Prepared 
Decentralized Evaluation
Final evaluation of the USDA-supported Local and Regional
Procurement (LRP) project in Kenya
FY 2017-2020 
Evaluation Report
May 2020
WFP Kenya 
Evaluation Managers: Beatrice Mwongela and Ruth Musili 
Agreement Number: LRP-615-2017/035-00
Prepared by
Sophia Dunn, Team Leader
John Otsola, Research Specialist
DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING 
ii
Acknowledgements
The evaluation team wish to acknowledge the contributions that the WFP Kenya team have put into 
this evaluation. In particular, the team wishes to thank Daniel Ndungu for helping with the enumerator 
training, Gabriel Ekaale for organizing interviews in Turkana County, Regina Kyalo for supervising 
enumerators in Baringo, and the Monitoring and Evaluation Team, especially Beatrice Mwongela, Ruth 
Musili and Polly Akwanyi for organizing the fieldwork, supervising the enumeration teams and for their 
ongoing support to the field mission. Thank you also to all the WFP personnel who provided their input 
through key informant interviews.
The team would also like to thank all the national and county level Government of Kenya stakeholders, 
especially the personnel from the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, 
Ministry of Health and Ministry of Industry, Trade and Cooperatives who participated in the evaluation
as key informants. Special thanks also to the government personnel, particularly the Ministry of 
Agriculture teams in Baringo and West Pokot, who helped organize interviews and/or accompanied 
the Team Leader for field visits. 
The evaluation team also extends their thanks to all the traders, Farmer Organization members and 
school personnel who participated in the qualitative and quantitative interviews. 
Special thanks are also due to the team of enumerators, survey supervisors and drivers without whom 
we could not have completed the quantitative data collection: 
Enumerators: Amos Apalekem Pkiach, Amos Yeko, Betty Judy Mukami Mutwiri, Caroline Ikai, Dennis 
Kiplagat, Dennis Marias, Edward Kipchirchir Cheruiyot, Elizabeth Ndole, Emily Akuto, Ezekiel Chebii,
Geoffrey Nalima, Joyce Chebet, Magdalene Lokaale, Melvin Kirwa, Millicent Malago, Miriam Lotukoi 
Ikimat, Murket Chepkite Rose, Nancy Ajega Ongere, Norah Chemsto Kariwo, Peter Nzamba, Philip 
Ojowi Akhonya, Pius Rotich, Ryan Wambua Makau, Shirley Layo Loumo, Stanley Elain and Zakayo 
Muindi. 
Drivers: Jackson Ngige, Kennedy Omwenga, Simon Njaramba and Wilson Ereng
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not necessarily reflect 
those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this report rests 
solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP of the 
opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the expression of any 
opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, 
territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers.
iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of the evaluation subject......................................................................................2
1.2 Context..................................................................................................................................4
1.3 Evaluation methodology and limitations..............................................................................8
2 Evaluation Findings...............................................................................................................13
2.1 Overview of surveyed beneficiaries....................................................................................13
2.2 Evaluation Theme 1: Relevance ..........................................................................................15
2.3 Evaluation Theme 2: Effectiveness .....................................................................................18
2.4 Evaluation Theme 3: Efficiency ...........................................................................................36
2.5 Evaluation Theme 4: Impact ...............................................................................................38
2.6 Evaluation Theme 5: Sustainability .....................................................................................41
3 Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................................................42
3.1 Overall Assessment/Conclusions........................................................................................42
3.2 Recommendations..............................................................................................................44
4 Annexes................................................................................................................................46
5 List of Acronyms.................................................................................................................. 123
iv
List of Annexes
Annex 1: Endline evaluation terms of reference.................................................................................46
Annex 2: Key LRP stakeholders and their interest in the endline evaluation.......................................59
Annex 3: Graphic representation of the relationship between project stakeholders..........................60
Annex 4: Results Framework – LRP Kenya...........................................................................................61
Annex 5: Completed LRP Performance Monitoring Plan .....................................................................62
Annex 6: List of LRP baseline recommendations (2018) ......................................................................64
Annex 7: Maps of Kenya showing WFP and government supported school feeding activities during 
LRP baseline (March 2018) and at endline (October 2019). ................................................................65
Annex 8: Evaluation Matrix ..................................................................................................................66
Annex 9: List of data and documents provided to the evaluation team by WFP Kenya ......................70
Annex 10: Quantitative survey tools....................................................................................................71
Annex 11: Description of the calculation of the evaluation indices.....................................................94
Annex 12: Qualitative data collection tools .........................................................................................96
Annex 13: Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation...............................................................100
Annex 14: List of surveyed LRP and non-LRP comparison schools.....................................................101
Annex 15: Detailed description of the original (baseline) school sampling methodology .................104
Annex 16: Evaluation field mission schedule .....................................................................................106
Annex 17: Stakeholders Interviewed .................................................................................................108
Annex 18: Additional findings from the Farmer Organization survey................................................110
Annex 19: Additional findings from the trader survey .......................................................................115
Annex 20: Additional findings from the school survey.......................................................................117
Annex 21: Bibliography ......................................................................................................................121
List of Tables
Table 1: Planned LRP activities...............................................................................................................3
Table 2: LRP locations.............................................................................................................................4
Table 3: Number of Farmer Organizations and traders participating in the LRP, by county..................4
Table 4: Timeline of emergencies in LRP counties – 2017-2020 ............................................................5
Table 5: Preliminary Key Evaluation Questions......................................................................................9
Table 6: Number of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed at endline evaluation, by county..................12
Table 7: LRP Targeted traders included in the evaluation survey ........................................................12
Table 8: Characteristics of surveyed Farmer Organizations, by county. ..............................................13
Table 9: Gender of surveyed traders supported by the LRP ................................................................14
Table 10: Business information of surveyed traders, by county ..........................................................14
Table 11: Characteristics of surveyed schools, by county ....................................................................15
Table 12: Planned vs actual delivery of food commodities acquired by WFP though forward delivery 
contracts (Turkana only) ......................................................................................................................19
Table 13: Number of participants attending training on HGSMP management (2017-2018)..............20
Table 14: Number of policies/strategies supported as a result of USDA assistance............................22
Table 15: Percentage of LRP traders who received training on procurement processes.....................22
Table 16: Number of participants in workshops to develop new school meal menus ........................24
Table 17: Number of individuals benefiting from this USDA funded intervention ..............................24
v
Table 18: Commodities grown by FOs..................................................................................................25
Table 19: Ensuring quality products for sale ........................................................................................25
Table 20: FO sales of members’ commodities .....................................................................................26
Table 21: FO sale of commodities in last one year...............................................................................26
Table 22: Number of FOs with sale contracts and value addition enterprises.....................................27
Table 23: Volume and value of sales by LRP FOs..................................................................................27
Table 24: Percentage of traders selling commodities to schools through competitive tenders..........28
Table 25: Total estimated volume of commodities sold per year........................................................29
Table 26: Percentage of traders reporting barriers to purchasing from local farmers........................29
Table 27: Main source of food for school lunches (Term 3, 2019).......................................................30
Table 28: Percentage of schools reporting providing a school meal every school day........................31
Table 29: Reasons for not providing school meals...............................................................................31
Table 30: Change in Nutrition Score: Baseline vs. Endline ...................................................................32
Table 31: Mean volume of food per child received..............................................................................33
Table 32: Change in Cost-effectiveness Score......................................................................................34
Table 33: Average number of days after start of Term 3, 2019 that food was delivered ....................37
Table 34: Change in Timeliness Score ..................................................................................................37
Table 35: Change in Impact Score ........................................................................................................38
List of Figures
Figure 1: Average time the FOs have been established .......................................................................14
Figure 2: FO members’ average use of own production ......................................................................26
Figure 3: Percentage of traders reporting their main source of commodities.....................................28
Figure 4: Percentage of traders reporting selling to the following buyers...........................................28
Figure 5: Percentage of traders reporting sale of staple crops............................................................29
Figure 6: Percentage of traders reporting sale of pulses .....................................................................29
Figure 7: Percentage of surveyed schools reporting developing new school menus since start of LRP
..............................................................................................................................................................31
Figure 8: Percentage of schools reporting using food commodities for their school lunches - Term 3, 
2019......................................................................................................................................................32
Figure 9: Percentage of schools reporting food procurement process completed before start of Term 
3, 2019..................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 10: Percentage of schools reporting that school lunch commodities from non-MoE sources 
were delivered before the start of Term 3, 2019.................................................................................36
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
vi
Executive Summary
1. This report is the endline activity evaluation of the World Food Programme’s (WFP) Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement Programme (LRP) in Kenya. The programme is funded by the United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA) and is implemented in three arid counties in north-west Kenya: Baringo, Turkana and 
West Pokot. The evaluation is commissioned by the WFP Kenya Country Office and follows a baseline 
assessment conducted in April 2018 by the same evaluation team.1 The main objective of the final 
evaluation is to assess the performance and results achieved through the LRP in the three targeted counties 
over the project period from September 2017-March 2020. The evaluation serves the dual and mutually 
reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
2. The LRP was implemented from October 2017 to March 2020 using a grant of USD 1 million. The LRP was 
specifically designed to support the implementation of the Government’s Home-Grown School Meals 
Programme (HGSMP) by supporting farmers, farmer organizations (FOs) and local traders to produce and 
provide sufficient food for the ongoing school feeding activities in the three targeted counties. USDA also 
gave approval for WFP to locally purchase sorghum and cowpeas from FOs for use in the school feeding 
programme. There have not been any budget revisions or changes to the programme design since it was 
approved in September 2017, and there are no sub-recipients under this agreement. No other donors have 
contributed funds to the LRP per se, however some of the FOs supported under the LRP have also benefitted 
from support from other donors. The LRP is implemented directly by WFP Kenya, in close collaboration 
with the Ministries of Education (MoE), Agriculture and Irrigation (MoA) and Health (MoH), at county and
sub-county levels.
3. The key objectives of the LRP are as follows:
• Improve effectiveness of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and improving timeliness. 
• Increase the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to effectively and 
efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, promoting sustainability of school feeding; 
• Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to culturally acceptable 
commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya HGSMP; and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various high quality, nutritious and 
culturally appropriate foods in school’s meals.
4. To achieve these objectives, the LRP has five main activities: 1. Assessment of local food systems, 2. Capacity 
building for national and county institutions, 3. Capacity strengthening for local traders and FOs, 4. Develop 
school meal menus using local and nutritious produce, and 5. Procure locally produced, drought-tolerant 
crops. The main users of this evaluation report are WFP Kenya and USDA, both of whom have a 
responsibility to ensure that the evaluation proceeds as per the programme agreement between the two 
parties. There are also several other internal and external stakeholders with an interest in the evaluation 
findings including the MoE, MoA and MoH and other WFP offices.
5. Context: WFP and the MoE have jointly implemented a school meals programme in Kenya since 1980, 
targeting the most food-insecure counties with the lowest enrolment and completion rates and high gender 
disparities. Initially, school meals used an in-kind modality with food commodities provided directly by 
international donors including the USDA/McGovern-Dole. In 2009, the Government of Kenya started the
national HGSMP to provide meals to children at school, using a cash transfer modality, providing cash to 
schools to enable them to buy their food directly from local traders and farmers. The HGSMP stimulated 
local agricultural production through purchase of food from smallholder farmers and local traders. The arid 
counties in Kenya’s north were the last to transition to cash-transfers, to give adequate time to assess the 
local markets and ensure they would be able to cope with the demand of school feeding. All the targeted 
LRP schools in Baringo and West Pokot were handed over to the HGSMP in September 2017. WFP officially 
handed over all remaining WFP-supported schools, including the LRP schools in Turkana to the 
1Dunn, S & Otsola, J (2018) Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project in Kenya, 2017-2020. June 2018.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
vii
government’s HGSMP in June 2018. This was on the understanding that the government would provide 
cash to schools to procure their own food for school meals. 
6. Methodology: This evaluation uses the OECD-DAC2 international evaluation criteria of relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact to evaluate the implementation of the LRP project. The 
evaluation team has also ensured that gender equality and the empowerment of women (GEEW) was 
mainstreamed through the evaluation approach and methodology by ensuring that whenever possible, men 
and women, boys and girls from different stakeholder groups, participated in the evaluation, and data has 
been gender disaggregated when possible. Where possible, the evaluation has also tried to assess whether 
the project had different impacts on male and female farmers and traders. The evaluation used mixed 
methods and collected both quantitative and qualitative primary data to answer each of the evaluation 
questionsincluding - 1. Was the project designed to reach the right people with the right type of assistance? 
2. Is the project aligned with national government’s relevant policies and strategies? 3. To what degree have 
the interventions resulted in the expected results? 4. Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries at the right 
time? 5. Were there any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? 6. What internal and external 
factors affected the project’s results? 7. To what extent is it likely that the benefits of the project will 
continue after the end of the project? And 8. What are the key factors that affect the likelihood of 
sustainability of the results of the project?
7. The evaluation also utilized WFP Kenya’s own project monitoring data, to complete the Performance 
Monitoring Plan (PMP) required by USDA. The evaluation incudes three quantitative surveys: FOs, local 
traders and schools, as well as qualitative field interviews and focus group discussions, to assess the effect 
of the program against the LRP objectives. The evaluation methodology has three identified limitations: 
Firstly, that two schools from the original baseline sample were not included at endline.3
 These two schools 
were replaced with schools with 99% matching characteristics4 to the original schools, so there should not 
be any effect on the group comparison of results from baseline. Secondly, that the school survey was 
partially conducted during the Term 1, 2020 half term holidays. This meant the survey teams had to 
organize times with each school to conduct their visit, to ensure that appropriate school personnel would 
be available to answer the survey questions. The mitigation measures were successful, and personnel from 
each school were located to participate in the survey. Lastly, although there is some gender disaggregated 
data available from WFP, the LRP Results framework does not include gender indicators. Furthermore, the 
beneficiary units are largely genderless (schools and farmer organizations). This has limited the gender￾related findings of the evaluation.
