 percent reported that they lack the skills to teach word recognition or phonics, 86 percent 
could not teach fluency; and 75 percent could not teach vocabulary or comprehension.
Based on findings, the following are recommended: 
 Prioritize improving the skills of teachers to teach reading, focusing on the five components of 
reading. Teachers will need ongoing support and not just one-off training as their skill levels are 
quite low. The DTM training curriculum is quite broad and needs to be simplified and 
streamlined taking into account that most teachers only have a secondary school degree. 
Training should also include specific guidelines on how to integrate teaching and learning 
materials in their teaching, and where possible some scripted lessons should be provided until 
teachers become more proficient in teaching.
 CRS should consider lowering the end of project target for the reading indicator because of 
very low baseline values. At baseline only 8 percent of children could read with understanding at 
the end of class 2 and the 3-year target is 40 percent. This magnitude of change in this indicator 
is unlikely. 
 Continue supporting teachers to get certified as teachers with teaching certificate perform 
better in general classroom practice. However, Northern Polytechnic should also be 
encouraged to integrate specific skills on how to teach reading into their curriculum. 
 Define minimum standards for the availability of school supplies and facilities in collaboration 
with the MEST in Koinadugu, and track the percentages of schools that meet minimum 
standards. This also means that CRS will focus their distribution of supplies in bringing schools 
below the minimum standards up to standard. These standards should be set for all supplies and 
services to be provided by CRS. Where a MEST standard already exists, then CRS should adopt 
those standards.
 Prioritize infrastructure and supplies that impact student safety and well-being. These include 
schools that have no roof, no safe source of water, no working toilet facilities and no hand￾washing stations. Soap (or other cleaning agents) and water should be mandatory in all schools.
 CRS should work closely with schools and MEST to ensure that schools receive approval by 
MEST. It is the only way to ensure that schools will continue to receive support after the FFE III 
program ends. As of the baseline, only 27 percent of project schools are approved by MEST. 
Fifty-seven percent of schools have not applied for approval. While it is acknowledged that the 
approval process can be long and cumbersome, schools should be encouraged to apply. Given 
the long history of CRS involvement in these schools and the demand for schools in these areas, 
there is a strong case to be made for approval of schools. CRS should make this the focus of its 
advocacy with the government.
13
Increased use of good health and dietary practices
The CRS FFE III project is promoting improved knowledge of good health and dietary practices in order 
to prevent the spread of disease and illnesses that prevent students from attending schools. During the 
baseline, children were asked to name practices that promote good health and hygiene, and just under 
half of them could name 6 of 10 good practices. The least likely to be mentioned were: putting trash 
into bins, hair braiding and keeping toilets clean.
Eighty-two percent of food preparers and cooks reported having been trained on safe food preparation 
and storage practices. Seventy-one percent of cooks were able to list at least 5 of the 10 safe food 
preparation practices. The least likely to be mentioned were: wearing kitchen apron or apparel, keeping 
kitchen free from animals, and putting clean utensils on a rack or pallet. Only 18 percent of kitchens
observed had a handwashing station with water and soap available.
It is recommended that:
 Key hygiene messages are reinforced throughout the curriculum and in extra-curricular activities
 Schools should have supplies that enable children to practice good hygiene. For example,
handwashing stations should be present in all schools and kitchens and there should be 
receptacles for trash. Keeping school facilities clean should be a communal responsibility, and 
CRS should work with schools to develop strategies to maintain good hygiene practices.
 In terms of infrastructure improvement, CRS should prioritize the provision of safe water and 
sanitation facilities
 Minimum standards for food preparation and storage tools and equipment should be developed 
in collaboration with communities and work together with them to ensure that schools meet 
the standard
 CRS defines actions to be taken by schools that do not receive the required preventative health 
services (e.g. deworming and vitamin A supplementation). At a minimum, CRS should provide a
list of project schools to implementing agencies so that they are aware of the existence of these 
schools. Schools are more likely to receive these services if they have been approved by MEST.
Starting status of key performance indicators
The starting points of key performance indicators are quite low, and while the FFE III projects cover a 
number of different activities, the focus on implementation should be on activities that will improve the 
key performance indicators. 
It is recommended that: 
14
 Project activities and attention should be directed towards activities that improve the key 
performance indicators
 The number of key performance indicators be reduced to help focus project activities to the 
most critical outputs or outcomes. 
 Key performance indicators focus on the percentages of beneficiaries that meet a certain target 
rather than the numbers of such beneficiaries. This allows for external evaluators to be able to 
report on indicators without relying on monitoring data. 
Determinants of school attendance 
From the households surveyed, 83 percent of school-aged children were in school and 17 percent were 
out of school. Of those enrolled, many children do not attend regularly. Monitoring data maintains that 
only two-thirds of students attend school at least 80 percent of the time and on the day of the survey 
only about 74 percent of enrolled students were in attendance. The main reasons for why children were 
not enrolled in school were that schooling was expensive and children's labor was needed in the home 
or on the farm. Many parents were also choosing to send their boys to Qur'anic school as an 
alternative to formal schooling.
The evaluation included a barrier analysis to help determine what drives parent’s behaviors to enroll 
their child in school by looking at differences between ‘doers’ and ‘non-doers’. What we found was that 
compared to non-doers, doers were significantly more likely to: (i) link their child’s future success to 
school attendance; (ii) attribute severe negative consequences for not attending school; (iii) be more 
optimistic about the likelihood that schooling will lead to better jobs and businesses; (iv) have a larger 
network of people who support and agree with the decision to enroll children in school; (v) find 
enrolling children in school easier; (vi) believe that it was not God’s will for children to not attend 
school. 
It is recommended that: 
 Behavior change messages focus on those areas were doers are different from non-doers e.g. in 
highlighting the positive benefits of schooling
 Behavior change messages target not just parents of school-aged children, but also others in the 
communities who can influence the parent’s decisions
 Programs and activities should focus on ways to reduce costs (direct and indirect) of schooling 
or provide opportunities for increased income. The latter may be beyond the scope of the 
program, but efforts can be made to link project communities with other programs that provide 
economic opportunities for communities.
15
Appropriateness of the design to the context
Overall, the design of the FFE III project is relevant for the national and local context. Included in the 
national priorities of GOSL are: providing school meals, improving the literacy and numeracy skills of 
students, and improving skills and knowledge of teachers. The CRS FFE III project supports and 
contributes to these national priorities.
Discussions with local groups and community members in project chiefdoms also reveal that 
construction and support of schools is one of their top 3 priorities. In terms of school support, the 
focus was mostly on construction, but having more qualified teachers was mentioned by a few people as 
one of the top priorities. 
It is recommended that: 
 CRS provide opportunities for MEST and donor partners to visit schools so they understand the 
conditions of schools and education in these areas, which may make them more inclined to 
provide additional support
 Make the link between all the various activities and their contribution to improved learning. 
Teachers need specific training and ongoing coaching on reading instruction, and this support 
should take into account the literacy levels and English language proficiency of teachers 
themselves.
 Work with the communities and parents should also be geared towards how they can 
contribute to improved learning, and not just their contribution to construction and school 
feeding. Even parents who are not literate themselves can tell stories to their children, which 
helps develop oral language. They can also provide dedicated time and space for their children 
to read after school. 
 Children lose a lot of what they learned during the long vacations. CRS might consider programs 
during the long holidays that will allow teachers and children to continue learning. 
Enhancing the integration of two strategic objectives to deepen positive program results
The two strategic objectives are linked in the sense that improving the health of students and teachers 
could lead to reduced absenteeism from school. For example, there are research studies that have 
shown that deworming school children improve overall health and reduced absenteeism, and these 
16
benefits continued over a long period of time.1 Handwashing with soap is also known to reduce the 
incidence of diarrhea and other water or food-borne diseases. 
The program already recognizes the links between the objectives in its results framework. Perhaps what 
is remaining is for these messages to be fully integrated into the project such that schools and 
surrounding communities also understand the link. 
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MOHS) has a school health division, but it is unclear how the FFE 
III program links with the MOHS either at the national level or at the district level to promote school 
health programming. It is recommended that CRS explores links with MOHS in addition to MEST.
Another way to integrate the two programs is to develop reading materials for students that 
incorporate key health messages that the project wants to promote in a fun and engaging way. 
In summary, having been implementing this FFE program over eight years in Koinadugu, CRS has a 
unique opportunity to make an impact in the educational outcomes of young children in project schools. 
The organization has learned from its experiences over the last two phases of the program; there is 
now an opportunity for CRS to leverage the lessons learned and the relationships built over the years to 
change the course of schooling for young children in targeted schools. 
 
1
For a summary of benefits of deworming, see: J-PAL Policy Bulletin. 2012. "Deworming: The Best Buy for 
Development." Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. 