8. Key findings: Evaluation question 1: Was the LRP relevant? The LRP was designed in collaboration with 
MoE, MoA and MoH and the evaluation found the design to be relevant to support HGSMP transition in the 
three targeted counties. The planned modality of cash-transfers for providing school meals was the 
preferred option of all evaluation key informants, as it not only supports local farmers and trader, but aligns 
well with the government’s existing HGSMP. Overall, the endline evaluation found that the LRP 
complements the HGSMP, and aligns well with key Government of Kenya policies, strategies and 
framework, as well as WFP’s own polices and with the direction of other United Nations actors in Kenya.
9. Evaluation question 2: Was the LRP effective? WFP and partners implemented most of the LRP project 
activities as planned. However, because of the 2017/18 drought, the MoE decided not to transition the 
targeted LRP schools onto cash-transfers as planned, but to keep them on in-kind assistance until food 
prices reduced. This has had a significant effect on the LRP results and some of the intended school-related 
objectives have not been achieved. Out of the 191 schools surveyed, only 18 non-LRP schools in West Pokot 
reported receiving cash-transfers for HGSMP as planned. None of the other schools received any resources 
(food or cash) from the MoE for school meals for Term 3, 20195 As a result, only around a quarter of schools 
2 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee 3 One because a bridge had been destroyed by floods and the school was no longer accessible, and the second due to insecurity.
4 The replacement schools were matched using the following attributes: Grouping variable (LRP or non-LRP); County; enrolment levels; the original 
selection anomaly index, peer ID, and peer size using the silhouette measure of cohesion and separation algorithm. 5 Term 3, 2019 was the last school term of the LRP and therefore designated as the endline term for evaluation purposes.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
viii
were able to provide lunch every day that term. Although many schools tried to obtain food from other 
sources to supplement any left-over food from Term 2, many schools (n=75) were unable to provide any 
school meals during Term 3, 2019.
10. Through the LRP, WFP conducted several formal training exercises and workshops, in collaboration with the 
relevant government ministries. While the evaluation received positive feedback on all the training work, 
most participants did not have a chance to put the learning into practice due to schools not requiring local 
procurement as planned. The exception has been the procurement training for FOs and traders. As the 
HGSMP procurement process follows the government’s procurement process, traders have been able to 
use their learning to bid for other government tenders, particularly for food for secondary school and 
boarding school meals. Similarly, the training for FOs has contributed to more FOs monitoring product 
quality requirements. The market forums and other support to FOs has also effectively resulted in changes 
to FO production including a greater percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing members food 
commodities, and FOs in West Pokot reported selling a greater percentage of their production. This despite 
the in-kind provision by MoE reducing the potential market opportunities for FOs and acting as a 
disincentive to produce the promoted crops. The collaborative implementation approach taken by WFP 
with MoE, with MoA, MoH and MoTIC has also been an effective capacity strengthening approach, providing 
government personnel with added confidence to provide training on their own in future.
11. Evaluation question 3: Was the LRP efficient? One of the objectives of the LRP was to improve the 
timeliness of procurement of school meals commodities. This was done by providing schools with cash 
transfers, enabling them to do local procurement of commodities, hopefully resulting in more timely 
delivery of commodities to the schools. However, since the MoE did not provide any cash resources to LRP 
schools for Term 3, 2019, none of the LRP schools undertook a procurement process. The target of 90 
percent of LRP schools completing procurement before the start of term has therefore not been achieved. 
Further, none of the LRP schools received any in-kind resources from the MoE for Term 3, 2019, so the 
target of 90 percent of LRP schools having their food delivered before the start of term has also not been 
achieved.
12. Evaluation question 4: What was the impact of the LRP? The LRP was specifically designed to support the 
transition to cash-based transfers in the LRP schools. The impact of the LRP was therefore considerably 
reduced by the MoE’s decision to provide in-kind commodities to schools instead of providing cash-transfers 
to school as planned. As a result, the intended objective of improving the effectiveness of assistance 
through improved timeliness of procurement and delivery, improved cost-effectiveness has not been 
achieved. The objective to increase access to, and use of various high quality, nutritious and culturally 
appropriate foods in school’s meals of the school meals by using locally produced crops has been achieved 
only in Turkana Country and not in Baringo or West Pokot. This is because in Turkana, WFP directly procured
and delivered the commodities to LRP schools.
13. The objective to increase the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to effectively 
and efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, has been partially achieved. FOs, traders and 
school personnel all reported attending training and gaining knowledge on HGSMP. School personnel also 
gained increased awareness of the importance of dietary diversity and how the school meal menus can be 
altered to increase the diversity of commodities. However, most of these groups were unable to put their 
learning into practice as no school-based procurement took place.
14. The final LRP objective was to strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to 
culturally acceptable commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya HGSMP. Although the 
FOs and traders were unable to link into the HGSMP as planned, the LRP activities have resulted in several
positive outcomesfor FOs and traders. These include increased awareness of FOs and traders of the HGSMP 
in general, and increased knowledge for FOs and traders on the required HGSMP procurement process. As 
a result of the LRP market forums, some traders were also able to supply commodities to other schools –
secondary and boarding schools – that also implement school meals. Qualitative interviews also identified 
some negative outcomes for FOs and traders, as both groups were left with larger than usual volumes of 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
ix
commodities after planning to sell stock to the HGSMP schools. Some traders also allowed schools to buy 
commodities on credit, pending future payment of the cash-transfers, however with uncertain plans for 
reverting to cash, it is unclear when schools will be able to pay off those debts.
15. Finally, the evaluation commends WFP for the ongoing effort to include women in the programme and 
impact the lives of women. Women have been actively encouraged to participate in all aspects of the 
programme, and this active recruitment has succeeded, with women making up half the traders sampled 
(46.3%) and more than half the FO membership.
16. Evaluation question 5: Are the results of the LRP sustainable? As a programme designed to support the 
HGSMP, the LRP was never intended to be a sustainable programme in its own right. However, several of 
the LRP activities have contributed to sustainable results. The decision by the MoE to implement an in-kind 
modality reduced the effectiveness of the LRP, but it in no way reduced the sustainability of the HGSMP 
itself. It is, however, difficult to clearly state whether some of the LRP results are likely to be sustained or 
not as the sustainability of some results depend on the MoE’s future plans regarding providing cash 
transfers. Regardless of the HGSMP modality, the LRP has succeeded in strengthening relationships 
between traders and FOs and contributed to improving the policy landscape promoting smallholder 
procurement. The least sustainable aspect of the LRP is likely to be the use of drought tolerant crops in the 
school menus. Currently, those commodities are more expensive than maize and beans, so unless schools 
are provided with a cash transfer rate than enables procurement of these commodities, they are unlikely 
to purchase those commodities regardless of the nutritional or economic benefits to the community
17. Overall conclusions: The evaluation found that while all the planned LRP activities and outputs have been 
completed, and the project has resulted in several positive outcomes, the LRP has not been able to achieve 
the school-based objectives of improving the timeliness or cost-effectiveness of food assistance. This is a 
result of MoE providing LRP schools with in-kind commodities instead of the cash-transfers that were 
planned, and which the LRP was specifically designed to support. The LRP has however succeeded in 
increasing the capacity of traders, FOs and school meals procurement committees on the procurement 
processes of HGSMP, although none of these groups have been able to put their learning into practice. 
Similarly, although capacity of school personnel on nutrition and diversity of the school menus has been 
strengthened though training and the menu development workshops, this training and the resulting menus 
have not been put to use in Baringo and West Pokot. In Turkana County, schools used the new menus to 
incorporate sorghum and cowpeas into the school meals. The expected boost to the local and regional food 
market systems that the HGSMP would have provided, has not resulted, although other market activities 
have helped FOs and traders sell greater volumes. The evaluation found it was not possible for WFP to have 
foreseen the sudden change in position on cash-transfers by the MoE especially after successful transition 
to cash transfers in other arid areas prior to handover to government. Based on the findings and conclusions 
of this evaluation, the evaluation team made the following recommendations: 
• Recommendation 1: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should continue to advocate 
to the MoE senior leadership on the importance of school feeding, timeliness of delivery, timeliness of 
cash disbursement and importance of providing daily school meals. This advocacy role can also be done 
at county level in support of the draft ECDE framework.
• Recommendation 2: WFP and MoE should develop a position paper outlining the key decisions over 
the last decade that have led to the largely cash-based modality of HGSMP that is seen today. The paper 
should also include the evidence that underpins those decisions including recent market assessments 
in the arid areas. The paper should then be used for ongoing advocacy with the MoE as described in 
Recommendation 1. 
• Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should consider ways to 
support improvements in the MoE’s in-kind procurement and delivery system. This is especially 
important if the MoE intends to continue providing in-kind support to the arid and semi-arid areas 
which are among the locations most in need of the food and nutrition security improvements that the 
HGSMP can provide. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
x
• Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to work with county/sub-county governments to support 
farmers, FOs and market system improvement in general. This is especially important for work involving 
the MoA, as their authority has been devolved to the counties.
• Recommendation 5: WFP should continue to work together with MoH at national and county level, on 
school health and nutrition related work, especially on activities that improve the nutritional status of 
school-aged children such as the provision of nutritious, locally produced food commodities.
• Recommendation 6: WFP should look for funding to continue to the work started through the LRP 
supporting farmers and FOs in Baringo and West Pokot as the LRP was the first opportunity for support, 
and without the opportunity to put their learning into practice during the LRP, any gains made are likely 
to regress without some reinforcement.
• Recommendation 7: WFP should continue to work with the MoA and other relevant ministries on the 
promotion of small holder procurement. This should include continuing the development of county and 
national level strategies and other means to increase opportunities for small holder engagement in 
public procurement. 
• Recommendation 8: WFP should continue to support MoE’s efforts to conduct regular programme 
monitoring to ensure that HGSMP processes and procedures are being adequately followed.
• Recommendation 9: WFP and partners should continue to support the active inclusion of women in all 
WFP projects and ensure that gender related indicators are present in future WFP projects, as 
appropriate.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
1
1 Introduction
1. This report is the endline activity evaluation of the World Food Programme’s (WFP) Local and Regional 
Food Aid Procurement Programme (LRP) in Kenya. The programme is funded by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and is implemented in three counties in north-west Kenya: Baringo, 
Turkana and West Pokot. The evaluation is commissioned by the WFP Kenya Country Office (CO) who 
provided the Terms of Reference (Annex 1). This endline evaluation follows a baseline assessment 
conducted in April 2018 by the same evaluation team.6
2. The main objective of the final evaluation is to assess the performance and results achieved of the LRP in 
the three targeted counties over the project period from October 2017 to March 2020. The evaluation 
serves the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
• Accountability: The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of the USDA LRP 
support to WFP School Feeding Programme in Kenya.
• Learning: As this is the first LRP support to WFP Kenya, the evaluation will generate lessons that WFP 
Kenya, USDA and the Government of Kenya can use to inform future programmes. Findings will be 
actively disseminated, and lessons learned will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
3. The purpose of this report is to present the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the
evaluation. It also provides information on the context, the subject of the evaluation, its stakeholders, the 
approach and methodology that was used.
4. The LRP aims to support the Government of Kenya’s effort to expand the national Home-Grown School 
Meals Programme (HGSMP) into the arid counties and stimulate local economic development through the 
procurement of food from local markets, increasing farmers’ incomes and creating additional jobs in the 
community. The LRP is implemented directly by WFP Kenya, in close collaboration with the Ministries of 
Education (MoE), Agriculture and Irrigation (MoA) and Health (MoH), as well as county and sub-county 
governments. There are no sub-recipients under this agreement. 
5. In the Evaluation Plan agreed with USDA in 2017, WFP committed to conduct a final evaluation to provide 
an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the programme in order to evaluate the 
project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons learned. 
6. The main users of this evaluation report are WFP Kenya and USDA, both of whom have a responsibility to 
ensure that the evaluation proceeds as per the programme agreement between the two parties. Along 
with WFP Kenya and USDA, several other internal and external stakeholders have an interest in the findings 
of this evaluation including the MoE, MoA and MoH that implement the programme and other WFP 
offices. Annex 2 of this report provides a more detailed preliminary stakeholder analysis and lists the 
stakeholders that contributed to evaluation, and Annex 3 provides a graphic representation of the 
relationship between stakeholders. The primary users of this evaluation are:
• The WFP Kenya Country Office is interested in findings notably around programme implementation 
and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships.
• The Government of Kenya, particularly the MoE, the MoA and the MoH and local authorities in the 
three LPR counties, is interested in findings as they took over the implementation and management 
of the school feeding activities in 2018. These three ministries all have an interest in learning how best 
to engage local farmers and suppliers, so they continue to be involved in the provision of locally 
produced, nutritious food commodities to school feeding activities in arid areas.
6 Dunn, S & Otsola, J (2018) Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Project in Kenya, 2017-2020. Final Report, June 2018.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
2
• USDA is interested in the evaluation findings, both from an accountability perspective, and for the 
purpose of expanding their body of knowledge on LRP programmes. USDA may also use the findings 
and lessons learnt from this final evaluation to inform future program funding, design, and 
implementation decisions. 
• The WFP Regional Bureau in Nairobi (RBN) is expected to use the evaluation findings to provide 
strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight.
• WFP Headquarters (HQ) may use evaluation findings for wider organizational learning and 
accountability. 
7. As accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments, LRP beneficiaries also have a right 
to contribute to the evaluation, and an interest in the overall finding of this evaluation. LRP beneficiaries 
were therefore included in key informant interviews and/or focus group discussions. For the LRP there are 
several groups of beneficiaries including government officers, farmers, Farmer Organizations (FOs), local 
traders, school personnel, School Meal Committee (SMC) members, parents and school children. Each of 
these groups participated in the evaluation. To ensure gender equality and women’s empowerment in the 
evaluation process, the evaluation ensured participation and consultation by women, men, boys and girls 
as appropriate. WFP Kenya will also ensure that the evaluation findings are disseminated to stakeholders.
1.1 Overview of the evaluation subject
8. The LRP was specifically designed to support the implementation of the Government’s HGSMP. It was 
designed to support farmers, FOs and local traders to produce and provide sufficient food for the ongoing 
school feeding activities by the Government of Kenya in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot counties. The 
LRP was implemented from October 2017 to March 2020 using a grant of USD 1 million. USDA also gave 
approval for WFP to locally purchase sorghum and cowpeas from local FOs for use in the school feeding 
programme. There have not been any budget revisions or changes to the programme design since it was 
approved in September 2017, and there are no sub-recipients under this agreement. No other donors have 
contributed funds to the LRP per se, however as described ahead, some of the FOs supported under the 
LRP have also benefitted from support from other donors. 
9. Before the LRP, the targeted schools were implementing the school meals programme (SMP) through in￾kind food distribution by WFP. Primary school children were provided with a hot lunch at school which 
comprised 150g of cereals, 40g of pulses, 5g of oil and 2g of iodized salt per child per day. The LRP was 
designed to transition the LRP schools onto cash transfers under the HGSMP to enable schools to procure 
their own food commodities, potentially enabling faster delivery (timeliness), reducing overall costs (cost￾effectiveness) and increasing the diversity of the foods provided (nutrition). 
10. Objectives and activities: The key objectives of the LRP are to:
• Improve effectiveness of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and improving timeliness. 
• Increase the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to effectively and 
efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, promoting sustainability of school feeding; 
• Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to culturally acceptable 
commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya HGSMP; and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various high quality, nutritious and 
culturally appropriate foods in school’s meals. 
11. To accomplish these objectives the project has five main activities asshown in Table 1. All the LRP activities 
were implemented in close collaboration with the MoE, MoA and/or MoH and county governments. 
Government officers at the national and county levels ensured that the required government approvals 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
3
were received on time, participants identified, mobilized and invitations issued to the capacity 
development events. The government officers also participated in facilitating capacity building sessions 
including training sessions. The majority of activities were completed by October 2019 with the official end 
date being 31st March 2020 when the few remaining activities, including the reporting of this evaluation, 
will have been completed. The evaluation scope covers all the activities implemented as part of the LRP in 
each of the three targeted counties. The evaluation has mainstreamed gender equality across the 
objectives, as far as possible within the limitations of the results framework.
Table 1: Planned LRP activities 
Key LRP activities Planned 
Assessment of local food systems Two assessments: Baringo and West Pokot
Capacity building for national and 
county institutions
Train schoolteachers, parents and Education Officers in Turkana, Baringo 
and West Pokot
Establish monitoring and oversight plan
Support the development of the National Implementation Strategy for 
Local Procurement from Smallholders
Coordinate first implementation of the above strategy
Capacity strengthening for local 
traders and FOs
Train local FOs, suppliers and traders in Baringo and West Pokot
Conduct market linkage forums in Baringo and West Pokot
Develop School Meals Menus Using 
Local and Nutritious Produce
Nutrient profile developed for selected crops
Support schools to develop, use and promote diversified school meal 
menus, including a training guide
Assess inclusion of local commodities in school meals
Procure Locally Produced, Drought￾Tolerant Crops
Purchase of locally grown, drought-tolerant food commodities (sorghum 
and cow peas) from participating FOs
12. Although the HGSMP has been ongoing since 2009 using a cash transfer modality, the government 
maintained in-kind support to the arid counties including the three LRP counties. This was due to concerns 
that the market system in the arid areas would not be able to support sufficient local procurement of 
commodities, at a competitive price, to support school feeding activities. Since 2015, the arid counties 
have been successfully transitioned to HGSMP, with the three LRP counties among the last to transition.
13. The LRP was based on the USDA-based LRP Results Framework (RF) (Annex 4), which was modified by WFP 
Kenya to suit the Kenyan context. The RF provides a picture of the relationship between the activities, 
outputs and outcomes and how the project intends to reach its objectives. USDA’s definition of “local and 
regional procurement” simply means procurement within the country or within the region.7 This means 
that the LRP is intended to supply schools from food within Kenya, or from the East Africa Region instead 
of importing food from overseas. The Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) prepared during the baseline 
assessment (Annex 5) shows the indicators that are being used to measure performance of the project. As 
per the grant agreement, there are 24 specific performance and results indicators against which 
performance of the programme will be measured. The PMP has been updated and completed during this
endline evaluation.
14. Project beneficiaries: The LRP supports 382 primary schools in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot Counties, 
covering four sub-counties as shown in Table 2. 
7 Hanrahan, C.E. (2010) Local and regional procurement for U.S. International Emergency Food Aid. Congressional Research Service. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
4
Table 2: LRP locations
15. In addition to the personnel and children attending the 382 primary schools, the direct beneficiaries of the
LRP are local farmers and FOs and local traders. Participation in the LRP by traders and farmers/FOs is 
voluntary and WFP used an ongoing recruitment process. By the end of the programme, WFP was working 
with 78 FOs and 29 traders (Table 3), each of whom are working in the vicinity of the 382 targeted primary 
schools. WFP had previously worked with six of the FOs in Turkana as part of their now complete Purchase 
for Progress (P4P) programme, while all the other FOs are new WFP partners/beneficiaries specifically for 
the LRP. 
Table 3: Number of Farmer Organizations and traders participating in the LRP, by county
16. Gender dimensions of the intervention: The LRP has implemented several strategies to ensure that 
women are included in the programme as much as possible. For example, although FO and supplier 
participation in the project is voluntary, the LRP actively tried to support women farmers and women￾managed FOs and actively encouraged them to register with the programme. Further, when conducting 
training for traders, WFP encouraged women traders to register and participate. The WFP LRP team also 
conducted multiple trainings for FOs and traders, including Gender in Agribusiness in an effort to support 
women in business. Despite these efforts to improve gender equity and equality, the LRP does not have 
any stated gender-related results that it is trying to achieve. The PMP does however include several 
indicators that require gender disaggregation so that gender differences can be further analysed.
17. Baseline findings: The 2018 LRP baseline assessment8 made several recommendations, the 
implementation of which were evaluated as part of this endline evaluation. In general, the baseline found 
that the activities and results framework were appropriate and would result in the planned objectives 
being achieved. The full list of those recommendations can be found in Annex 6.
1.2 Context
18. The latest Human Development Index (HDI) value for Kenya (2018) is 0.579, which puts it in the medium 
human development category - positioning it at 147 out of 189 countries and territories.9
 Kenya’s 
population is currently 49.36 million10 the majority of whom live in rural areas. It also has the largest, most 
diversified economy in East Africa. As of 2019, Kenya had an estimated Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 
USD109 billion and per capita GDP of USD2,015 making it the 62nd largest economy in the world.11
8 Dunn, S & Otsola, J (2018) Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project in Kenya, 2017-2020. Final Report, June 2018. 9 UNDP (2019) Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century. Briefing note for countries for the 2019 Human Development Report. 
Kenya.
10 https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/KEN 11 https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/KEN/WEO. Accessed 9 January 2020
County Sub-county No. LRP targeted schools
Baringo East Pokot (Tiaty) 125
Turkana Turkana South & East 130
West Pokot North Pokot 127
Total 382
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Farmer organizations 23 35 20 78
Traders 3 -- 26 29
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
5
19. Poverty: A recent World Bank report12 indicates that the proportion of Kenyans living on less than the 
international poverty line13 declined from 43.6 percent in 2005/06 to 35.6 percent in 2015/16 with no 
more recent figures available. According to the same report, poverty incidence in Kenya is amongst the 
lowest in East Africa and is lower than the Sub-Saharan African regional average. However, the report 
notes that poverty rates in Kenya remain relatively high compared to other lower middle-income 
countries.
20. Characteristics of the LRP counties: The three LRP counties are all located in the north-western part of 
Kenya within the Rift Valley Region (Annex 7) and are classified as arid. People in Turkana County are 
mainly pastoralist with some small-scale crop production for household consumption. Livelihoods fall 
within the North-western pastoral zone and the North-western agropastoral zone around the irrigation 
schemes. Baringo and West Pokot Counties have a more agropastoral profile falling within the Western 
agropastoral zone while the north of Baringo falls into the North-western pastoral zone. Local crop farmers 
have limited opportunities to participate in the local markets due to production challenges including high 
input costs, high transport costs and the presence of disease/pests. This means it is difficult for farmers 
within the arid areas to compete with products coming from more productive areas.
21. Food security: Food and nutrition security is one of the major challenges affecting development in Kenya 
and is closely linked to the high level of poverty in the country. Most of the hunger prone areas are located 
in arid and semi-arid lands in the north. Turkana stands out as being more food insecure than any other 
county, with almost one in five households (19%) having poor levels of food consumption and a further 24 
percent of households having borderline food consumption. Baringo and West Pokot are also in the five 
most food insecure counties (by food consumption score).14
22. Addressing national food security is a key objective of Kenya’s agricultural sector. However, in the last 
decade the country has faced severe food insecurity. At the end of 2017, the Government of Kenya 
declared a national emergency as a result of drought. The drought was severe in all three LRP targeted 
counties, with Turkana and Baringo being among the worst-affected areas in the country. Over the next 
two years Kenya experienced floods then rain failure (Table 4), with the food security situation 
deteriorating over 2019. As of October 2019, it is estimated that 3.1 million people in Kenya were 
experiencing food security Crisis (IPC Phase 315) or worse outcomes, including some households that are 
likely in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) including in Turkana and Baringo where the LRP is implemented.16 The 
Kenya Zero Hunger Strategic Review17 indicates that Kenya is unlikely to meet Sustainable Development 
Goal (SDG) 2 of achieving zero hunger by 2030. 
Table 4: Timeline of emergencies in LRP counties – 2017-2020
Year Emergency context
2017 Government of Kenya declares drought a national emergency
2018 Long rains assessments (March) indicate heavier than usual rains, resulting in flooding
Short rains failed
2019 Long rains failed
Short rains provided more than 100x the expected rainfall, but resulted in good crop production due to 
the timing of the rains
12 Awiti, C et al (2018) Kenya Economic Update: Policy options to advance the Big 4 - unleashing Kenya’s private sector to drive inclusive growth 
and accelerate poverty reduction (English). April 2018, Edition No. 17, World Bank Group 13 USD1.90 per day in 2011 PPP 14 Republic of Kenya (2018) Towards zero hunger: Strategic Review. May 2018 15 The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification System (IPC) categorizes acute food insecurity into five categories: IPC 1: Minimal/none, IPC 
2: stressed, IPC: crisis, IPC 4: emergency and IPC 5: catastrophe/famine
16 FEWSNET (2019) Kenya Food Security Outlook Update: 3.1 million expected to face crisis (IPC3) or worse by October. August 2019. 17 Republic of Kenya (2018) Towards zero hunger: Strategic Review. May 2018
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
6
2020 Long rains assessment indicates timely onset of rains with average to above average rainfall forecast
Locust plague affecting Ethiopia, Kenya and other parts of East Africa. The timing has not affected the 
current crop bit has potential to affect the next harvest (October) if not well controlled.
23. Nutrition: Recent nutrition surveys indicate that Turkana County has one of the highest burdens of 
malnutrition in the country, with acute malnutrition levels above emergency level in all four zones.
18,19 At 
the end of 2019, the nutrition status wasserious in Baringo North and South sub-counties where the Global 
Acute Malnutrition (GAM) rate was 9.3 percent, and critical in Tiaty sub-county (20.9%)20where the LRP is 
implemented. During 2018, West Pokot recorded an improvement in nutrition status of children aged 6 to 
59 months, recording a GAM prevalence of 11% (serious) compared to 20.4% in 2017.
21 The evaluation 
was unable to find any recent nutrition information on school aged children.
24. National agriculture sector: The agriculture sector plays a vital role in the rural economy, contributing 26 
percent of the GDP and another 27 percent of GDP indirectly through linkages with other sectors. The 
sector employs more than 40 percent of the total population and more than 70 percent of Kenya's rural 
people.
22 The sector also accounts for 65 percent of the export earnings and provides a livelihood for more 
than 80 percent of the Kenyan population. However, only about 20 percent of Kenyan land is suitable for 
farming, and even in arable areas, maximum yields have not been achieved, leaving considerable potential 
for increases in productivity. The sector is also the main driver of the non-agricultural economy including 
manufacturing, providing inputs and markets for non-agricultural operations such as 
building/construction, transportation, tourism, education and other social services. Agricultural policy 
reform is one the seven flagship projects to be implemented under Vision 2030,23 which outlines the 
Government of Kenya’s development direction.
25. Gender: In numerous aspects of life, gender inequalities are present in Kenyan society. The Gender 
Development Index (GDI) measures gender inequalities in achievement in three basic dimensions of 
human development: health, education and command over economic resources. The 2018 female GDI 
value for Kenya is 0.553 in contrast with 0.593 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.933, placing it into 
Group 3 (out of 5). The Gender Inequality Index (GII) reflects gender-based inequalities in three different 
dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, and economic activity. Kenya has a GII value of 0.545, 
ranking it 134 out of 162 countries in the 2018 index. These rankings indicate that men still have greater 
access to education, have better health, and have more power over resources than women. In the last 
decade or so, the Government of Kenya has approved several gender-related policies24 to try and rectify 
gender imbalances in a range of sectors. In 2018, the United Nations Conference for Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD) noted that East African countries need to put better policies in place to address 
gender inequalities and bring women further into the workforce.25 The evaluation was not able to locate 
any specific contextual information on gender for the three LRP counties.