17
INTRODUCTION
COUNTRY CONTEXT
Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, ranking 181 out of 188 countries in the 2014 
UNDP Human Development Index.2 Education performance is low and progress in achieving learning 
outcomes, in particular, has been slow. A national assessment of reading in the early grades showed that 
many children could not read simple words or comprehend simple passages after three years of schooling.3
It is also one of the most food insecure countries in the world, ranking 112 of 113 countries on the 
2016 Global Food Security Index from the Economic Intelligence Unit.4
Part of the reason for the poor social and economic conditions is that the country was engulfed in a civil 
war lasting over a decade that officially ended in 2001. Unfortunately, in 2014, even as Sierra Leone was 
trying to rebuild its social and economic systems, the country was hit by the largest Ebola outbreak the 
world has ever seen. The first confirmed case was in February 2014, and by December 2015 the country 
had recorded an estimated 8,700 confirmed cases and over 3,500 confirmed deaths. The government 
took stringent actions to try to curb the disease, including delaying the reopening of schools for almost 
7 months. The Ebola impact had a devastating effect on the economy, which is still being felt today, and 
the country remains very fragile.
In response to these challenges, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has made Sierra 
Leone one of its priority countries for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education (FFE) Programs. The FFE 
program helps support education, child development and food security in low-income, food-deficit 
countries around the globe. Its key objective is to reduce hunger and improve literacy and primary 
education, especially for girls, by providing school meals, teacher training, and related support.
 
2 http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/ranking.pdf
3
(Montrose International, 2014)
4 http://foodsecurityindex.eiu.com/Country/Details#Sierra%20Leone
18
PROJECT BACKGROUND 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) has been implementing the Food for Education (FFE) Program in 
Koinadugu District in Sierra Leone since 2008. Koinadugu was chosen because of the district’s food 
insecurity status, high malnutrition rates amongst children under age five, and below average education 
performance. The FFE program has been implemented in three distinct phases.
Phase 1: The first phase of the FFE program (FFE I) ran from 2008 to 2012 in four chiefdoms in 
Koinadugu - Sulima, Mongo, Neini, and Neya. These chiefdoms were chosen because they were the 
most marginalized in the district. Between 2008 and 2012, the Phase 1 program distributed almost 1,500 
metric tons of food, corresponding to 5,780,201 meals served to 18,610 students. The project also 
included take-home rations for girls in upper primary and over 5,000 girls benefitted from this. In 
addition to food aid, the Phase I FFE project trained school management committees (SMCs) and 
improved on school infrastructure. The Phase 1 project also included distribution of teaching and 
learning materials and furniture for schools. 
Phase II: The second phase of the program (FFE II) began in September 2012 and ended in January 2016. 
In Phase II the program expanded to include a fifth chiefdom (Dembelia Sinkunia) and to include an 
additional 75 schools from existing program chiefdoms. Phase II also included additional activities such as 
in-service teacher training on Diagnostic Teaching Methods (DTM) to improve on literacy instruction 
and the establishment of Savings and Internal Lending Committees (SILC) to help strengthen the financial 
status of households. The food aid component continued in Phase II using the same two modalities: (1) 
two in-school meals; and (2) take-home rations for girls in upper primary who maintain at least an 85 
percent attendance rate. The Ebola outbreak created a public health emergency that stalled the 
implementation of Phase II. 
Phase III: Phase III, which is the focus of this baseline evaluation, will continue in the same five districts 
in Koinadugu district and will run from December 2015 to September 2018. The Phase III project 
remains essentially the same as Phase II, except for a few changes. The two most important of these are: 
(1) providing one school meal a day as opposed to the two meals provided in Phase II, in order to align 
with the proposed GOSL school meal program; and (2) intensifying the support to teachers by providing 
literacy coaches who will provide additional support to teachers in between training workshops. 
19
INTERVENTION LOGIC
The FFE program is a school feeding program with two main goals: (1) improved literacy of school-age 
children and (II) improved health and dietary practices of students and communities. Figure 1 illustrates 
the intervention logic of the FFE III program. 
Figure 1 Results Framework for the FFE III Program
20
Under goal 1 (improved literacy), there are three sub-objectives (improved quality of literacy instruction, 
improved student attentiveness, and improved student attendance) and multiple activities (e.g. teacher 
training, school feeding, provision of teaching and learning materials). CRS summarizes the theory of 
change of the FFE III project as follows:
In the implementation of the FFE III, CRS will partner with local and international organizations such as 
the International Literacy Association (ILA), The Association of Language and Literacy Educators (TALLE), 
Northern Polytechnic, and Caritas. ILA will provide the literacy training for teachers and supervisors, 
TALLE will provide the coaching, Caritas will provide Life Skills Training, and Northern Polytechnic will 
offer teacher certification through a distance education program. Throughout the implementation, all 
parties will focus on the development of capacity in schools and communities and national and local 
government agencies and departments. 
IF the quality of literacy instruction is improved AND children, having 
received school meals, have their short-term hunger reduced AND their 
attentiveness and attendance improved THEN the literacy of school-aged 
children in the project area will be improved.
Also, IF students learn about improved health and hygiene practices at school
AND cooks learn about safe food preparation and storage practices AND
schools have improved access to clean water and sanitation sources AND
students have increased access and knowledge to preventative health 
interventions AND food preparers have increased access to requisite food 
preparation and storage facilities, tools and equipment THEN the use of health 
and dietary practices will improve.
21
EVALUATION PURPOSE &
QUESTIONS
EVALUATION PURPOSE
The purpose of the baseline evaluation was to. The evaluation was to determine the starting point of the 
performance indicators, establish a basis for comparing the situation at the midpoint and end of the 
program, and allow for making inferences as to the effectiveness of the program.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The main evaluation questions for the baseline were:
1. What are the characteristics of students, schools, and communities at the start of FFE III? What 
is the starting point of the identified strategic objectives?
2. What is the starting status of the identified project performance indicators?
3. What are the determinants of school attendance?
4. How appropriate is the design to the context and to what extent is the program likely to have 
to adopt different approaches in different communities? 
5. How could integration of the two strategic objectives be enhanced or further leveraged to 
deepen positive program results? 
EVALUATION METHODS 
The baseline evaluation used a mixed methods approach combining quantitative surveys, focus group 
discussions, key informant interviews, and a barrier analysis.
The quantitative survey design consisted of a household survey, pupil survey with reading assessment, 
teacher and classroom observation, and school observation checklist. 
The qualitative component had two parts: in-depth interviews with key informants (district education 
officials, head teachers, and cooks) and focus group discussions with community members. Insights from 
these qualitative interviews and discussions complemented data obtained through the surveys allowed us 
to examine certain topics in more depth.
SAMPLING AND SAMPLE SIZE
We employed a two-stage cluster sampling approach where we randomly selected schools as clusters 
and sampled pupils and teachers within schools. Households were selected from within school 
communities. The advantages of cluster sampling are that it is more economical, time-efficient, and 
easier to manage than a simple random survey. The disadvantage is that there may be reduced variability 
as pupils in a particular school tend to be similar and also there is potential for bias if the schools 
selected for inclusion are different from the population. 
Sample Size
Pupils, teachers, households and food preparers were sampling units of the baseline survey. The sample 
sizes for the sampling units were computed using four (4) key indicators. FFE 2 final results were used for 
computing sample sizes for the sampling units. 
Pupils
The formula below was used to compute the sample size for pupils:
where,
 n is the required sample size (i.e. number of pupils to be surveyed)
 4 is the factor required to achieve 95% level of confidence;
 p is the value of the key indicator; in this case, the ‘percent of students identified as attentive 
during classroom activities (boy & girls) (0.62)
5;
 deff (Design effect) is the factor by which the precision of the estimates of the key indicators 
decrease due to the sampling design, as compared to a survey that uses simple random sampling 
(2)6;
 1.2 is the factor necessary to raise the sample size by 20% for the expected non-response7
. This 
assumes 80% response rate;
 The margin of error (± 5 percentage points) i.e. Alpha α=0.05.
Using the formula the sample size for pupils was estimated at 900. 
The decision was made to sample no more than 15 children per school across all grades, which meant 
that we needed to have at least 60 schools in our sample. 
 
5 FFE 2 endline result.
6 The design effect, estimated at 2, is chosen because of the large cluster sample size (i.e. 15 pupils per school).
7 The 20% non-response is assumed to increase the sample size sufficiently large to be able to detect an effect on 
the following groups: meals only, meals + THR, meals + SILC and nothing.
 
 
2
arg
14 2.1
M in of error
deeffpp
n


The schools were targeted for the following surveys:
 School observation checklist, 
 Key informant interview with head teachers, SMCs, CTA & mothers club,
 Teacher & classroom observation. 
Table 1 shows the allocation of sample pupils and schools by chiefdom.
Table 1 : Number of sample pupils and schools allocated by chiefdom
Chiefdom
No. of 
Schools
Proportion 
of school
Number of 
schools to 
sample
Adjusted 
number 
of schools 
to sample
Number of 
pupils to 
sample
Dembelia Sinkunia 18 0.09375 5.625 6 90
Mongo 43 0.223958 13.4375 13 195
Neya 37 0.192708 11.5625 12 180
Neni 65 0.338542 20.3125 20 300
Sulima 29 0.151042 9.0625 9 135
Total 192 1 60 60 900
The schools were selected by the systematic random sampling technique whilst the pupils were chosen 
by the simple random (ballot) method across five (5) grades (2 to 6) for the pupils’ survey; 3 pupils in each 
grade yielded 15 pupils per school. 