26. Education: The Government of Kenya re-introduced the policy of primary education free of all fees in 
200326 with a view to achieving universal primary education and the goal of “Education for All” to correct 
the regional disparities, and social economic and gender imbalances in formal education. The Kenya 
18 Republic of Kenya (2018) Turkana SMART Nutrition Surveys. June 2018
19 Turkana Central 17.2%, T. North 15.9%, T. South 16.2% and T. West 15.3%. 20 Republic of Kenya (2019) Baringo County: 2019 Long rains food and nutrition security assessment report. July 2019. 21 Republic of Kenya (2018) West Pokot County Integrated SMART Survey Report. June 2018.
22 http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en 23 http://www.vision2030.go.ke
24 Including the National Human Rights Policy and Action Plan; The Marriage Act 2014; The Matrimonial Properties Act 2013; The Land Act 2016; 
and Draft National Policy on Gender and Development among others.
25 UNCTAD (2018) East African Community Regional Integration: Trade and Gender Implications. United Nations. 26 Free primary education was first introduced in Kenya in 1974 when the government at the time abolished the school fees for Standards 1 to 4. 
The elimination of school fees was extended to Standards 5 to 7 in 1978. Subsequently, it was reintroduced in 1979 and most recently in 2003. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
7
National Education Sector Strategic Plan (NESSP) 2018-202227 highlights the increasing number of primary 
schools and increased enrolment across the country as a result. On gender parity, the plan notes that 
government investment in primary education has resulted to improved parity index from 0.96 in 2013 to 
0.97 in 2018. The completion rate of primary education has also increased considerably from 80 percent 
in 2013 to 84.2 percent in 2018, while the retention rate increased from 77 percent to 86 percent during 
the same period.
27. School meals programming: WFP and the MoE have jointly implemented a school meals programme in 
Kenya since 1980, targeting the most food-insecure counties with the lowest enrolment and completion 
rates and high gender disparities. Initially, school meals used an in-kind modality with food commodities 
provided directly by international donors including the USDA/McGovern-Dole. USDA/McGovern-Dole 
supported the school feeding programme in Kenya from 2004-2018. This long-term support enabled WFP 
to engage fully with the Government of Kenya on the benefits of school feeding, whilst developing the 
capacity of the government to take over ownership of the programme in a number of areas including; 
procuring food locally to stimulate local economies; raising awareness on the importance of education; 
building and rehabilitating school kitchens, storage and sanitation facilities; raising awareness on nutrition; 
and raising awareness on hygiene and sanitation. This capacity development support contributed 
significantly to the Government of Kenya being ready to take on the full responsibility for a nationally 
implemented school meal programme. After the 2018 handover to the Government of Kenya, 
USDA/McGovern-Dole ceased the provision of in-kind commodities but continues to support capacity 
strengthening interventions.
28. In 2009, the Government of Kenya started a national HGSMP to provide meals to children at school, using 
a cash transfer modality, providing cash to schools to enable them to buy their food directly from local 
traders and farmers. The HGSMP stimulated local agricultural production through purchase of food from 
smallholder farmers and local traders. The arid counties in Kenya’s north were the last to transition to 
cash-transfers, to give adequate time to assess the local markets and ensure they would be able to cope 
with the demand of school feeding. WFP and the MoE developed a transition strategy for the handover of 
the School Meals Programme to the Government of Kenya in 2012 with the schools in the arid counties 
joining the HGSMP from 2015. All the targeted LRP schools in Baringo and West Pokot were handed over 
to the HGSMP in September 2017 (see maps in Annex 7). WFP officially handed over all remaining WFP￾supported schools, including the LRP schools in Turkana to the government’s HGSMP in June 2018. This 
was on the understanding that the government would provide cash to schools to procure their own food 
for school meals. 
29. School meals are provided as a hot lunch to schoolchildren comprising 150g of cereals, 40g of pulses, 5g 
of oil and 2g of iodized salt per child per day. According to the HGSMP Implementation Guidelines28, a 
variety of food items should be selected for the food basket and a combination of the different food groups 
should be consumed daily. Nutrition education should also be integrated. The government is committed 
to strengthening the school meals programme, aiming to provide at least one nutritious meal per school 
day. However, because of the 2017 drought, the MoE decided not to transition the targeted LRP schools 
onto cash-transfers (HGSMP) as planned, but to keep them on in-kind assistance until food prices reduced. 
This has had a significant effect on the LRP results as will be presented ahead. WFP continues to support 
the government in the nationwide roll out of HGSMP. Part of this support includes: 
• Facilitating the government’s mapping of locally grown, nutritious foods in target counties
• Building the capacity of producers and traders to supply produce to schools under HGSMP 
27 Republic of Kenya (2018) The National Education Sector Strategic Plan for the period 2018-2022. Ministry of Education. 28 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
8
• Training the Ministry of Education and HGSMP procurement committees on enhancing food 
procurement systems and 
• Supporting schools to develop menus that utilize locally available nutrient-dense foods 
30. Other WFP work and work of other development actors: WFP Kenya is currently implementing a Country 
Strategic Plan (CSP) (2018-2023),
29 with an overarching aim to shift WFP from the direct provision of 
transfers and services to strengthening of national systems and capacities to deliver food and nutrition 
security. The CSP supports the government’s ‘Big Four’ priorities30 including achieving 100 percent food 
and nutrition security and contributes to SDGs 2 and 17 (working in partnership). Over the LRP 
implementation period, WFP has also implemented humanitarian programmes in other locations to 
support refugee and host communities improve their food and nutrition security. WFP supports multiple 
refugee communities within Kenya, responding to displacement from Ethiopia, Somalia and South Sudan. 
Although Turkana County includes Kakuma refugee camp, that area is not a targeted LRP location. No 
displacement of refugee populations are found in either Baringo or West Pokot counties. WFP is the main 
international agency providing support in the three targeted LRP counties, although they collaborate with 
several other United Nations agencies to implement their programmes. These partnerships include FAO 
for supporting agriculture related programmes, UNHCR for refugee programmes and UNICEF to education, 
nutrition and WASH technical support. In Turkana County, the LRP follows on from WFP’s previous work
with the MoA to support farmers and traders, including the now completed Purchase for Progress (P4P) 
and the Agriculture, Market Access and Linkage (AMAL) project that is ongoing in Turkana County.
1.3 Evaluation methodology and limitations
1.3.1 Approach and methodology
31. This final activity evaluation used the OECD-DAC31 international evaluation criteria of relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact to evaluate the implementation of the LRP project. 
Given this is a final evaluation, greater emphasis has been put on effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability 
and impact of the project. The evaluation team also ensured that gender equality and the empowerment 
of women (GEEW) was mainstreamed through the evaluation approach and methodology by ensuring that 
whenever possible, men and women, boys and girls from different stakeholder groups, participated in the 
evaluation, and data has been gender disaggregated when possible. Where possible, the evaluation has 
also tried to assess whether the project had different impacts on male and female farmers and traders.
32. As per the USDA-WFP agreed Evaluation Plan, this evaluation provides an evidence-based, independent 
assessment of the performance of the programme. Specifically, the final evaluation will: 
• Review the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. 
• Collect additional data as appropriate for evaluation of the strategic objective and higher-level results. 
• Assess whether or not the project has succeeded in achieving its objective. 
• Investigate the project’s overall impact, and
• Identify meaningful lessons learned that WFP, USDA, and other stakeholders can apply to future 
programming. 
33. The evaluation scope covers all the activities implemented as part of the LRP in each of the three targeted 
counties. The endline evaluation builds on the 2018 baseline assessment so that endline and baseline 
findings can be compared, as well as results from LRP and non-LRP schools. Together these comparisons 
29 WFP Kenya (2018) Kenya Country Strategic Plan 2018-2023. WFP/EB.A/2018/8-A/3 30 Increasing manufacturing, achieving universal healthcare, expanding affordable housing and achieving 100 percent food and nutrition security 31 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
9
enable evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the programme. The evaluation has used mixed 
methods and collected both quantitative and qualitative data to answer each of the evaluation questions. 
All information collection has been directed towards providing situational analysis and endline figures for 
the LRPs PMP and providing information on each element of the LRP Results Framework. Overall, the 
evaluation has tried to assess the project’s contribution to the LRP strategic objective: ‘Improved 
effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement’. The evaluation has also utilized 
WFP Kenya’s own project monitoring data, to complete the PMP required by USDA. The evaluation has
assessed the effect of the program against the following objectives: 
• Improved cost effectiveness of food assistance
• Improved timeliness of food assistance
• Improved utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards
34. The OECD-DAC criteria have been used as the basis of the key questions for the evaluation. Table 5 outlines 
some of the key questions under each of these criteria as per the ToR. The table has been expanded into 
a full evaluation matrix, which can be found in Annex 8. The evaluation matrix was developed during the 
baseline’s inception phase, with a view to utilizing the same matrix for this endline evaluation. The 
evaluation team has therefore made no changes to the original matrix. Overall, the evaluation matrix 
systematically sets out how each evaluation question will be addressed, ensuring the evaluation design is 
transparent and that findings can be linked to the evaluation questions through appropriate methods, 
analysis and data. The evaluation matrix also forms the analytical framework of the evaluation.
Table 5: Preliminary Key Evaluation Questions
Focus Area Final Evaluation Key Questions
Relevance • Was the project designed to reach the right people with the right type of assistance?
• Did the project’s implementation lead to meeting the intended beneficiaries’ needs 
considering gender differences with the right mix of assistance?
• Is the project aligned with national government’s relevant policies and strategies? 
• Did the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives? 
Effectiveness • To what degree have the interventions resulted (or not) in the expected results (outputs and 
outcomes as per the PMP)?
Efficiency • Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries at the right time?
Impact • Were there any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
• What internal and external factors affected the project’s results?
Sustainability • To what extent is it likely that the benefits of the project will continue after the end of the 
project?
• Did the outcomes benefit boys, girls, women and men equally?
• What are the key factors that affect the likelihood of sustainability of the results of the project?
• What gender aspects should be considered to ensure gender equality and women 
empowerment in LRP related interventions are sustained? 
General • What are lessons learned from the project?
• How can WFP improve future programming, in the context of these lessons learned?
• How can the lessons be applied to benefit boys, girls, men and women equally whilst 
considering their gender differences?
1.3.2 Data collection methods and tools
35. The evaluation used three main data collection methods: Secondary data review, quantitative data 
collection, and qualitative data collection. Both quantitative and qualitative data collection were carried 
out in all three LRP counties. Detailed descriptions of the data collection methods can be found below.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
10
36. Secondary data review: WFP Kenya has made a number of secondary documents available to the 
evaluation team including project documents, LRP monitoring data, and relevant background documents. 
These documents have been used as secondary data and additional documents have also collected during 
the fieldwork. The full list of documents and data provided to the evaluation team by WFP Kenya can be 
found in Annex 9.
37. Quantitative data collection: The quantitative data collection was done between Feb 10-28, 2020 using 
three assessment tools: a survey of traders, a survey of FOs, and a survey of schools (SMC Member, Head 
Teacher or teacher responsible for the school meals). Although the targeted schools are the primary unit 
of analysis, inclusion of the FO and trader surveys will help provide a basis of understanding of the state 
of the local market and the linkages between small holder farmers, traders and schools. Each of the three 
assessment tools are the same as the ones used at baseline, to enable direct comparison of results over 
time. This comparison of results has helped provide an understanding as to why the intended results have 
been achieved in the schools. Each of the quantitative tools can be found in Annex 10. The evaluation 
team and a team of independent enumerators were responsible for collecting all the required endline 
evaluation data. A brief summary of the areas covered by each tool is provided below:
• Trader/supplier survey: Ability of traders to participate in tenders, issues with food procurement and 
linkage to small holder farmers [Related to A5, LRP 1.3.2.3, LRP 1.3.2 and LRP 1.3.3 of the RF]
• FO survey: Ability to produce drought tolerant crops and the value and volume of sales to schools 
[Related to A5, LRP 1.3.2.3, LRP 1.3.2 and LRP 1.3.3 of the RF]
• School survey: Timeliness and cost-effectiveness procurement of food commodities for school meals, 
utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable food. [Related to LRP 1.1, LRP 1.2 and LRP 1.3 of the 
RF].
38. Trader and FO surveys: The questionnaire that was used for these two surveys was originally designed by 
the WFP team for programme monitoring purposes and was used to collect data at baseline on all FOs and 
traders registered at the time. Since the questionnaire is larger than required for evaluation purposes, the 
evaluation team collected that whole data set but have presented only the same sections of the 
questionnaire that were analysed at baseline as they are the most relevant to answering the evaluation 
questions: Section B: Production, Section D: Marketing, Section F: Training. The remaining data will be 
used by the WFP team for further analysis and reporting.
39. School survey: At baseline, the school survey included questions specifically for the measurement of the 
LRP PMP, using Term I, 2018 as the reference point. It also included observation of the presence of food 
for the start of Term 2, 2018. The same schools were surveyed again at endline but with a focus on Term 
3, 2019 and observation on Term 1, 2020 to see the difference that two full school years of LRP support 
has made.
40. Quantitative data cleaning and checking: A code book of the key variables was produced at baseline, and 
used again at endline, to check on data distribution and flag any outliers for follow up. Data entry was
standardized using the ODK platform to minimize errors that occur when using post-data collection entry 
approach as well as reduce the risk of duplication. Data errors were mitigated by building consistency 
checks within the ODK platform thereby enhancing data accuracy. Data cleaning was also automated 
within the ODK platform. The data was therefore collected, entered and stored real time using tablets.