The reading assessment test was administered to only Grades 2 and 3 pupils, and the recommended 
number of pupils was 400 for each group of interest.8 To get to this number, 7 students were selected in 
each of classes 2 and 3 in the targeted schools. 
Teachers
Simple random sampling method was used to select the teachers in each school. Two (2) were selected 
in each survey school – yielding 120 teachers – for the teacher and classroom observation.
 
8 RTI International (2009). EGRA Toolkit
Households 
A sample of 900 households was selected in survey school communities; 15 households per community 
for the household survey.9 For the purpose of the baseline, households with children aged 3-18 years 
were considered for sampling. The number of sampled households per chiefdom is given in
Table 2.
Table 2 Number of sample households by chiefdom
Chiefdom
No of clusters (school 
communities) Number of households to sample
Dembelia Sinkunia 6 90
Mongo 13 195
Neya 12 180
Nieni 20 300
Sulima 9 135
Total 60 900
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
FGD were held in all survey clusters/school communities with community stakeholders including women 
and men; SILC and non-SILC households. Discussions were held separately for men and women. Each 
FGD had between 7 and 12 participants. Enumerators were instructed to select a wide range of 
community members including: community authority (chiefs, etc.), women’s leaders and headmen, and 
men. They were not to include community members who had already been interviewed because of their 
membership in SMCs, Mother’s Groups, etc. 
Table 3 provides the response rates for schools, teachers, and students. Response rates were very high 
and ranged from 98 percent to 100 percent.
Table 3 Response Rates for different units
Group Target 
number
Number of 
responses
Response 
rate
Schools 60 60 100%
 
9 There was no planned relationship between households and pupils surveyed, but there is likely to be some 
overlaps given that households were randomly selected from school communities.
Teachers 120 118 98%
Students 900 883 98%
Households 900 900 100%
Recruitment and Training of Enumerators
Twenty-eight (28) enumerators and six supervisors were recruited for the data collection. Most of the 
enumerators had participated in the midterm and final evaluations of the FFEII project, and as such had 
experience with the tools and methodology. All enumerators had at least a post-secondary qualification 
and many had participated in surveys and/or had taught in schools. All enumerators attended a 5-day 
training on the administration of the evaluation tools/questionnaires and general survey protocols in 
order to equip them to collect the appropriate and quality data for analysis. A particular area of focus on 
protocols was that of getting ‘informed consent'. Training included role-playing in order to fully 
understand the administration of the tools and translation of keywords into the lingua franca (Krio) to 
help in the focus group discussions and pupil interviews. During the training, enumerators were able to 
practice administering the pupil survey and reading assessment questionnaire with pupils from schools 
neighboring the training center.
Following the training of data collectors, the survey tools (questionnaires) were pretested before 
adopted for the data collection. The pretesting gave enumerators an opportunity to practice 
administering the tools in ‘real-life’ situations and gave an opportunity to test the appropriateness of the 
questions. 
DATA QUALITY, MANAGEMENT, AND ANALYSIS
The first step in ensuring that the evaluation produced good quality data was to write good questions. 
The tools used in this evaluation had been reviewed multiple times since many of them were used in 
previous evaluations. The new questions added also went through multiple reviews. In addition, the 
questionnaires and surveys were piloted in the field before full administration. During the administration 
of the survey, research supervisors visited enumerators in their various sites to ensure that data 
collection was proceeding as planned and to provide quality assurance to the evaluation process. The 
surveys were then entered into excel by a dedicated and experienced team of data entry clerks who had 
worked in previous evaluations. One of the researchers oversaw the data entry and cleaning of data. 
The cleaned data was then submitted to lead researcher for analysis. The analysis was done using the 
statistical software Stata 14. All programs created to analyze the data and produce tables have been 
saved so that the findings can be reproduced by other researchers.
LESSONS LEARNED AND LIMITATIONS
Like any research project, there were a number of limitations to the evaluation. Some of the constructs 
such as student attentiveness are difficult to measure and rely on subjective recall from teachers and/or 
classroom observation data. With different enumerators, there is a possibility that inter-rater reliability 
might be an issue, despite all attempts in the training to ensure consensus in measurement. Finally, with 
every questionnaire, there is a risk that the interviewees’ interpretation and response to questions are 
not always what is intended by the interviewer. It is also possible that teachers change their behavior 
when they are being observed. So, the fact that there were observers in the room may cause the 
teacher to teach differently than they normally would.
FINDINGS
The findings in this section are reported according to the main evaluation questions. The data used in 
this analysis were collected between June 19th and June 29th, about a month before the end of the school 
year. 
WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE MAIN STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES OF THE 
PROJECT?
The project has two main strategic objectives and numerous sub-objectives, and the starting point of 
corresponding indicators are provided below.
MGD S.O.1 Improved Literacy of School-aged children
One of the main strategic objectives (SO) of the FFE III is to improve the literacy skills of children in the 
program. USDA’s standard literacy indicator is the “percentage of children, who at the end of two 
grades of schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand grade level text.” Although the 
children in class 2 were the population of interest, children in class 3 were also sampled because 
previous assessments had shown that children in class 2 had minimal reading skills and scored zero in a 
number of the subtests. They were presented with a number of different subtests to assess their reading 
skills. However, to assess the above literacy indicator, we will be reporting on the results of the 
comprehension test; and have defined ‘read and understand grade level text’ as the percentage of 
students who get at least 4 of 5 questions correct on the reading comprehension test.10 Note however 
that because there are no counterfactuals or control groups of students, it will be difficult to attribute 
any changes in literacy to the effect of the FFE III project. 
Our target number of students was 40011 students from each of Class 2 and Class 3, which translated to 
approximately seven students per class in each of the 60 schools. Students were randomly selected from 
those who were present in class at the time of the survey. In total 818 students (409 in each class) took 
 
10 The comprehension passages used were adapted from an early grade reading instrument developed by Prof. 
Johanna Kuyvenhoven for the Sierra Leone context
11 Based on early grade reading assessments conducted in several countries around the world, it is estimated that 
400 students are needed per group of interest (e.g. class). See: Early Grade Reading Assessment Toolkit (2009)
the reading assessment. Given high-level of student absenteeism on the day of survey, it is possible that 
our sample was biased if it turns out that students who were absent are different from those who were 
not. For example, if mostly lower-performing students were absent then our mean estimates would be 
higher than they are in the population. 
Table 4 shows the percentage of boys and girls who answered 0 to 5 questions correctly. Most students 
(65.4 percent of girls and 59.5 percent of boys) did not attempt any of the comprehension questions 
because they could not read the passage. For a child to be reading and comprehending grade-level text, 
they need to get at least 4 of the 5 questions correct. Therefore at baseline, 7.9 percent of boys and 8.3 
percent of girls in class 2 could read and understand grade level text. For class 3, the proportions were 
15.1 percent of boys and 12.4 percent of girls.
Table 4. Percentage of students who answered comprehension questions by class and gender
Number 
correct
Class 2 Class 3
Boy Girl Total Boy Girl Total
0 67.4 70.1 68.7 52.5 60.0 55.6
1 7.4 7.2 7.3 3.8 1.8 2.9
2 9.3 8.8 9.1 8.4 8.2 8.3
3 7.9 5.7 6.9 20.2 17.7 19.1
4 3.7 3.1 3.4 9.2 6.5 8.1
5 4.2 5.2 4.7 5.9 5.9 5.9
Because earlier assessments of children's reading already showed that most children in the early grades 
were not learning to read, we also conducted other reading subtests to understand whether children 
had mastered some of the other components of reading such as phonemic awareness and phonics. 
These sub-tests includes:
Phonemic Awareness (PA)
 Learner was given pictures of 10 common objects, told the names of the object, and asked to 
say the initial sound they hear. 
 In general, students had difficulties with this task, but (as expected) class 3 students did better 
than class 2 students. The median score for class 3 was 3 out of 10 and for class 2 was 0 (see 
Figure 2). 
Figure 2. Mean and Median scores in Phonemic Awareness (out of 10)
 In the second test of phonemic awareness, learner listened to a set of words read aloud and 
they had to say which word begins with a different sound. For example, they would hear the 
words “moon ball mouse” and asked to identify the word with the different beginning sound. 
 Performance on this task was only slightly better than the previous PA test. The median correct 
for all students was 2 out of the ten lists. 
Figure 3 Mean and Median scores on the phonemic awareness word list test
Alphabet Naming (ALN)
 Children were presented with a random list of the 26 letters of the alphabet (in mixed upper 
and lower case) and were asked to name the letters
3 3
2
3 3
2
1
0
3
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Boy Girl Class 2 Class 3 Total
Beginning Sounds: Pictures
Mean Median
2
3 3
2
3
1
3 3
2 2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Class 2 Class 3 Boy Girl Total
Mean Median
 Students performed well on this task compared to others. The median number of letters 
correctly identified by class 2 learners was 20 and by class 3 learners 25. The median for boys 
was 24 compared to 22 for girls (Table 5). 