41. Quantitative data analysis methods: Data analysis follow the same methodologies used at baseline. That 
included analysis using STATA version 14, SPSS version 24 and MS Excel. The analytical path used a funnel 
approach through the following progressive steps: descriptive statistics; association analyses as well as 
significance testing; and computation of indices. Specific analyses include the following: Levene's test to 
measure the equality of variances between LRP and non-LRP schools as well as between the different 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
11
counties; Chi square test of independence to evaluate the statistical significance of the relationship 
between categorical variables based on the corresponding p-values. For instance, Chi-Square tests of 
independence were carried out to test the statistical difference between LRP and non-LRP schools as well 
as differences within counties in the provision of lunch. As the number of traders sampled is small (n=29), 
non-parametric tests have been used for data analysis that are free from homoscedasticity assumptions.32
42. The endline results of the project have been computed using multivariate statistical analyses. This 
approach helped in computing the performance of the intervention while controlling for both direct and 
indirect factors that may explain the variance in the intervention at the endline relative to baseline. At 
baseline, the evaluation team constructed three indices/scores using multiple variables around the three 
constructs that correspond to the three main outcomes of the RF: improved cost-effectiveness, timeliness 
and nutrition. These indices were then summed to give the unit for overall measurement at school level: 
Impact Score. These same indices have been calculated at endline, to make direct comparison. Details on 
the calculation of these scores can be found in Annex 11.
43. Qualitative data collection: Qualitative data collection was done from February 17 – March 5, with follow 
up interviews done remotely by Skype. As per baseline, the Team Leader wasresponsible for the collection 
of qualitative data using the semi-structured interview guides found in Annex 12. These are the same ones 
used at baseline and were used as a starting point for interviews and as a guide to ensure all topics are 
covered. The full evaluation mission schedule can be found in Annex 13. 
1.3.3 Ensuring evaluation quality
44. Ethics: This evaluation followed the UNEG ethical norms and standards33 to ensure appropriate 
safeguarding and ethical processes were followed throughout the evaluation. This included obtaining
informed consent from key informants by explaining the purpose of the interview and that any information 
they provided would be kept confidential, and their name would not be attributed to statements. The 
evaluation team also ensured that interviewees were comfortable with the time and location of 
interviews, including conducting them outside as appropriate. No children were interviewed for the 
evaluation, so it was not necessary to include child safety measures. 
45. Data availability and reliability: The reliability34 of research findings is particularly important in a study 
with multiple windows of observation35 like the LRP evaluation. The evaluation team therefore tested the 
reliability of data collection tools during the baseline assessment36 to assess the internal consistency of 
the research tools. Since the same data collection instruments were used at endline, the evaluation team 
is confident that the results are still reliable. Confirmation analysis wasrepeated to validate data reliability 
during the endline analysis phase. Regarding data availability, WFP Kenya provided the evaluation team 
with the full set of LRP programme monitoring data. Where possible, the evaluation team verified the 
results during qualitative interviews with WFP personnel, government representatives and school 
personnel. This helped to ensure that this secondary data is reliable. The evaluation report also includes 
gender disaggregated data where possible. The evaluation team is aware that WFP has actively tried to 
engage women’s FOs in the project, so the evaluation team has tried to assess whether women’s groups 
received different benefits from the project than men’s or mixed groups. However, the same 
disaggregation was not possible for the trader data, as Baringo only has three traders, all of whom are 
women. West Pokot trader data has been gender disaggregated where relevant. The team also made all 
32 Kendall's tau_b 
33 United Nations Evaluation Group (2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation. New York: UNEG. 34 Reliability relates to the degree to which research can be repeated while obtaining consistent results. It is therefore essential that the validity 
and the reliability of the data collection tools is ascertained to guarantee consistence in research results at different windows of observation. 35 Baseline and endline
36 By using the Cronbach alpha. The instruments attained an alpha score of 0.8 which was above the required threshold of an alpha of 0.7.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
12
possible efforts to ensure both male and female government representatives and school personnel were 
included in the evaluation. 
46. Data quality: The evaluation team made every effort to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency 
and accuracy) was high throughout the analytical and reporting phases. This was done by conducting 
rigorous checks on the quantitative data and triangulating all findings, including methodological and data 
triangulation. As per the ToR, the evaluation team was provided with all relevant documentation within 
the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This ensured that findings are based on as 
many data sources as possible, to give a rounded conclusion. In addition, no WFP staff were present in 
evaluation interviews so that independence of findings, and open communication was had between the 
evaluation team and the key informants.
1.3.4 Site mapping
47. Surveyed schools: The endline evaluation used the same sample of schools as the baseline assessment. 
This enabled direct comparison of results to see the change over time. At baseline the original sample of 
192 schools was selected by clustering schools with similar characteristics.37 This technique was used to 
match LRP and non-LRP schools with similar spatial and demographic attributes. More information on the 
matching method used can be found in Annex 14 and the full list of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed can 
be found in Annex 15. A more detailed description on how the sampled schools were originally selected 
and matched can be found in Annex 16. The endline sample was 191 schools after one school in West 
Pokot could not complete the school questionnaire because there was no teacher available to answer the 
questions (Table 6).
Table 6: Number of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed at endline evaluation, by county
48. Surveyed Farmer Organizations: At baseline, the WFP Kenya LRP team completed an extensive survey of 
all the FOs and local suppliers participating in the project at the time (n= 98). The evaluation team utilized 
the data as a secondary source and conducted its own analysis of the data. For the endline evaluation, 
there were 78 FOs still participating in the project and all 78 were surveyed.
49. Surveyed local traders: The evaluation team completed data collection on all traders supported by the 
project in Baringo and West Pokot (Table 7). No traders were supported in Turkana.
Table 7: LRP Targeted traders included in the evaluation survey
50. Qualitative data collection: Key informant interviews and focus groups discussions were done in each of 
the three target counties as well as in Nairobi and remote interviews carried out over telephone. 
Interviews focused on personnel from WFP, USDA, MoE, MoA and MoH representatives at national and 
county level, FO representatives, traders, school personnel and others as appropriate. The results of the 
37 Using the Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation
County LRP Schools Non -LRP Comparison Schools Total
Baringo 29 29 58 (30.2%)
Turkana 35 33 68 (35.4%)
West Pokot 32 33 65 (34.4%)
TOTAL 96 95 191 (100%)
County Male Female Total
Baringo 0 3 3
West Pokot 12 13 25
TOTAL 12 16 28
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
13
qualitative data collection have been used both as primary data and used to triangulate and elaborate on 
the quantitative data collection. In total, 118 key informants and focus group discussion participants have 
provided their input. The full list of key informants is in Annex 17. 
1.3.5 Limitations and risks
• Two schools from the original baseline sample were not included at endline.38 These two schools were 
replaced with schools with 99% matching characteristics39 to the original schools to limit potential 
differences between the baseline and endline samples. 
• The school survey was partially conducted during the Term 1, 2020 half term holidays. This meant the 
survey teams had to organize times with each school to conduct their visit, to ensure that appropriate 
school personnel would be available to answer the survey questions. The mitigation measures were 
successful, and personnel from each school were found to participate in the survey.
• Although there is some gender disaggregated data available from WFP, the LRP Results framework 
does not include gender indicators. Furthermore, the beneficiary units are largely genderless (schools 
and farmer organizations). This has limited the gender-related findings of the evaluation.
2 Evaluation Findings
2.1 Overview of surveyed beneficiaries
51. Before reporting the findings, this section presents a short overview of the three beneficiary groups that 
were surveyed as part of the evaluation: traders, farmers (FOs), and schools. The information is from the 
endline quantitative survey.
• Farmer Organizations
52. At endline, there were 79 FOs registered with the LRP. These 79 FOs represent 39,682 members, with the 
FOs in Turkana being the largest with an average membership of 776 members (Table 8). Women 
constitute more than half the members in all three counties, with Baringo FOs reporting the largest 
percentage of female members (72%) and the largest percentage of active members (92.6%). In Baringo 
and Turkana, most FOs had been established for more 5 years, with more than a third of FOs in Turkana 
(37.1%) being established for more than 20 years. The FOs in West Pokot were formed more recently, with 
most (75%) being established for less than 10 years (Figure 1). 
Table 8: Characteristics of surveyed Farmer Organizations, by county.
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Number of surveyed FOs 46 36 16 23 35 21
Membership Total members 978 31,142 424 11,895 27,165 622
Average number per FO 21 865 26.5 517 776 30
Average % female 74% 56.8% 66.3% 72.0% 61.5% 65.3%
38 One because a bridge had been destroyed by floods and the school was no longer accessible, and the second due to insecurity.
39 The replacement schools were matched using the following attributes: Grouping variable (LRP or non-LRP); County; enrolment levels; the 
original selection anomaly index, peer ID, and peer size using the silhouette measure of cohesion and separation algorithm.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
14
Figure 1: Average time the FOs have been established
• Local traders
53. At endline, WFP identified 28 local traders from Baringo and West Pokot participating in the LRP. Most of 
these were located in West Pokot, with only three traders identified in Baringo; all female. Women
constitute more than half the LRP traders (57.1%) (Table 9). A small percentage of traders (14.3%) reported 
having tertiary education,40while the majority had only primary (46.4%) or secondary (39.3%). 
Table 9: Gender of surveyed traders supported by the LRP
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Total Baringo West Pokot Total
Number of traders Total 13 41 54 3 25 28
Gender Male 7 22 29 (53.7%) 0 12 12 (42.9%)
Female 6 19 25 (46.3%) 3 13 16 (57.1%)
54. Table 10 shows that the majority of surveyed traders have been in business for around 10 years, with an 
average of three employees, one more than at baseline (p= 0.0480). All three Baringo traders had a valid 
business license by endline, compared with 76 percent of traders in West Pokot. In both counties, these 
percentages had increased from baseline, but the difference was not statistically significant (p= 0.3456). 
The proportion of traders with business registration certificates in both counties was still low. 
Table 10: Business information of surveyed traders, by county
55. The evaluation found no significant difference between male and female traders in West Pokot in terms 
of average time in business,
41 the number of employees,42 or in the percentage having a valid business 
licence.43 The main difference was the percentage with a business registration certification, with more 
female traders (62%) having one, compared with the male traders (33%). However, this difference is not 
statistically significant (p = 0.1670)
44.
56. The majority of traders reported using lorries or motorcycles to transport their commodities for sale, and 
most (66.7 % in Baringo, and 80% in West Pokot) use permanently rented warehouses for storing their 
commodities. Only 1 trader in Baringo and 4 (16%) traders in West Pokot owned their warehouse.
40 Diploma or degree level education 41 West Pokot male traders = 11 years; female = 12 years
42 West Pokot male traders = 2 employees; female = 3
43 West Pokot male traders =75% with valid business licence; female = 77%
44 Determined using a non-parametric test which is consistent with t-test p- value of 0.1719.
0%
50%
100%
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline Turkana Baseline Turkana Endline West Pokot Baseline West Pokot Endline
<= 5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16 – 20 years 21+ years
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
Average time in business 6 years 7 years 9 years 11 years
Average number of employees 2 2 3 3
Percentage of traders with a valid business license 92.3% 58.5% 100% 76%
Percentage of traders with a business certificate 53.8% 26.5% 33.3% 48%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
15
• Schools
57. Table 11 shows that the majority of surveyed schools were day schools, with several being both day and 
boarding. Most schools had an average enrolment of 300-400 students.
Table 11: Characteristics of surveyed schools, by county
2.2 Evaluation Theme 1: Relevance
2.2.1 Was the project designed to reach the right people with the right type of assistance?
58. WFP has been working with the MoE on implementing and improving the design of the school meals 
programme in Kenya for decades. When the LRP was designed in 2017, the MoE played a significant role 
in the design, including agreeing on the selection of the target counties, and the modality of cash transfers. 
The three LRP counties were targeted as they are the last three counties planned to transition to a cash￾transfer modality. These decisions aligned with the existing HGSMP, as the government took over 
implementation in the LRP sub-counties in September 2017. The intention of LRP design was to support 
the HGSMP implementation by ensuring that schools were able to purchase the commodities for school 
mealsfrom the local market once they had received cash-transfers from the MoE. This would help support 
the local economy and align with an underlying intention of the HGSMP and align with the government 
preference of using a cash-transfer modality; a preference expressed since before 2009 when school meals 
started transitioning to local ownership and local procurement.
59. The evaluation team (ET) conducted qualitative interviews with several government personnel and 
beneficiary groups including FOs and traders to establish the relevance of the LRP project. All interviewed 
stakeholders without exception, expressed support for the HGSMP and providing cash to schoolsto enable 
local procurement. Stakeholders believed this was the best modality as it supported the local economy 
by providing a stable market for local farmers and traders. Further, stakeholders felt that that the 
government did not have the capacity to provide commodities to schools on a timely basis, citing long 
procurement processes, lack of logistic capabilities, and poor warehousing and transport facilities at 
county level. 
60. Stakeholder also agreed that the activities included in the LRP were highly relevant, including value chain 
assessments (VCA) to help establish the minimum cost required to provide school meals to students in 
each county, and nutrition-related activities to promote a wider range of food commodities into the school 
meal menu while promoting locally grown, drought-tolerant crops. Providing training to FOs and traders 
on the procurement process of the HGSMP was also much appreciated by stakeholders, to enable the local 
market players to have a better chance at winning the tenders for school meals. The only activity that 
received mixed reviews was the forward delivery contracts (FDCs) in Turkana. It was acknowledged by 
stakeholders that the WFP FDCs supported the FOs to provide food in schools, however this does not align 
well with the idea of schools doing their own procurement. The evaluation found the LRP activities to be 
well linked, working together to reach the overall objective of the project. Key informants also agreed that 
Type of school
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Day school 19 23 31 28 7 16 57 67
Boarding school 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0
Day + Boarding 10 6 3 5 23 17 36 28
Average enrolment 313 224 404 320 337 383 354 312
Total number of schools 29 29 35 33 32 33 96 95
15.2% 15.2% 18.3% 17.3% 16.7% 17.3% 100%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
16
the targeting of FOs and traders was also appropriate – through voluntary inclusion after WFP and the 
MoITC providing information sessions in each county about the project. 