Table 5 Number of letters identified correctly
Familiar Word Reading (FWR)
 Students were presented with a list of 40 familiar words and were asked to read the words. The 
test was discontinued if the student couldn’t read any of the first ten words. 
 Sixty-four percent of class 2 students and 44 percent of class 3 students had zero scores. The 
average number of words read correctly was 9 in class 2 and 12 in class 3. The median was 2 
and 10 words correct respectively.
Reading Comprehension (RC)
 Students were presented with a grade-level passage, which they had to read, and then questions 
were asked about the passage.
 The result of the reading comprehension was already discussed above.
Listening Comprehension (LC)
 The assessor read a passage to the students and students then had to answer a few questions 
about the story they were read. 
 On average students got 1 of 3 questions correct in the listening assessment. There was no 
difference between average score for boys and girls or between children in Class 2 or Class 3. 
The median correct was 2 for class 3 and 1 for Class 2. 
20
18 17
21
19
24
22
20
25
23
0
5
10
15
20
25
Boy Girl Class 2 Class 3 Total
Number of letters identified correctly (of 26)
Mean Median
To summarize, students performed best in alphabet naming, but struggled with all the other reading 
subtests including phonemic awareness (identifying sounds), reading familiar words, and the 
comprehension tests. Research shows that if students cannot perceive the sounds in spoken words 
(phonemic awareness), then they will have difficulty with learning to read. Another challenge is that 
students are learning to read in a second language even though they have not fully developed reading 
skills in their mother tongue.12 While it is possible to teach English as a second language to young 
children, it does take skilled teachers using appropriate techniques to make this happen in a way that 
promotes learning.
MGD.1.1 Improve quality of instruction
Improving the quality of literacy instruction is a major part of the implementation strategy of the FFE III 
program. The program aims to develop the skills of teachers in a number of ways including sponsoring 
teachers to acquire their teaching certificate from Northern Polytechnic; providing in-service training in 
Diagnostic Teaching Methods (DTM) designed by the by International Literacy Association (ILA); and 
coaching of teachers in literacy instruction by TALLE. 
MGD 1.1.1 More consistent teacher attendance
The teacher attendance rate on the day of the survey was 87 percent overall and 83% for female 
teachers (see Figure 4). 
 
12 The official policy of MEST is that the national language commonly used in the school locality should be the 
language of instruction in classes 1–3. From class 4 onwards English is the language of instruction.
Figure 4. Teacher attendance rate on the day of the survey.
MGD 1.1.2 Better access to school supplies and materials
FFE III project aims to provide teaching and learning materials to targeted schools. During the baseline, 
90 percent of classrooms had a blackboard, but only a third had any teacher furniture and even less had 
evidence of materials (children's work, posters etc.) on the wall of the classrooms, which may be 
because schools don't have the stationery to make these. This availability of TLMs in schools remain 
relatively unchanged from what was there at the end of the FFE11 project where 87 percent of project 
schools had a blackboard, 20 percent had children’s work on the wall and 24 percent had a word chart. 
The main difference was in the availability of teacher furniture that was available in one-third of schools 
in this baseline compared to two-thirds of classrooms in the FFEII final evaluation. 
87%
83%
87%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Male Female Total
Figure 5 Availability of school supplies and materials
In 9 percent of classrooms, there were no desks or benches observed and in 39 percent of classrooms, 
more than 3 students shared a desk or bench (Figure 6). It is unclear what the minimum standard is for 
school furniture, and there is none from the MEST. CRS would have to work with their MEST 
counterparts to agree on minimum standards for supplies and materials in classrooms and ensure that all 
schools meet the minimum standard.
Figure 6 Availability of desks and benches in observed classrooms
MGD 1.1.3 Improved literacy instructional and learning materials 
90
33
20
17 14
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Blackboard Teacher
Furniture
Children's work
on wall
Word Chart WASH poster
% of classrooms
3
8
41 39
9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Each child has
own
desk/bench
Two children
share a
desk/bench
Three children
share a
desk/bench
More than 3
children share a
desk/bench
There are no
desks/benches
% of classrooms
MEST had distributed teaching guides for teachers to help in their teaching of core subjects, but only 35 
percent of project schools had those guides. 
The FFE III project will provide schools with slates, laminated alphabet cards, core textbooks and 
teaching aids to each project school to support the literacy instruction. Figure 7 shows that in 25 
percent of classrooms, there were no books or readers in use and in 31 percent only the teacher had a 
textbook or reader. When children have books, they are usually shared by three or more students. The 
policy of MEST is that the student to textbook ratio should be 1:1, and the CRS FFE project target is a 
student-textbook ratio of 3:1. Only 8.5 percent of classrooms observed met the MEST standard of 1:1, 
and less than 45 percent met the CRS standard. 
Figure 7 Availability of text books or readers in observed classrooms
Despite the low availability of textbooks in observed classrooms, 95 percent of head teachers 
interviewed acknowledged receiving textbooks from CRS. However, the majority did not receive 
enough textbooks to meet the CRS standard of 3 textbooks to one 1 student. Figure 8 shows little 
relationship between enrolment in class 1 and the number of English texts available. The average student 
to textbook ratio is 5:1, but there is large variability (from 34:1 to 0.6:1).
31.4
8.5 11.0
24.6 24.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
By the teacher
only
By the children,
one each
By the children,
shared by two
By the children,
shared by three
or mor
There are no
books or
readers
% of Classrooms
Figure 8 Scatter plot showing enrolment in class 1 and the number of Class 1 English Texts available
The availability of other learner materials was low. Only about 11 percent of students had alphabet 
cards; 14 percent had literacy books and 10 percent had slates (Figure 9).
Figure 9 Availability of learner materials
11% 14%
10% 11% 14%
9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Alphabet Cards Literacy Book Slates
Boy Girls
MGD 1.1.4. Increased skills and knowledge of teachers
Of the 118 teachers surveyed, 31 percent had a teaching certificate and 69 percent did not. Twenty 
percent of them reported participating in a distance education program at the time of the survey, 30 
percent reported having attended a DTM training from either ILA or from a literacy coach.
The skills and knowledge of teachers were assessed using teacher surveys and teaching observations. 
The rubric used for the teaching observation and teacher’s knowledge of pedagogy combined tools 
developed by International Literacy Association (ILA) and MEST. Teacher competencies were assessed 
in 2 broad areas as outlined below:
1. The teacher uses a variety of pupil assessment techniques during the lesson
2. The teacher demonstrates good instructional practice
Teacher performance was scored using the guidelines shown in Table 6. 
Table 6 Scoring guidelines for teacher observations
1 Not yet Started 2 Beginning 3 Proficient 4 Excellent
There is no evidence of 
desired behavior. The 
teacher needs 
significant support to 
develop practice. 
The behavior is 
attempted, but not 
consistent. The teacher 
needs ongoing support 
to develop practice
The behavior is 
acceptable and 
somewhat consistent 
and could be used as a 
model for others. 
The behavior is 
consistent and 
exemplary. The teacher 
could teach others to 
develop this behavior. 
Figure 10 below show how teachers perform in Area 1. Twenty-one percent of teachers were proficient 
in using a variety of methods, 47 percent explored prior knowledge of students at the start of a lesson 
and 22 percent had evidence of good lesson plans. 
Figure 10 Area 1: Teachers Demonstrate good instructional practice
Further statistical analysis, showed no difference in teaching practice between those teachers who 
attended DTM training with those who had not. However, teachers who were enrolled in distance 
education program were significantly more likely to explore prior knowledge at the beginning of class 
and to have evidence of lesson plans.13 Teachers with a teaching certificate also performed significantly 
better in all teaching practice than those who do not have a certificate. 
Area 2 focused on teachers’ proficiency in using a variety of pupil assessment techniques during the 
lesson, which is one of the foundation skills of the DTM training. Figure 11 shows that 27 percent of 
teachers are proficient in checking for student understanding; 21 percent adjusted their lesson based on 
pupil responses, and 29 percent had clearly identified lesson objectives. There was no difference in 
practice in Area 2 between teachers who received training in DTM and those who did not. However, 
teachers enrolled in the distance education program scored significantly better in the practice of 
identifying lesson objectives.14 Teachers who hold a teaching certificate performed significantly better 
than those without in all skill areas. 
 
13 Test of equality of medians, with p=0.05
14 Test of equality of medians (p=.05)
31
53
42
48
36
18
47
18
3 4
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Teacher uses a variety of teaching
methods
Teacher explores prior knowledge
at the beginning of class
Evidence of lesson plans
Not yet Started Beginning Proficient Excellent
Figure 11. Area 2 Teacher uses a variety of pupil assessment techniques
In addition to the observation of teacher practice, teachers had the opportunity to self-assess their 
knowledge and skills in a number of areas related to literacy instruction. They could rate their abilities 
and confidence on a scale from 1-4 with 1 being “I know nothing about this” and 4 “I have excellent 
knowledge and skills in this area”. The results are shown in Figure 12. Less than 25 percent of teachers 
assess themselves to be confident in their knowledge and skills in any area. The majority of them either 
know nothing about the various areas, or they know about them but cannot use the skill. 
28 25
39
52
48
32
19
23 21
2 4 8
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Teacher adjusts practice
based on pupil responses
Teacher check for
understanding during the
lesson
Lesson objectives are clearly
identified
Not yet Started Beginning Proficient Excellent
Figure 12 Teachers’ self-assessment of knowledge and skills in various teaching techniques
MGD 1.1.5 Increase knowledge and skills of administrators
MGD 1.2 Improve student attentiveness
During the classroom observation, enumerators recorded what children were doing during the class 
time. Attentiveness was defined as students asking questions, actively participating in lessons, and 
following instructions without distraction. Figure 13 shows the percentage of boys and girls that were 
observed being attentive in class. As Figure 13 shows, while about 50 percent of boys and girls exhibit 
the different behaviors observed, only 40 percent of boys and 35 percent of girls asked questions in 
class. Teachers need to encourage students to ask questions and seek help rather than just follow 
instruction and listen without distraction for real learning to take place.
42
54
47
48
40
45
46
55
52
57
39
32
28
27
36
32
30
28
32
34
18
14
23
24
22
21
22
17
15
7
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Word Recognition and Phonics
Fluency
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Assessment
Effective Questioning
Motivation
Developing Independent Learners
Grouping for Instruction
Adapting for Individual Differences
Know Nothing Know about, but can't use skill
Confident in my ability to use Excellent knowledge and skill
Figure 13 Percentage of students showing attentive behaviors in class
MGD 1.2.1 Reduced short-term hunger
At the time of the baseline (last two weeks of June), the school feeding had yet to start in the schools as 
none of the students interviewed reported receiving meals in school. Eighty-two percent of children had 
a meal at home before going to school and 18 percent had not. Seventeen percent of the children 
reported being very hungry, but most (76 percent) were somewhat hungry at the time of the survey. 
Almost all the children (99 percent) who reported being very hungry did not eat at home before coming 
to school.
Figure 14 Hunger status of children
40%
53%
57% 58%
52%
35%
48%
57% 56%
49%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ask questions or
seek help
Participate in
lessons (read
passages,
contribute to
discussion, note
taking).
Listen and work
without
Distraction
Follow
instruction
without
distraction
Overall
participation
Boys Girls
82
18
6
76
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Ate at
home
Did not eat
at home
Not at all
hungry
Somewhat
hungry
(had food,
but not
enough)
Very
hungry (No
food)
Percent of chidren (%)
MGD 1.3 Improve student attendance
On the day of survey, the average school attendance rate was 74 percent (see Figure 15). The 
attendance rate was calculated by using enrolment and attendance information from the school 
registers. The attendance rate of boys at 77 percent was slightly higher than the attendance rate of girls 
at 74 percent. 
Figure 15 Average student attendance rate on day of survey
Another important indicator is the school participation rate in the population. According to the data 
collected from the household survey on children aged 6-12 years old, 83.3 percent are reported to be 
currently attending school (Figure 16). Participation rates are equal for boys and girls. These school 
participation rates reported here are much higher than the participation rates for Koinadugu district 
reported in the Demographic health Survey of 2013, which was 62 percent. There are a number of 
reasons why this might be the case, the most likely being that DHS sample more accurately reflects the 
population of Koinadugu. The households that were surveyed in this case had a nearby school with 
school meals provided, which is not the norm in the rest of the district. 
77% 74% 74%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Boys Girls Total
Figure 16 Percentage of 6-12-year-old in the population reported being attending school. 
Figure 17 shows the main reasons parents gave for why their child aged 6-12 years old was not 
attending school. Although there were differences in the reasons given for boys and girls, the number 
one reason given was that schooling was too expensive, and this was a more important barrier for girls 
(39 percent) than for boys (28 percent). Other frequently cited reasons for not participating in school 
include the child was attending Quranic school (a more significant factor for boys) and that the child's 
labor was needed at home or on the farm.
Figure 17 Main reason why child aged 6-12 years were not attending school
83.5 83.1 83.3
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
MALE FEMALE Total
0
10
4
3
4
5
27
19
28
1
15
4
6
7
7
7
16
39
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Don't know
Other
Ill/handicapped
Completed school
School too far away
Not interested
Attend Quranic school
Needed for household/
Too expensive
% of responses
FEMALE MALE
MGD 1.3.1 Increased economic and cultural incentives
FFE III will strengthen Savings and Internal Lending Community (SILC) activities to improve the financial 
capacity of parents to provide for educational costs. At the time of survey, 23 percent of households 
had at least one member who was participating in a SILC supported by CRS. Of those, 92 percent 
reported that they used some of the proceeds from SILC to invest in their children’s education.
MGD 1.3.2 Reduced health-related absences
Only about 4 percent of parents reported that their children were not enrolled in school because of 
illness or disability. The survey did not collect data on reasons for student absences for those who were 
enrolled in school.
MGD 1.3.3 Improved school infrastructure
The FFE III project will rehabilitate and construct school infrastructure, where it is apparent that 
infrastructure is unsafe for children. The project will pay particular attention to water and sanitation 
facilities. Figure 18 shows the status of the school infrastructure at the time of the baseline. Most 
schools are one building structures. The vast majority (97 percent) have corrugated iron sheet roofs, 
although there were two schools with no roofs; 75 percent had concrete polished walls; and 83 percent 
had concrete floors. In general, the school infrastructure of the schools observed was safe. There has 
been good progress in infrastructure from the beginning of the Phase II project when 74 percent of 
observed schools had corrugated metal roofs, 37 percent had polished concrete walls, and 60 percent 
had concrete floors. FFE III should focus on those schools whose infrastructure endangers children and 
will negatively impact learning, such as schools with no roof.
Figure 18 Status of School Infrastructure
Unlike the school buildings, the status of water and sanitation facilities (WASH) was quite poor. Only 52 
percent of schools had a (potentially) safe source of water, and for almost all of these, it was a hand 
pump well. Furthermore, of those with water wells, 39 percent were not functioning and only 32 
percent were always chlorinated. Assuring that children have access to safe drinking water should be a 
priority for the project.
Figure 19 Status of water facilities in observed schools
97
3
75
15
2
8
83
17
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Corrugated
metal
sheets
(zinc)
No roof Concrete
polished
wall
Mud
polished
Concrete
unpolished
wall
Mud
unpolished
Concrete
floor
Earth floor
Roof Wall Floor
% of schools
52
61
32
55
13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Safe water Functioning
water source
Always
chlorinated
Sometimes
chlorinated
Not at all
chlorinated
% of Schools
Toilet facilities also need attention. Of the schools observed, only 65 percent had a functioning toilet 
and only 72 percent of those toilets were clean. Furthermore, only 18 percent of toilets had a 
handwashing station with water and soap available (Figure 20). 
Figure 20 Status of toilet facilities in observed schools
MGD I.3.4 Increased student enrollment 
Student enrollment is tracked via project monitoring. As of April 2016, there were 28,463 students 
enrolled in project schools. 
MGD S.O.2 Increased use of health and dietary practices
MGD 2.1 Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices
Pupils were also asked about their knowledge of good health and hygiene, and their responses are 
shown in Figure 21. The most mentioned practices were: washing daily (79 percent of students); washing 
hands with soap and water (77 percent); and wearing clean clothes (75 percent). The least mentioned 
practices were putting trash into bins (27 percent); hair braiding (29 percent) and keeping toilets clean 
(36 percent). Forty-nine percent of students were able to name at least 6 of 10 good hygiene practices.
65
72
18
26
56
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Functioning
Toilet
Toilet clean Water and
soap
Only water No water or
soap
% of schools
Figure 21 Students’ knowledge of good health and hygiene
MGD 2.2 Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices
During the baseline, the team surveyed the food preparers and cooks to determine their knowledge and 
skills in safe food preparation and storage practices. A total of 56 cooks were interviewed, and of those, 
42 cooks (82 percent) reported having been trained on safe food preparation and storage practices. 
They were then asked to list examples of good practices in safe food preparation and storage practices, 
and these were checked against main messages delivered in the training delivered by CRS. Their 
responses are shown in Figure 22. Seventy-nine percent of those who have been trained mentioned 
sweeping the kitchen, washing hands with soap, washing food items and cooking utensils as examples of 
good practices. The least mentioned practice was wearing an apron or cooking apparel, which is not 
surprising giving that none of them reported having aprons. Seventy-one percent of cooks were able to 
recall at least 5 of the 10 safe food preparation and storage behaviors. 
27
29
36
44
45
51
66
75
77
79
0 20 40 60 80 100
Put trash into a bin
Hair braiding
Keep toilets clean and provided with
soap/ash
Cut and keep nails clean
Drink safe water that has been treated and
stored safely
Brush teeth twice a day
Keep environment clean and safe
Wear clean clothes
Wash hands with soap and water before
meals and after using toilet
Wash our bodies daily
% of children
Figure 22 Cook’s knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices
Sixty-percent of cooks reported having a kitchen in the school, but only 18 percent of these kitchens 
had a handwashing station with soap and water available. Therefore, while cooks may know the 
importance of washing with soap and water, many appear not to have the soap available to perform this 
task. 