61. Stakeholders appreciated the effort made by WFP to include women in the LRP, bringing GEEW elements 
into the LRP design. Women traders and FOs with women-only membership have been actively identified 
and encouraged to participate in all aspects of the programme, with women making up almost half the 
traders sampled (46.3%) and more than half the FO membership. Overall, 15 percent of the surveyed FOs 
were women-only organizations, with FO membership in all three counties dominated by women.45 This 
is particularly the case in Turkana County, where WFP has been supporting farmers and FOs for several 
years. In Turkana 59 percent of FO members and 48 percent of FO leaders are women. Participating 
traders are also mainly women – all three of the traders in Baringo and 52 percent of the West Pokot 
traders. This active inclusion of women was intended to provide women traders and FO members with 
increased economic opportunities and to support women to participate in the traditionally male￾dominated trade sector.
2.2.2 Is the project aligned with national government’s relevant policies and strategies? 
62. WFP has been a key partner of the Government of Kenya for many years, supporting policy and strategy 
development in several sectorsrelevant to school feeding. In recent years this has included supporting the 
development of the National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy (NSMNS) (2017-2022)46 that outlines 
the design and implementation of nutrition-sensitive school meals in Kenya. Among other objectives, the 
NSMNS highlights the need to “increase awareness and intake of locally available and nutritious foods 
among school children and their communities,” and aims to “strengthen governance and accountability in 
implementing school meals and nutrition programmes.” The LRP aligns well with both these objectives. 
The NSMNS also stipulates that the school meal should increase nutritional intake and meet healthy food 
consumption habits, and that the procurement of commodities should also be procured directly from local 
supplies where possible. Like the LRP, the NSMNS is a collaboration between the MoE, the MoA and the 
MoH, signifying the start of greater collaboration between these ministries on the HGSMP. The LRP is also 
an opportunity for increased involvement of the county level nutrition teams into the HGSMP. This is 
appropriate and aligns with the handover to the Government of Kenya. 
63. The nutrition aspect of the LRP, developing more diverse school meals menus aligns with several MoH 
guidelines and strategies including the National Guidelines for Health Diets and Physical Activity.
47
Interviews with MoA personnel at national and county levels indicate that the LRP also strongly links to 
existing and upcoming MoA strategies, polices and frameworks including the Agricultural Sector 
Transformation and Growth Strategy,48 National Agribusiness Strategy49, the Agricultural Sector 
Development Strategy,
50 and the National Food Security and Nutrition Policy.51 The LRP also aligns with 
the MoA’s ongoing work to promote local and drought tolerant crops, and with work supporting local 
farmers. In turn this links to the planned national implementation framework supported by WFP under 
the LRP to guide and direct procurement by public institutions from smallholder farmers. The active 
45 Percentage of female members in mixed membership FOs = Baringo 72%, Turkana 61% and West Pokot 65%.
46 Republic of Kenya (2018) National school meals and nutrition strategy 2017-2022. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Irrigation.
47 Republic of Kenya (2018) Kenya food composition tables. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, The Ministry of Health, 
Republic of Kenya and The Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 48 Republic of Kenya (2019) Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy: Towards sustainable agricultural transformation and food 
security in Kenya (2019-2029). Abridged Version. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 49 Republic of Kenya (2012) National Agribusiness Strategy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU). 50 Republic of Kenya (2009) National Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009-2020. 51 Republic of Kenya (2011) National Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU).
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
17
inclusion of women in the LRP also aligns with the new National Policy on Gender and Development52
which aims to achieve gender equality with equal access to opportunities in all spheres of life.
64. Kenya’s Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015 Part XII, Preference and Reservations Regulations 
2011 provide a framework for the implementation of preferential procurements in Kenya’s public 
procurement. The regulations currently allow preferential procurement from special groups: youth, 
women and persons with disabilities. Under these regulations, public entities should reserve at least 30 
percent of procurement budgets to special groups. The MoA has been exploring the possibility of including 
smallholder farmers into the ‘special groups’ included in the preference procurement scheme.
2.2.3 Did the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives?
65. The LRP aligns with the new WFP Kenya CSP, based on the National Zero Hunger Strategic Review53 and 
aligned with the Government of Kenya’s Vision 203054 and Third Medium-Term Plan55. The CSP focuses on 
food systems through the development and modelling of solutions along the food production, 
transformation and consumption chain that can be scaled up by the government and the private sector. 
The CSP also aligns with the United Nations Development Assistance Framework for Kenya56 which cites 
three strategic priority areas, all aligned to government direction: transformational governance, human 
capital development and sustainable and inclusive growth. 
66. The LRP is also coherent with previous work that WFP has done in collaboration with the MoA to support 
farmers and traders, including the now completed Purchase for Progress (P4P) and the Agriculture, Market 
Access and Linkage (AMAL) project that is ongoing in Turkana County. LRP also links to WFP’s Retail 
Engagement Initiative,
57 which works to strengthen markets around refugee camps in Turkana County, 
promoting smallholder procurement.
67. Although the LRP marks the start of WFP support for farmers in Baringo and West Pokot, it links closely 
with asset creation projects implemented in recent years in those counties. Some of the FOs in Turkana 
have also been supported with farming equipment from complementary funds from the European Union 
Trust Fund (EUTF) and/orfrom the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany)
(BMZ). Other donors have also supported various training activities or the production of training materials. 
These include the Canadian Government, Unilever, and government funds from the MoE, MoA and MoH. 
Summary of key findings: Relevance
• The LRP was designed in collaboration with MoE, MoA and MoH and the evaluation found the design to be 
relevant to support HGSMP transition in the three targeted counties. 
• The planned modality of cash-transfers for providing school meals was the preferred option of all evaluation 
key informants, as it not only supportslocal farmers and trader, but aligns well with the government’s existing 
HGSMP.
• The LRP is well aligned with MoE, MoA and MoH policies and their current activities and directions.
• Overall, the endline evaluation found that the LRP complements the HGSMP, and aligns well with key 
Government of Kenya policies, strategies and framework, as well as WFP’s own polices and with the direction 
of other United Nations actors in Kenya. 
52 Republic of Kenya (2019) Sessional Paper No.2 of 2019 on National Policy on Gender and Development. Towards creating a just, fair and 
transformed society free from gender-based discrimination in all spheres of life practices. Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender. 53 Republic of Kenya (2011) National Zero Hunger Strategic Review. May 2018 54 Government of Kenya’s Vision 2030: https://vision2030.go.ke 55 Republic of Kenya (2018) Third Medium-Term Plan (2018-2022): Transforming Lives: Advancing socio-economic development through the “Big 
Four”. National Treasury and Planning. Nairobi http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken189643.pdf 56 United Nations Kenya (2018) United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Kenya, 2018-2022. Nairobi 57 WFP Kenya (2018) The Kenya Retail Engagement Initiative: Getting more value from Bamba Chakula cash transfers. Infobrief No. 17. Kenya
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
18
2.3 Evaluation Theme 2: Effectiveness
68. This section details the effectiveness of the LRP project starting with a review of the planned activities, 
then the outcomes that have resulted. Overall, WFP has implemented the LRP project activities as planned 
in the original agreement with USDA. However, it is important to remember that the LRP project was 
designed on the agreement from the MoE that they would be providing cash transfers to schools to try 
and improve the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of procurement and delivery. The effectiveness of the 
LRP has therefore been compromised by the MoE providing in-kind support to all schools in the three LRP 
counties, throughout the whole project period. Although this decision is within the HGSMP guidelines, it 
does not align with the implementation purpose of the LRP as it has prevented local farmers and traders 
from having any opportunity to supply food to the primary schools as intended. The unintended outcomes 
that have resulted from the government’s decision to implement that modality are discussed ahead in 
Section 2.5: Impact.
69. The evaluation found that it was not possible for WFP to have foreseen the sudden change in position on 
cash-transfers by the MoE. All the technical specialists from the MoE, MoA, MoH and MoITC that 
participated in the evaluation believed that the HGSMP modality of cash-transfers was a better model to 
pursue than in-kind provision and had been expecting the cash-transfers to be implemented as planned. 
At baseline, it was understood that the central government decided to provide in-kind commodities for 
Term 1, 2018 due to the 2017/18 drought which resulted in poor availability of food commodities and high 
food prices in arid areas. However, the evaluation was unable to establish why in-kind provision has 
continued throughout the LRP period despite the findings of market assessments described ahead. The 
most likely reason seems to be a change of senior leadership in the MoE with a preference for in-kind 
support.
2.3.1 To what degree have the interventions resulted (or not) in the expected results (outputs and 
outcomes as per the PMP)?
70. The following key has been used to highlight the survey results and/or the achievement of LRP targets:
Improvement since baseline and/or 
LRP target reached
Similar result to baseline Deterioration since baseline and/or 
LRP target not reached
Activity and output level results
71. As noted earlier in Table 1, the LRP includes five main activities, the results of each are described below.
• Assessment of local food systems
72. WFP and partners have conducted several market-related assessments in the target counties over the LRP 
period. This includes food supply chain assessments in Baringo58 and West Pokot59 in September 2018 to 
establish the extent of functioning of the local markets. The aim being to determine the capability of local 
traders to supply the schools under the HGSMP. These food supply assessments also provided estimates 
of the required cash transfer rates for the HGSMP in each county based on the prevailing market prices.
The assessments found that values between KES 10-13 per child per day would be appropriate in both 
counties depending on the distance from main markets. It was intended that the MoE would use these 
values to ensure that schools received adequate cash resources to procure sufficient food for the HGSMP.
In July 2019, WFP also conducted value chain assessments of traditional nutritional foods in Baringo60 and 
58 Kisingu, J. & Mutuku, J. (2018) Food Supply Chain Assessment Report: Baringo County 59 Kisingu, J., Mutuku, J. & Kithale, D (2018) Food Supply Chain Assessment Report: West Pokot County 60 WFP (2019) Traditional Nutritional Foods in Baringo County: Value Chain Study Report
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
19
West Pokot61 to assess the viability of promoting the production and marketing of locally produced 
nutritious foods.
73. Together, these assessments found that the local markets in each for the three LRP counties would be able 
to meet the demand from the school meals programme. Although the climatic conditions for producing 
the four promoted drought-tolerant crops (sorghum, cowpeas, green grams and millets) was good, their 
consumption was constrained due to low volumes produced (lack of availability) and high prices when 
compared to maize and beans. Conducting these assessments provided an opportunity for collaboration 
and capacity building for WFP and MoA and the findings were particularly appreciated by WFP project 
personnel and by county-level authorities, for providing evidence that the markets in each county was able 
to meet the added demands of school meals, despite the drought and floods that occurred during the 
project period. The assessments also enabled WFP and technical county-level representatives, particularly 
from MoA, to continue to promote market-based approaches, despite growing resistance from MoE senior 
leadership.
• Procure locally produced, drought-tolerant crops
74. In an effort to develop the local market, the WFP-USDA agreement included provision for WFP to procure 
80 mt of cowpeas and 288 mt of sorghum from local farmers in Turkana County to support the school 
meals programme. The intention was to strengthen local and regional food market systems and improve 
access to culturally acceptable foods while connecting local farmers and FOs to the HGSMP. The market 
assessments described above had identified that drought-tolerant varieties were produced in low 
volumes, making them too costly at point of sale. It was therefore hoped that contracting farmers and FOs 
though forward delivery contracts (FDCs) would help create a demand that would help to increase 
production, ultimately making the commodity more affordable.
75. Five FOs were selected for FDCs based on their production capacity, their agreement to WFP’s price, and 
the presence of the required documentation to comply with WFP’s procurement process. The original 
FDCs were to supply food for school meals for 20 days per term during Terms 1 and 2, 2018 (two days per 
week). This aligned with the start of the planned transition for the LRP schools to HGSMP. Unfortunately, 
as a result of the 2017/18 drought, sorghum production was low, and the FOs were unable to supply 
sufficient quantities of commodities. WFP therefore provided 1,275 farmers with early maturing cowpea 
seeds (using complementary funding from BMZ) to support the next planting season. FOs were then able 
to supply almost their full contract volume by October 2018 with additional FDCs then drawn up to provide 
additional sorghum for 2019. Table 12 shows that the volume of commodities acquired through FDC in 
2018 was 133.8mt of sorghum and 79mt of cowpeas, with a further 136.8mt being delivered in 2019. In 
total, FOs have succeeded in delivering the quantities they were contracted for, 95.5% of the original 
planned quantity at a value of USD 147,655.
Table 12: Planned vs actual delivery of food commodities acquired by WFP though forward delivery contracts 
(Turkana only)
61 WFP (2019) Traditional Nutritional Foods in West Pokot County: Value Chain Study Report
Total planned volume (mt) Actual (mt) Achievement Delivered 2018 Delivered 2019 TOTAL
Cowpeas 80 79 - 79 98.8%
Sorghum 288 133.8 136.8 270.6 93.4%
Total 366 212.8 136.8 349.6 95.5%
Total value of commodities (USD) 103,725.26 43,930 147,655.26
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
20
76. The FDCs provided local FOs with a known market for their commodities. These commodities were then 
directly provided to LRP schools by WFP to provide school meals. As a starting point to introduce FOs to 
the idea of growing sorghum and other drought-tolerant crops for commercial purposes, the FDCs were 
successful. When coupled with the training on the HGSMP described ahead, FDC winning FOs members 
should now have a clearer picture of opportunities, demands and processes that a cash based HGSMP can 
bring.