MGD 2.3 Increased knowledge of nutrition
Students were not asked about their knowledge of nutrition, but they were asked about the types of 
foods they ate on the day before the survey. As Figure 23 shows, almost all children ate some form of 
grains (rice, cassava, etc.); 71 percent ate meat or fish; and 69 percent ate a type of vegetable. Fifty-three 
percent of students had a minimum acceptable diet that included at least 4 of the 7 identified food 
groups. 
21
43
46
46
61
64
77
79
79
79
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Wear kitchen apron or apparel
Kitchen should be free from animals
Storage should be free from flies
Put cleaned utensils on a platform (rack/pallet)
Store the food in a clean place
Cover the food after dishing
Wash the food items before cooking
Wash hands with clean water and soap
Wash the cooking utensils and all dishes with clean…
Sweep the kitchen or where food is prepared
% of cooks
Figure 23 Food groups contained in students’ diet on the day prior to the survey
MGD 2.4 Increased access to clean water and sanitation services 
As mentioned above in Section MGD 1.3.3, 48 percent of schools do not have access to a safe water 
source and 35 percent do not have access to a toilet. Soap is especially rare both in the kitchen and 
toilet facilities.
MGD 2.5 Increased access to preventative health services
The GOSL, with support from its donor partners, provide preventative health services, including 
deworming and preventative health services to school children. However, fifty percent of head teachers 
reported that their school did not receive Vitamin A supplementation and 23 percent did not receive 
deworming services (see Figure 24). CRS, in conjunction with UNICEF, is proposing deworming services 
in schools at least twice a year.
5
23
44
54
69
71
99
0 20 40 60 80 100
Eggs
Dairy
Legumes and Nuts
Fruits
Vegetables
Meat or Fish
Grains
% of Children
Figure 24 Access to Preventative Health Services in project schools
MGD 2.6 Increased access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment
Cooks were asked about the numbers of food preparation and storage tools and equipment they had in 
their school. Their responses are summarized in Table 7. There appears to be quite a difference 
amongst schools in terms of the quantities of equipment available. CRS should establish a minimum ratio 
of equipment to a student and ensure that all schools meet at least the minimum standard.
Table 7 Availability of kitchen equipment 
Equipment Average Min Max
No. Big Pots 1 0 2
Big Bowls for cooked food 0 0 4
Big bowls for sauce 2 0 80
Wooden spoons 1 0 15
scooping spoon 5 0 98
Serving Plates 29 0 160
Spoons 26 0 135
Buckets 1 0 5
Towels 3 0 80
Cups 25 0 130
Knives 0 0 15
Mortar 0 0 1
Mortar pestle 0 0 
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 0 0 0
Percent of Schools (%)
#REF! #REF!
WHAT IS THE STARTING STATUS OF THE IDENTIFIED PROJECT 
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS?
As part of the project monitoring of outputs and outcomes, the FFE III project has selected a number of 
indicators that will be used to monitor progress. One of the main objectives of the baseline survey was 
to collect information on the starting point of these indicators. Table 8 provides the data on key 
indicators derived from baseline survey and available monitoring data and the end of project targets.
Table 8 Key Performance Indicators: Baseline Value and End of Project Targets
INDICATORS Baseline End of Project 
Targets
Comment
Girls Boys Girls Boys
Percent of students who, 
by the end of two grades 
of schooling, 
demonstrate that they 
can read and understand 
the meaning of grade 
level text (girls/boys)
8.3 7.9 40 40 Percent of class 2 
students who 
scored at least 80 
percent in a 
reading 
comprehension 
test
Percent of students in 
target schools who are 
identified as attentive or 
very attentive during 
class/instruction 
(girls/boys)
49 52 Composite index 
of attentive 
behaviors 
Number of teachers in 
target schools who 
demonstrate use of new 
and quality teaching 
techniques or tools as a 
result of USDA 
assistance
701 701 27 percent of 
teachers observed 
demonstrated the 
use of a variety of 
assessment 
techniques, a 
foundation of 
DTM
Number of students 
regularly (80%) attending 
USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
9,169 9,776 14,700 15,686 From monitoring 
data. This 
translates to about 
two-thirds of 
students
Number of students 
enrolled in project 
supported schools
13,715 14,748 15,186 15,733 As of April 2016. 
From monitoring 
data
Number of Parent￾Teacher Associations 
(PTAs) or similar ‘school’ 
governance structures 
supported as a result of 
USDA assistance
1,728 SMCs
3,840 Mother clubs
From monitoring 
data.
Percent of school-age 
children receiving a 
minimum acceptable diet
55% 52% 100 100 Percent of school￾aged children who 
report consuming 
at least 4 out of 7 
food groups on 
the day prior to 
the survey, as 
defined by the FFE 
Indicator 
Handbook. 
Percent of students in 
target schools who 
achieve a passing score 
on a test of good health 
and hygiene practices
55% 44% 70 70 Percent of 
students who 
could name at 
least 6 of 10 good 
hygiene practices
Number of school 
WASH Clubs formed by 
CRS
0 130 45 percent of 
head teachers 
interviewed during 
baseline revealed 
that the school did 
already have a 
WASH club
Percent of food 
preparers at target 
schools who achieve a 
passing score on a test of 
safe food preparation and 
storage
71% 75% Percent of cooks 
who could name 
at least 5 of 10 
safe food 
preparation 
practices
Number of students 
receiving deworming 
medication(s)
28,463 30,919 From CRS 
Monitoring data
Number of schools using 
an improved water 
source
102 192 From CRS 
Monitoring data
Percent of students in 
target schools who 
indicate that they are 
hungry or very hungry 
during the school days
94% 0% Reported being 
very hungry or 
somewhat hungry 
at the time of the 
survey
WHAT ARE THE DETERMINANTS OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE?
One of the important outcomes of the FFE III project is to improve school attendance and participation 
rates in the target chiefdoms. In the analysis above, we saw that 83 percent of children of school-going 
age were in school and 17 percent were not in school. Of those enrolled in school, many children do 
not attend regularly – the attendance rate on the day of the survey was 74 percent. 
In order to understand the factors that influence school attendance and participation, the baseline 
evaluation included a barrier analysis, which is a rapid assessment tool that is used to identify the factors 
that drive a particular behavior.15 The analysis involves interviewing “Doers” (those who practice the 
behavior under study) and “Non-Doers” (those who don’t practice the behavior) and focuses on eight 
behavioral determinations: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived action efficacy, 
perceived social acceptability, perceived self-efficacy, cues for action, perception of divine will, and 
positive and negative attributes of the action. While barrier analysis is typically used in community health 
programs and health behaviors, we have adapted it for use in the education sphere. For the evaluation: 
the behavior under study was the regular attendance of school-age children.
Selection of sample in barrier analysis
Households with children aged 6-12 years were eligible to be selected for the barrier analysis. Doers were 
defined as parents with a child aged 6-12 years who was not attending school, while non-doers where 
parents of child 6-12 years not attending school. In each community, 3 doers and 3 non-doers were 
interviewed. 
Results of barrier analysis
Of our survey of 352 households, 285 (81 percent) were considered doers and 67 (19 percent) were 
non-doers. Below are the various responses to interview questions by doers and non-doers in the 
survey. We used a chi-squared test to determine whether there were significant differences (p=.05) 
between doers and non-doers in the various areas. 
 
15 Food for the Hungry and The Core Group (2004). Barrier Analysis Facilitator’s Guide: A tool for improving 
behavior change communication in child survival and community development programs 
Perceived Susceptibility
Doers were significantly more likely (p=0.000) to link their child’s future success to school attendance: 
62 percent felt that child will not be successful if they don’t attend school; whilst 37 percent of non￾doers felt the same way. 
Figure 25 Distribution of responses for Doers and Non-Doers on Question “Do you think your child will be 
successful in life if they don’t attend school?”
Perceived Severity
We asked a few questions regarding the perceived severity of non-school attendance. As Figure 26
shows, Doers, were significantly more likely (p=0.001) to see this as a “very bad” problem (77 percent 
of doers vs. 60 percent of Non-Doers).
34
43 36
62 37 57
4
19
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doer Non-Doer Total
% of response
Yes No Don't Know
Figure 26 Distribution of responses for Doers and Non-Doers on Question “How bad a problem is it if a child 
does not go to school?”
Doers were also very optimistic about the possibility of a child getting a good paying job or successful 
business if they attend school. 53 percent of Doers vs. 34 percent of Non-Doers felt that going to 
school would always lead to a better job or business (see Figure 27). 
Figure 27 When a child goes to school does that mean that he or she will get a good paying job or a successful 
business?
Doers were also significantly more likely to agree that completing school makes you a better person 
compared to Non-Doers (76 percent vs 66 percent).
77
60
14
22
5
3
4
15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doer Non-Doer
% of responses
Very bad Neither good nor bad Not bad at all Cannot tell/No answer
42
54
53
34
2 6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doer Non-Doer
% of responses
Not at all Sometimes/Maybe Always Cannot tell/No answer
Figure 28 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers to the Question “To what degree does a child completing school 
help make you (respondent) a better person?”
Perceived Social Acceptability
On the social acceptability determinant, individuals were asked about whose decisions matter to them 
and whether these people would agree or disagree with their decision to enroll their child in school. 
There were slight, but statistically significant differences (p =0.047) in the response of Doers and Non￾Doers for the two questions shown below in Figure 29 . For Doers and Non-Doers, the most 
important people are parents and spouses and these groups will generally agree with the decision to 
enroll their children in school. The opinion of parents was the most important for both groups. Doers 
appeared to have a larger network of individuals and or groups than Non-Doers as friends, traditional 
authorities, and religious leaders were all mentioned as people who would agree with the decision to 
enroll children in school. 
Figure 29 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers in Social acceptability questions
Who (individuals or groups) do you think would 
agree if you enrolled your child in school?
Which of these individuals or groups is most 
important to you?
16 15 16
76
66
74
6
18
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doer Non-Doer Total
% of responses
Not at all Somewhat A lot Cannot tell /No answe
Perceived Self-Efficacy
Here respondents were asked how easy it would be (or was it) to enroll your child in school. Here 
there were significant differences between Doers and Non-Doers (p=0.04) with 43 percent of Doers 
saying it was easy compared to 24 percent of non-doers. Still, for both group, the majority found it to be 
not easy. There were no significant differences in their response to the question of what would make it 
easier or difficult to enroll a child in school. The most important factors that would make it easier to 
enroll in school for both groups was a lower cost of schooling (or having more money) and having a 
school nearby. For non-doers, in particular, not having a school nearby was an important factor in 
determining school participation or attendance.
Perception of Divine Will
We asked three questions regarding whether parents thought religion influenced whether children go to 
school. These were: (1) Do you think sometimes it is God’s will that children don’t go to school? (2) 
Does your religion say it is bad for children to go to school?; and (3) Does your religion say it is bad for 
children to go to school? Non-doers are significantly more likely (p=0.000) to believe that it is 
1
2
2
2
2
2
25
64
0
0
4
0
0
9
25
61
0 20 40 60 80
Religious leaders
Grandparents
Other
Traditional authoriti
Friends
No one
Spouse
Parents
Non-Doer Doer
1
1
2
2
2
4
25
63
6
0
1
1
0
10
25
55
0 20 40 60 80
Other
Religious leaders
Grandparents
Traditional authority
Friends
No one
Spouse
Parents
Non-Doer Doer
sometimes God’s will that children do not go to school; 66 percent of non-doers versus 46 percent of 
doers believe this (Figure 30). 
Figure 30 Responses by Doers and Non-Doers on the Question: “Do you think it is sometimes God’s will that 
children don’t go to school
There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups on the question of whether 
their religion supports a child going to school. When asked in the positive, 92 percent of both Doers 
and Non-Doers agree that their religion supports a child’s schooling. When asked whether their religion 
says it’s bad for children to go to school 92 percent of doers say no; compared to 82 percent of non￾doers but this difference was not statistically significant at the 95 percent level. 
Positive and Negative Attributes of the Action
Both doers and non-doers can list positive and negative attributes of school participation for boys and 
girls, and there are no significant differences between their choices. The five most cited advantages of 
schooling for boys were that it affords boys the ability to: “support family and community”, “find a good 
job”, “learn to read and write”, “be a better parent,” and “be a better husband”. For girls, the five most 
cited positive attributes are the same except that “be a better wife” was more widely cited than “be a 
better husband for boys”.
46
66
52
27
2
7
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Doer Non-Doer
Yes No Don't know
With regards to the disadvantages of schooling, there is again no statistically significant differences 
between doers and non-doers. The most-widely cited disadvantages or negative attributes were that 
schooling was costly, children cannot help at home or on the farm, girls can get pregnant, and bad 
influence of peers (Figure 31).
0 20 40 60 80 100
Learn vocational skills
Learn vocational skills
Acquire critical thinking skills
Have more successful
business
Live better and healthier life
Develop good morals and
discipline
Be a better husband
Be a better parent
Learn to read and write
Find good job
Support family and
community
% of respondents
Boys
Non-Doer
Doer
0 20 40 60 80 100
Learn vocational skills
Better Social Skills
Acquire critical thinking skills
Live better and healthier life
Have more successful
business
Develop good morals and
discipline
Learn to read and write
Be a better parent
Be a better wife
Find good job
Support family and
community
% of respondents
Girls
Non-Doer
Doer
Figure 31 Responses by doers and non-doers on the disadvantages of schooling
To conclude, the barrier analysis shows that the most common determinant of school participation 
among the doers and non-doers interviewed are: perceived susceptibility; perceived severity; perceived 
social acceptability; and perceived self-efficacy. This means that behavior change campaigns or programs 
should focus on messages that stress the importance and benefits of schooling. It also means that these 
messages should target not just parents, but the wider community. Finally, messages and programs 
should focus on ways to reduce the cost of schooling for parents – either by providing opportunities for 
increased income, reducing the cost of schooling through scholarship, or ensuring that a school was 
nearby the community.
HOW APPROPRIATE IS THE DESIGN TO THE CONTEXT?
Stakeholders interviewed all believed that the areas in which the FFE III project focused were important 
for the development of their communities and children. Providing school meals for students, improved 
WASH facilities, and improving learning are priorities for Education, especially in the aftermath of the 
Ebola Virus Disease. These issues are all part of the government's short-term Recovery Plan and long￾term development plans. Therefore, the FFE III project contributes to the GOSL’s national priorities.
0 20 40 60 80 100
It is not safe
Against religious beliefs
Children are not learning much
Teachers don’t treat children right
No benefits to household
Children learn bad manners
Children will leave the village
Difficulty or delay in getting married
Bad influence from peers
Don’t Know/None
Girls gets pregnant
No one to help at home or in farm
Too much costs involved
% OF RESPONSES
Non-Doer
Doer
Discussions with local groups and community members in project chiefdoms also reveal that 
construction and support of schools is one of their top 3 development priorities. Other priorities 
include having a health center in the community and having a safe source of water in the community. 
The rehabilitation of school infrastructure and provision of WASH facilities in school will meet the 
needs of communities. In terms of school support, the focus was mostly on construction, but having 
more qualified teachers was mentioned by a few people as one of the top priorities. Very few 
mentioned provision of food as a top priority.
HOW COULD INTEGRATION OF THE TWO STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES BE 
ENHANCED OR FURTHER LEVERAGED TO DEEPEN POSITIVE PROGRAM 
RESULTS? 
The two strategic objectives are linked in the sense that improving the health of students and teachers 
could lead to reduced absenteeism from school. For example, there are research studies that have 
shown that deworming school children improve overall health and reduced absenteeism, and these
benefits continued over a long period of time.16 Handwashing with soap is also known to reduce the 
incidence of diarrhea and other water or food-borne diseases. 
The program already recognizes the links between the objectives in its results framework. Perhaps what 
is remaining is for these messages to be fully integrated into the project such that schools and 
surrounding communities also understand the link. 
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MOHS) has a school health division, but it is unclear how the FFE 
III program links with the MOHS either at the national level or at the district level to promote school 
health programming.
Another way to integrate the two programs is to develop reading materials for students that 
incorporate key health messages that the project wants to promote in a fun and engaging way. 
CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
 
16 For a summary of benefits of deworming, see: J-PAL Policy Bulletin. 2012. "Deworming: The Best Buy for 
Development." Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. 
This evaluation has focused on providing evidence for the five key evaluation questions: (1) the status of 
the main strategic objectives; (2) the starting status of the identified project performance indicators; (3) 
the determinants of school attendance; (4) appropriateness of design to the context; and (5) enhancing 
the integration of the two objectives. 
Status of main strategic objectives
The two main strategic objectives are to improve literacy among primary school students and to 
increase the use of good health and dietary practices. 
Improved literacy
Despite some progress in the reading skills of children since the FFE started doing work in this area, the 
literacy levels of students are still very low. Less than 10 percent of children in class 2 could read and 
understand grade level text. The only reading skill that students are proficient in is identifying letters. 
Otherwise, they scored poorly in phonemic awareness, familiar word reading, and comprehension. In 
sum, after two years of schooling, the majority of children cannot read.
The theory of change of the FFE III project and says that if the quality of instruction is improved and 
student attends school and are attentive when they are there, then the literacy of school-aged children 
will improve. At the time of the baseline assessment, schools were not yet providing school meals and 
attendance levels were low on the day of the survey. Even CRS own enrolment monitoring shows that 
only two-thirds of students regularly attend school. Half of the students were observed to be attentive 
or engaged in their lessons.
Despite two prior rounds of the FFE project, schools were poorly resourced in terms of school supplies 
and teaching and learning materials; and where materials exist they are not being used properly. In fifty￾six percent of classrooms observed there were either no textbooks or only the teacher had one. Only 
35 percent of schools had teacher guides provided by the Ministry of Education. The school 
environment, especially the provision of water and sanitation facilities, were also very poor. 