• Capacity building for national and county institutions
77. The LRP has provided several opportunities for capacity building for national and county institutions. Aside 
from working with the MoA on market assessments as described earlier, the WFP-USDA agreement 
includes two main areas of capacity building: 1. Working with the MoE to train schoolteachers, parents, 
and education officers in Baringo and West Pokot on the HGSMP management and the school-based food 
procurement process, along with developing a monitoring and oversight plan for the HGSMP in Baringo 
and West Pokot Counties; and 2.Support the development of the Government of Kenya’s national 
implementation strategy to guide direct local procurement from smallholder farmers by government 
institutions.62
78. Capacity building on HGSMP: WFP supported the MoE to undertake HGSMP management training in 
Baringo and West Pokot Counties for government representatives and for school personnel including 
cooks, teachers, and school directors. Table 13 shows that 721 people (19% women) participated in the 
training designed to equip school level implementers with the necessary skills to ensure effective 
management of the HGSMP. The training covered several modules including overall HGSMP management, 
food procurement procedures, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, food quality, and 
nutrition and hygiene promotion among others. As per the baseline recommendations, the training 
included food quality and safety strategies for school feeding programmes (including aflatoxin testing).
The evaluation found that the training, included relevant topics and was set at an appropriate level for the 
participants and that all the topics were relevant.
Table 13: Number of participants attending training on HGSMP management (2017-2018)
79. In addition to the HGSMP training, WFP and MoE conducted regular monitoring visits to schools. During 
those visits, data was collected on record and stock management and distribution. Although there has 
been some progress made on the frequency of school level monitoring, qualitative interviews indicate that 
the government does not employ sufficient resources to make project monitoring a priority, with 
government personnel hampered by lack of transportation to visit project sites.
80. Capacity building on smallholder procurement: For several years, WFP has working with the MoA to 
promote procurement from small holder farmers. WFP and MoA have been advocating that the national 
government revise their procurement guidelines to explicitly require some level of public procurement 
from smallholder farmers. To this end, WFP, together with the MoE, MoA, MoH and FAO,63 jointly 
62 Including schools, the National Youth Service, hospitals and the Kenya Police Service 63 Other stakeholders included the Kenya Dairy Board, and the National Cereals and Produce Board (NCPB).
County Date of training
Number trained
Male Female Total
Baringo 20-26 November 2017 280 60 340
West Pokot 27 November – 3 December 2017 301 80 381
TOTAL 721
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
21
developed a Cabinet Memo64 in 2016 asking that every public procuring entity nationwide allocate at least 
thirty percent of its procurement value to smallholder farmers. The intention during the LRP was to have 
a national level procurement strategy endorsed, and then follow it with two county level strategies: 
Baringo and West Pokot, as had been done for Turkana County in 2016.65 Unfortunately, the national 
strategy work stalled due to changes in senior leadership in the MoA and the complex politics of public 
procurement, especially when advocating for legislative changes that would affect multiple ministries and 
sectors.
81. To gather advocacy evidence, in 2017 the MoA led an assessment on public institutional food procurement 
from smaller famers66 and identified several opportunities and challenges for providing direct access for 
smaller holder famers. The assessment found there is a viable food market for small holder farmers, 
especially given the large numbers of public institutions that procure food. However, the government’s 
procurement process brings some challenges that would need to be discussed and negotiated. In July 
2019, WFP supported an assessment specifically on the potential local economy impacts of Kenya’s 
HGSMP.
67 This was done using a local economy wide impact evaluation (LEWIE) approach. The LEWIE 
study found that encouraging schools to purchase more food directly from local farmers would increase
the programme’s total benefits while providing income gains to HGSMP households. Further, making 
farmers near HGSMP schools more productive, would substantially increase the benefits that the HGSMP 
createslocally. The promotion of small holder procurement is therefore a worthy cause, which would have 
multiple benefits.
82. While waiting for discussions on the National Implementation Strategy to restart, WFP found another 
opportunity to promote smallholder procurement, shifting focus to the county Early Childhood 
Development and Education service (ECDEs) and working with Turkana County Department of Education 
on an ECDE Framework. As ECDE personnel had been involved in the HGSMP management training 
described above, it was an opportune time, while interest was high, to discuss the possibility of utilizing 
smallholder procurement to provide meals for the ECDEs. This work has resulted in a draft framework 
(September 2019) that includes supporting a home-grown feeding programme as part of the ECDE
services. Although smallholder procurement is not specifically mentioned, this is an important starting 
point for future work.
83. This work was well received by Turkana County representatives, with particular praise from MoA and MoE 
for WFP demonstrating flexibility to find other opportunities once the National Implementation Strategy 
talks stalled. Qualitative interviews indicate that the draft framework aligns well with the Turkana County 
Integrated Development Plan (CIDP) (2018-2012)68 and The County Early Childhood Education Bill (2018)69
which states the importance of improving ECDE centres in Turkana County. 
84. In recent months, discussions with County Officers have restarted with a view to continuing the 
development of a county level strategy in Baringo County before LRP funds expire. If endorsed, the process 
and final strategy would then serve as a guide for other counties interested in pursuing the same. The 
stalling of the national Implementation Strategy meant that the target set under the LRP of developing 
three policies, has not been achieved (Table 14) although there are now two strategies in draft form. 
64 Republic of Kenya (2016) Cabinet memo on strengthening smallholder farmers’ production and marketing by facilitating direct access to public 
food procurement opportunities. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries and National Treasury. November 2016. 65 WFP (2016) Turkana County Strategy to improve access to markets for smallholder farmers and small-scale processors (2016-2019). 66 Republic of Kenya (2017) Assessment report on public institutional food procurement form small holder farmers in Kenya. December 2017. 67 J.E. Taylor et al (2019) Potential local economy impacts of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Program. UC Davis. 68 Turkana County (2018) Turkana County Integrated Development Plan, CIDP II: 2018-2022. Popular version. 69 The County Early Childhood Education Bill (2018).
http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/bills/2018/CountyEarlyChildhoodEducationBill_2018.pdf
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
22
Table 14: Number of policies/strategies supported as a result of USDA assistance
Indicator Target Baseline Endline
Number of policies, regulations and/or 
administrative procurements in each of 
the following stages of development, 
as a result of USDA assistance 
3 0 0 
• National Implementation Strategy in progress
• ECDE Framework drafted: Sept 2019
• Capacity strengthening for local traders and FOs
85. This activity aimed to increase the capacity of suppliers (traders and FOs) and school meals committees to 
effectively and efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals. To identify appropriate traders to 
participate, mapping and profiling of local traders and FOs was conducted on a rolling basis. From this 
exercise, 44 FOs and 35 traders were identified for capacity building and support through the LRP. Training 
on the HGSMP was then provided to create awareness on the government’s procurement process and 
requirements, to enable them to participate effectively and potentially qualify to supply food to schools.
The capacity building package covered specific areas that are key for market readiness, such as post￾harvest handling and storage, collective marketing, food safety and quality, and bidding and contracting 
to supply the HGSMP. In total, 3,099 FO members and traders have benefitted from short-term agricultural 
productivity or food security training as a result of USDA assistance.
86. Table 15 shows that the majority of traders surveyed for the endline evaluation confirmed participating in 
HGSMP training by WFP. The percentage of trained traders in West Pokot reduced over the LRP period 
because the rolling registration of traders meant that even though all registered traders were trained by 
baseline, some traders registering later have missed training. A few tradersreported participating in other 
procurement training including some short information sessions from Ministry of Industry, Trade and 
Cooperatives (MoITC), but WFP and MoE are the main trainers in this sector. The evaluation found a 
significant increase in the percentage of FOs reporting that their committee members had been trained, 
increasing from 36.7 percent at baseline to 74.7 percent at endline (p<0.0001).
70 The range of topics that 
FOs reported being trained on can be found in Annex 18. Generally, FOs reported that three committee 
members had been trained with the expectation that they would pass the information to other members.
Table 15: Percentage of LRP traders who received training on procurement processes
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
% of traders trained on HGSMP procurement (by WFP) 100% 100% 100% 72%
% of traders trained on procurement (by other agencies) 7.7% 9.8% 0% 4%
87. The evaluation found these trainings were well implemented, with qualitative interviews with FO members 
indicating the all the topics were useful. One issue, however, was that some of the materials they were 
provided with were too difficult for people with low levels of education. Although the information was 
written in English, and members preferred that to Kiswahili as many people only read English, the level of 
English was often too difficult, with members requesting more pictorial content.
88. In addition to the formal training, WFP also organized four market linkage forums covering four sub￾counties in Baringo and four sub-counties in West Pokot. The forums brought together FO members, 
traders, HGSMP schoolteachers, public secondary school teachers and county ECDE officers for two-way 
supply and demand matching discussions. This is in line with a recommendation from the baseline 
70 t-test results - Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0000
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
23
assessment: that WFP and the MoA should ensure that the planned LRP market linkage forums provide 
opportunities for FOs to meet with local traders.71
89. Stakeholders reported that these forums were a very practical way to improve relationships between 
farmers and traders, with many believing that they have contributed to traders increasingly buying from 
local FOs to supplement other sources and reduce transport costs. As it became clearer that the HGSMP 
primary schools would continue to be supported by in-kind commodities from the government instead of 
cash transfers, and that local FOs and traders would not be able to sell to them as planned, the market 
forums have provided FOs with other selling opportunities. Notably, the inclusion of ECDEs and public 
secondary schools in the market linkage forums connected FOs with other potential buyers. 
90. In Turkana, WFP has also used complementary funding from EUTF and BMZ to further strengthen the 
capacity of some FOs. WFP is actively supporting five of the LRP FOs to start flour milling operations, 
enabling them to mill maize and sorghum, and provide either single grain or blended flours to different 
markets as required. WFP has also provided FOs with equipment such as maize shellers, tractors, hermetic 
bags72 to improve the product quality. Some FOs have also been provided with support for business 
modelling, poultry, or value adding using the EUTF and BMZ funds.
• Develop School Meals Menus Using Local and Nutritious Produce
91. According to the HGSMP implementation guidelines,
73 a variety of food items should be selected for the 
school meal food basket and a combination of the different food groups should be consumed daily to 
ensure a healthy diet and prevent malnutrition. Nutrition education should also be integrated. To ensure 
the HGSMP guidelines are adhered to, the LRP included a nutrition-related activity: working with MoE, 
MoA and MoH and other stakeholders74 to develop a variety of school menus using the four drought￾tolerant commodities identified in the VCAs, to align with other programme activities. This is in line with 
two of the recommendations of the baseline assessment.
75
92. The original plan for this activity was for WFP to develop nutrient profiles for each of the key drought￾tolerant crops that the project would promote, and those would be used as the basis of nutrition 
education. However, during early discussions with the MoH it became clear that the agreed nutrient 
profiles would not be required, as the Government of Kenya was about to release of Kenyan National Food 
Composition Tables (FCT)76 which include comprehensive nutrient analysis of 509 raw and cooked foods 
that are either commonly consumed in Kenya, are rich in nutrients of public health interest or are 
commonly consumed commercial packaged foods.
93. Once the FCTs were released, WFP supported three workshops, one in each LRP county from September 
2018 to July 201977 to bring stakeholders together to provide training on the importance of dietary 
diversity and promotion of locally produced crops. The workshops also acted as a community sensitization 
forum and a forum for gaining consensus on whether the four identified commodities would be available 
and culturally acceptable in each county. The main issues identified were the price of the drought-tolerant 
71 Dunn, S & Otsola, J (2018) Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project in Kenya, 2017-2020. Final Report, June 2018. 72 Hermetic bags are grain storage bags that cut off oxygen to the commodity inside. This kills weevils and other insects that might otherwise 
damage or destroy the commodity.
73 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme. 74 County level MoE, MoA, MoH. MoITC, NGOs and FO members also participated in some counties. 75 Recommendation 5: That WFP and MoH should collaborate to develop practical guidance for LRP schools on ways to introduce local produced 
drought-tolerant crops into their school menus; and Recommendation 6: WFP and MoH should collaborate to ensure that schools receive regular 
nutrition support since this is a new project area. 76 FAO/Government of Kenya (2018) Kenya Food Composition Tables. Nairobi. 77 Safe Food Handling and Preparation, sorghum and cow peas menu and recipes development report – Turkana County – September 2018; 
Sorghum, finger millet, green grams and cowpeas menu and training package development workshop report for West Pokot County – July 2019; 
Sorghum, finger millet, green grams and cowpeas menu and training package development workshop report for Baringo County – July 2019.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
24
commodities, and the potential lack of familiarity for people for eating cow peas as a pulse. People mainly 
consume cow pea leaves as a vegetable and not as a pulse. Once that was agreed, stakeholders 
collaborated on the development of new school meal menus and recipes. In total, 456 people (37% female) 
participated in the workshops (Table 16).
Table 16: Number of participants in workshops to develop new school meal menus
94. The evaluation found that the workshops were very well received by stakeholders, with qualitative 
interviews citing good collaboration, capacity strengthening and partnership building. The menu 
development process was also considered by stakeholders to have provided a key advocacy opportunity 
to inform the county governments about the importance of dietary diversity and school meals. This was 
especially helpful for promoting a home-grown approach to school meals for ECDE.
95. Overall, the LRP activities have resulted in WFP supporting more than 216,000 individuals, either directly 
or indirectly (Table 17). This has exceeding both project targets, mainly because of the number of children 
benefiting from the food provided to LRP schools by WFP through the FDCs in Turkana.
Table 17: Number of individuals benefiting from this USDA funded intervention
Indicator Target Baseline Endline Achievement
Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA funded 
intervention
31,150 721 54,895 176%
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA funded 
intervention
61,000 0 162,082 266%
Outcome results
• Strengthening of local markets
96. The project was intended to increase access to markets for the sale of agricultural products, ultimately 
resulting in a stronger local and regional food market system. Increased sales of local food commodities 
were also expected to increase access to the locally produced drought-tolerant crops being promoted 
through the project: sorghum, millet, cowpeas and green grams. Procurement by schools, directly with
local traders and FOs was also expected to improve the timeliness, cost-effectiveness and nutrition of the 
school meals. All these outcomes were assessed through the FO, trader and school surveys as well as 
qualitative interviews with stakeholders. 