Classroom observations of teachers also show low levels of proficiencies in basic teaching skills such as 
lesson preparation, using a variety of teaching methods, and checking for children's understanding during 
the class. Teachers themselves acknowledged that they know very little about how to teach students 
how to read – 81 percent reported that they lack the skills to teach word recognition or phonics, 86 
percent could not teach fluency; 75 percent could not teach vocabulary or comprehension.
Based on findings, the following are recommended: 
 Prioritize improving the skills of teachers to teach reading, focusing on the five components. 
Teachers will need ongoing support and not just one-off training as their skill levels are quite 
low. The DTM training curriculum is quite broad and needs to be simplified and streamlined 
taking into account that most teachers only have a secondary degree. Training should also 
include specific guidelines on how to integrate teaching and learning materials in their teaching 
including textbooks and other reading materials.
 CRS should consider lowering the end of project target for the reading indicator because of 
very low baseline values. For example, at baseline only 8 percent of children can read with 
understanding at the end of class 2 and the 3-year target is 40 percent. This expected magnitude 
of change in this indicator is unlikely. 
 Continue supporting teachers to get certified as teachers with teaching certificate perform
better in general classroom practice. However, Northern Polytechnic should also be 
encouraged to integrate specific skills on how to teach reading into their curriculum. 
 Define minimum standards for the availability of school supplies and facilities together with the 
MEST in Koinadugu, and track the percentages of schools that meet minimum standards. This 
also means that CRS will focus their distribution of supplies in bringing schools below the 
minimum standards up to standard. For example, schools that already meet the CRS standard of 
3 students to 1 textbook will not receive additional textbooks and schools below the standard 
will receive more books. These standards should be set for all supplies and services to be 
provided by CRS. Where a MEST standard already exists, then CRS should adopt those 
standards.
 Prioritize infrastructure and supplies that impact student safety and well-being. These include 
schools that have no roof, no working safe source of water, no working toilet facilities and no 
hand-washing stations. Soap (or other cleaning agents) and water should be mandatory in all 
schools. 
 CRS should work closely with schools and MEST to ensure that schools receive approval by 
MEST. It is the only way to ensure that schools will continue to get supported after the FFE III 
program ends. As of the baseline, only 27 percent of project schools are approved by MEST. 
Fifty-seven percent of schools have not even applied for approval. While it is acknowledged that 
the approval process can be long and cumbersome, schools should be encouraged to apply. 
Given the long history of CRS involvement in these schools and the demand for schools in these 
areas, there is a strong case to be made for approval of schools. CRS should make this the focus 
of its advocacy with the government. 
Increased use of good health and dietary practices
The CRS FFE III project is promoting improved knowledge of good health and dietary practices in order 
to prevent the spread of disease and illnesses and prevent them from attending schools. During the 
baseline, children were asked to name practices that promote good health and hygiene, and just under 
half of them could name 6 of 10 good practices. The least likely to be mentioned were: putting trash 
into bins, hair braiding and keeping toilets clean.
Eighty-two percent of food preparers and cooks reported having been trained on safe food preparation 
and storage practices. Seventy-one percent of cooks were able to list at least 5 of the 10 safe food 
preparation practices. The least likely to be mentioned were: wearing kitchen apron or apparel, keeping 
kitchen free from animals, and putting clean utensils on a rack or pallet. Only 18 percent of kitchen 
observed had a handwashing station with water and soap available.
It is recommended that:
 Key hygiene messages are reinforced throughout the curriculum and in extra-curricular activities
 Schools should have supplies that enable children to not just learn what good practices are but 
also be able to practice them. For example, handwashing stations should be present in all 
schools and kitchens and there should be receptacles for trash. Keeping school facilities clean 
should be a communal responsibility, and CRS should work with schools to develop strategies 
to maintain good hygiene practices.
 In terms of infrastructure improvement, prioritize the provision of safe water and sanitation 
facilities
 Minimum standards for food preparation and storage tools and equipment are developed 
together with the communities and work together with them to ensure that schools meet the 
standard
 CRS defines actions to be taken by schools that do not receive the required preventative health 
services (e.g. deworming and vitamin A supplementation). At a minimum, CRS should provide a 
list of project schools to implementing agencies so that they are aware of the existence of these 
schools. Schools are more likely to receive these services if they have been approved by MEST.
Starting status of key performance indicators
The starting points of key performance indicators are quite low, and while the FFE III projects cover a 
number of different activities, the focus on implementation should be on activities that will improve the 
key performance indicators. 
It is recommended that: 
 Project activities and attention should be directed towards activities that improve the key 
performance indicators
 The number of key performance indicators is reduced to help focus project activities to the 
most critical outputs or outcomes.
 Key performance indicators focus on the percentages of beneficiaries that meet a certain target 
rather than the numbers of such beneficiaries. This allows for external evaluators to be able to 
report on indicators without relying on monitoring data. 
Determinants of school attendance 
From the households surveyed, 83 percent of school-aged children were in school and 17 percent were 
out of school. Of those enrolled, many children do not attend regularly. Monitoring data maintains that 
only two-thirds of students attend school at least 80 percent of the time and on the day of the survey 
only about 74 percent of enrolled students were in attendance. The main reasons for why children were 
not enrolled in school were that schooling was expensive and children's labor were needed in the home 
or on the farm. Many parents were also choosing to send their boys to Qur'anic school as an 
alternative to formal schooling.
The evaluation included a barrier analysis to help determine what drives parent’s behaviors to enroll 
their child in school by looking at differences between ‘doers’ and ‘non-doers’. What we found was that 
compared to non-doers, doers were significantly more likely to: (i) link their child’s future success to 
school attendance; (ii) attribute severe negative consequences for not attending school; (iii) be more 
optimistic about the likelihood that schooling will lead to better jobs and businesses; (iv) have a larger 
network of people who support and agree with the decision to enroll children in school; (v) find 
enrolling children in school easier; (vi) less likely to believe that it is God’s will if children do not attend 
school. 
It is recommended that: 
 Behavior change messages focus on those areas were doers are different from non-doers e.g. in 
highlighting the positive benefits of schooling
 Behavior change messages target not just parents of school-going age but also others of the 
communities
 Programs and activities should focus on ways to reduce costs (direct and indirect) of schooling 
or provide opportunities for increased income. The latter may be beyond the scope of the 
program
Appropriateness of the design to the context
Overall, the design of the FFE III project is relevant for the national and local context. Included in the 
national priorities of GOSL are providing school meals, improving the literacy and numeracy skills of 
students, and improving skills and knowledge of teachers. The CRS FFE III project supports and 
contributes to the national priorities.
Discussions with local groups and community members in project chiefdoms also reveal that 
construction and support of schools is one of their top 3 priorities. Other priorities include having a 
health center in the community and having a safe source of water in the community. These priorities are 
similar for men and women. The rehabilitation of school infrastructure and provision of WASH facilities 
in school will meet the needs of communities. In terms of school support, the focus was mostly on 
construction, but having more qualified teachers was mentioned by a few people as one of the top 
priorities. Very few mentioned provision of food as a top priority.
It is recommended that: 
 CRS provide opportunities for MEST and donor partners to visit schools so they understand the 
conditions of schools and education in these areas, which may make them more inclined to 
provide additional support
 Other recommendations regarding design have been proffered above – but one worth 
mentioning again is for the project to focus on improving reading skills. In order to do this, it 
needs to be able to make the links between all the various activities and their contribution to 
improved learning. Teachers need specific training and ongoing coaching on reading instruction, 
and this support should take into account the literacy levels and English language proficiency of 
teachers themselves.
 Work with the communities and parents should also be geared towards how they can 
contribute to improved learning, and not just their contribution to construction and school 
feeding. Even parents who are not literate themselves can tell stories to their children, which 
helps develop oral language. They can also provide dedicated time and space for their children 
to read after school. 
 Children lose a lot of what they learned during the long vacations. CRS might consider programs 
during the long holidays that will allow teachers and children to continue learning. 
Enhancing the integration of two strategic objectives to deepen positive program results
The two strategic objectives are linked in the sense that improving the health of students and teachers 
could lead to reduced absenteeism from school. For example, there are research studies that have 
shown that deworming school children improve overall health and reduced absenteeism, and these 
benefits continued over a long period of time.17 Handwashing with soap is also known to reduce the 
incidence of diarrhea and other water or food-borne diseases. 
 
17 For a summary of benefits of deworming, see: J-PAL Policy Bulletin. 2012. "Deworming: The Best Buy for 
Development." Cambridge, MA: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab. 
The program already recognizes the links between the objectives in its results framework. Perhaps what 
is remaining is for these messages to be fully integrated into the project such that schools and 
surrounding communities also understand the link. 
The Ministry of Health and Sanitation (MOHS) has a school health division, but it is unclear how the FFE 
III program links with the MOHS either at the national level or at the district level to promote school 
health programming.
Another way to integrate the two programs is to develop reading materials for students that 
incorporate key health messages that the project wants to promote in a fun and engaging way.