2.3.2 Key results from the FO survey
97. One aspect of the LRP was that FOs were informed about the commodities required for the HGSMP and 
encouraged to grow larger volumes to prepare for potential sales, while ensuring that the commodities 
would pass the required food safety standards. However, Table 18 shows that in all three counties the 
proportion of FO members growing the major school meals crops has decreased since baseline, with the 
exception of beans. Qualitative interviews indicated that this is linked to the drought conditions but also 
to the lack of market demand once FOs became aware that HGSMP schools would not be asking for 
commodities. All FOs reported growing some form of fruit and vegetables, which was a positive change
since baseline.
Male Female Total
Baringo 8 12 20
Turkana 270 147 417
West Pokot 11 8 19
Total 289 167 456
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
25
Table 18: Commodities grown by FOs
98. Since food quality and safety are important aspects of the procurement and handling of food, FOs were 
asked to report how they ensure the quality of commodities. At baseline, less than a third of the surveyed
FOs reported making any effort to ensure quality. By endline, there had been an improvement, with more 
than half in the FOs in each county monitoring product quantity. More FOs in all three counties reported 
sorting produce after harvest at endline, while more farmers in Turkana and West Pokot also reported at 
endline that they cleaned their product to ensure it was free of foreign matter. Interviews indicate that 
these changes were largely due to the training received on HGSMP as it included a food safety module 
(Table 19). 
Table 19: Ensuring quality products for sale
Baseline Endline 
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
FOs reporting monitoring market trends/ 
requirements related to product quality 
and market demand
22.4%
(n=10)
27.8%
(n=10)
25%
(n=4)
73.9%
(n=17)
62.8%
(n=22)
57.1%
(n=12)
Out of those who try and ensure quality:
Methods to 
ensure 
quality 
standard
Use certified seeds 10%
(n=1)
100%
(n=10)
100%
(n=4)
23.5%
(n=4)
37.1%
(n=8)
42.9%
(n=5)
Testing moisture content 0 10%
(n=1)
75%
(n=3)
0% 9.1%
(n=2)
0%
Clean product, free of 
foreign matter
90%
(n=9)
33%
(n=3)
50%
(n=2)
29.4%
(n=5)
31.4%
(n=7)
23.8%
(n=3)
Sorting produce after 
harvest
0 20%
(n=2)
75%
(n=3)
30.4%
(n=5)
22.9%
(n=5)
41.6%
(n=5)
99. Another positive result for the project is that FOs in West Pokot reported selling a greater percentage of 
their production at endline (57.1%) compared to baseline (26.5%). Sale of commodities through FOs in 
Baringo and Turkana remained similar to baseline. (Figure 2).
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Maize 89.1% 56.5% 86.1% 88.6% 93.8% 71.4%
Sorghum 43.5% 17.4% 88.9% 88.6% 68.8% 9.5%
Beans 69.6% 57.2% 0.0% 11.4% 93.8% 52.4%
Cowpeas 17.4% 8.7% 91.7% 77.1% 56.3% 4.8%
Green grams 19.6% 0.0% 72.2% 71.4% 62.5% 14.3%
Vegetables 54.3% 100.0% 83.3% 100.0% 87.5% 100.0%
Fruits 47.8% 100.0% 47.2% 100.0% 56.3% 100.0%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
26
Figure 2: FO members’ average use of own production
NB. No data was collected at baseline in Turkana on the percentage of production sold through FOs.
100. Table 20 shows that over the course of the LRP, there has been a significant increase (p<0.001)78 in the 
percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing members’ food commodities, from around 25 percent to 
around 50 percent in all three LRP counties. The lack of FO aggregation and sales of members commodities 
were areas specifically mentioned in the baseline assessment as an area needing strengthening, so this is 
a noteworthy positive result that qualitative interviews attributed to the support from WFP and MoA. The 
main barriers to selling members produce identified by FO representatives, included poor transport 
infrastructure, unpredictable prices, and limited consumer demand. Despite these barriers, the 
percentage of FOs reporting selling commodities of members in the last year increased significantly 
(p<0.05)79 from baseline (Table 21).
Table 20: FO sales of members’ commodities
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing 
members food commodities
26.1% 27.8% 25% 47.8% 42.9% 57.1%
Table 21: FO sale of commodities in last one year
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Percentage of FOs reporting selling 
commodities in the last one year 25% 25% 25% 43.5% 28.6% 57.1%
101.Other positive results for FOs identified through both qualitative and quantitative methods were that FOs 
are increasingly looking towards value-adding to increase their revenue, and that FOs are more actively 
looking for regular sales contracts. Table 22 shows that four FOs in Baringo were successful in gaining 
contracts to sell commodities, mainly to traders, while FOs in all three LRP counties have started value 
addition enterprises including the ones mentioned earlier supported by EUTF and BMZ.
78 t-test results Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0002 79 t-test results Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0. 0066
0%
50%
100%
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline Turkana Baseline Turkana Endline West Pokot
Baseline
West Pokot
Endline
Percentage of production consumed by HH members Percentage of production sold through FO
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
27
Table 22: Number of FOs with sale contracts and value addition enterprises
102. The percentage of FOs selling to different buyers reduced since baseline, with households, retail traders, 
other traders (wholesalers) and schools continuing to be the main markets. In Turkana, with support from 
WFP and the county governments, three specific market days have been established each month in 
Lodwar, Kakuma and Lockichar, providing an additional opportunity for FO members to sell their 
commodities. Overall, as the majority of surveyed FOs did not have the opportunity to sell commodities 
to the LRP schools, two of the key project indicators, the volume and value of sales by project beneficairies
(to HGSMP schools) only includes data from the five FOs in Turkana that had FDCs (Table 23). 
Table 23: Volume and value of sales by LRP FOs
103. The FO survey collected data on the total sale volumes of FOs to all buyers and that indicates that sales of 
beans and other commodities except for maize have generally increased in all three LRP counties over the 
LRP period. These findings and others from the FO survey can be found in Annex 18.
2.3.3 Key results from the trader survey
104. Traders were asked to report the main source of the commodities they sell. By endline, the buying profiles 
had changed in both counties, with Baringo traders reporting increased buying from large-scale farmers 
or FOs (33%) and other traders (33%). West Pokot traders reported buying almost solely (92%) from small￾scale farmers, with the rest from other traders (Figure 3).
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Number of FOs with signed 
contracts to sell commodities
1 3 1 4 0 0
Number of FOs that have value 
addition enterprises
No data 5 No data 7 14 6
Indicator Target Baseline Endline
Value of sales by project beneficiaries USD 
1,179,612 
Baringo: KES 16,674,366 
(USD169,744)
Turkana: No value given
West Pokot: KES 
244,433,000 (USD244,433)
Turkana: 
USD147,655
Volume of commodities (mt) sold by project 
beneficiaries
565 Baringo: 2020.4 mt
Turkana: 16.4mt
West Pokot: 9334.3 mt
Turkana: 
349.6mt
Number of public-private partnerships formed 
as a result of USDA assistance
220 5 FOs (9 contracts) 5 FOs (12 
contracts)
Value of public and private sector investments 
leverages as a result of USDA assistance 
USD 
1,179,612 
0 Turkana: 
USD147,655
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
28
Figure 3: Percentage of traders reporting their main source of commodities
105. At both baseline and endline, traders reported selling their commodities mainly to households, retail 
stores and schools. In Baringo, 77 percent of traders sold to schools at baseline, compared with 67 percent
at endline. In West Pokot, the percentage of traders selling to schools increased from 32 to 72 percent. 
Schools includes secondary schools, primary schools and boarding schools (Figure 4). Table 24 shows that 
since baseline there has been a slight increase in the percentage of traders supplying schools through 
competitive tenders. Given that the government provided the food commodities to government primary 
schools, these tenders relate solely to boarding and secondary schools.
Figure 4: Percentage of traders reporting selling to the following buyers
Table 24: Percentage of traders selling commodities to schools through competitive tenders
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
Percentage supplying schools through competitive tender 61.5% 31.7% 66.7% 44%
106. Traders were asked about the variety of staple crops and pulses they sell, to assess whether the four 
promoted crops were being more widely used in the community. In Baringo, all three traders reported a 
change in their sales of staple crops over the project (Figure 5), with maize, sorghum and rice being sold 
by all. Baringo traders also reported a wider variety of pulses being sold at baseline (Figure 6), including 
cowpeas, pigeon peas, green gram and lentils. West Pokot traders reported a very similar sale profile of 
both staples and pulses as the baseline profile.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot
Small scale farmers Large scale farmers or FOs Other traders Other
0
50
100
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline West Pokot Baseline West Pokot Endline
Households Retail store Millers/brewers Other traders Hospitals
Government food agencies Development agencies Schools NGOs Others
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
29
Figure 5: Percentage of traders reporting sale of staple crops
Figure 6: Percentage of traders reporting sale of pulses 
107.Overall, the volume of commodities sold by the three Baringo LRP traders increased since baseline, but 
difference was not statistically significant (Table 25). On the other hand, the volume sold by West Pokot 
traders had decreased significantly (p<0.05). 
Table 25: Total estimated volume of commodities sold per year
108. Finally, traders were asked to rank the key barriers to grain training in general, as well as the barriers to 
purchasing from local farmers. Table 26 shows the traders in both counties said that transport costs and 
purchase price were the two main barriers to purchasing from local farmers. Other barriers included that 
the local farmers did not produce sufficient volumes to supply throughout the year. Additional findings 
from the trader survey can be found in Annex 19.
Table 26: Percentage of traders reporting barriers to purchasing from local farmers 
109.Overall, these evaluation findings show that the LRP has contributed to strengthening the local market by 
increasing the production, variety and quality of the crops grown by supported FOs. FOs have also sold a 
greater percentage of their production, with a significant increase (p<0.001)80 in the percentage of FOs 
aggregating and marketing members’ food commodities to achieve larger sale volumes. FOs are also now 
increasingly looking towards value-adding to increase their income, and actively looking for regular sales 
contracts. The LRP has also supported new markets within Turkana County, providing additional 
opportunities for FOs to sell their commodities. Overall, as the majority of surveyed FOs did not have the 
80 t-test results Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0002
0
50
100
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline West Pokot Baseline West Pokot Endline
Maize Sorghum Rice Millet Other
0
50
100
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline West Pokot Baseline West Pokot Endline
Beans Cowpeas Pea Pigeon pea Green gram Groudnuts Lentils
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
Mean volume sold per year (MT) 150.3 515 226.1 258.1
Range 12-600 1.3 – 3,240 100 - 312 0.8 - 2,700
Barriers Volume produced by farmers Purchase price Transport costs Other barriers
Baringo 66.7% 66.7% 66.7% 33.3%
West Pokot 20% 52% 64% 16%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
30
opportunity to sell commodities to the LRP schools, two of the key project indicators, the volume and 
value of sales by project beneficiaries (to HGSMP schools) only includes data from the five FOs in Turkana 
that had FDCs. This small group of FOs have benefitted from the project by having a contract for sale ahead 
of harvest. This has contributed to the increased sale volumes of FOs since baseline. The LRP has also 
resulted in increased linkages between farmers, traders and buyers which should support local farmers. 
2.3.4 Key results from the school survey
• Provision of school meals
110. At endline, all the surveyed schools were part of the MoE’s HGSMP. Although the LRP schools had been 
informed in 2017 that they would be receiving cash-transfers from Term 1, 2018, this did not happen. Only 
18 surveyed schools, all of which were non-LRP schools in West Pokot, reported receiving cash transfers 
during Term 3, 2019. Qualitative evaluation interviews also confirmed the findings of a recent WFP 
assessment81 that found that the MoE did not provide any in-kind commodities for Term 3, 2019. Schools 
received commodities for Terms 1 and 2, 2019 after which they were expected to utilize left-over 
commodities during Term 3. Given that the endline evaluation focused on Term 3, 2019, which was the 
last term during LRP implementation, the lack of food provision during this term has greatly affected the 
evaluation results. 
Table 27: Main source of food for school lunches (Term 3, 2019)
111. During the school survey, the enumerators looked at school records82 to establish how many days during 
Term 3, 2019, the school had provided a school meal. Table 28 shows that the percentage of schools 
providing a school meal every school day during Term 3 has significantly reduced (p<0.001) from baseline 
with many schools (n=75) not providing a meal at all during the whole term. Less than 10 percent (8.5%) 
of the surveyed LRP schools reported providing a meal every school day, with an average of 23 days (out 
of 45) missed (Table 29) compared to an average of 6 days missed at baseline. Similarly, only 12.3 percent 
of non-LRP schools provided a meal every day during Term 3, with an average of 10 days missed, up from 
4.5 at baseline. Table 29 also shows that at both baseline and endline, the main/only reason for missing a 
day’s meal is because there was no food available. 
81 WFP (2020) School meals supply chain compliance assessment report 82 Together with school personnel such as School Director or the teacher responsible for managing the school meals
Main source of food
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP 
Through WFP funding (in-kind) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Through WFP funding (cash transfers) -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Through MoE funding (HGSMP in-kind) 29 29 35 33 32 15 96 77
Through MoE funding (HGSMP cash 
transfers) -- -- -- -- -- 18 -- 18
Total 29 29 35 33 32 33 96 95
15.2% 15.2% 18.3% 17.3% 16.8% 17.3% 50.3% 49.7%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
31
Table 28: Percentage of schools reporting providing a school meal every school day
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP 
Baseline: Schools providing lunch 
every school day in Term 1, 2018 48.3% 75.9% 61.8% 88.2% 63.6% 45.5% 58.3% 69.8%
Endline: Schools providing lunch 
every school day in Term 3, 2019 4.2% 16.8% 6.3% 5.3% 15.6% 9.5% 8.5% 12.3%
Table 29: Reasons for not providing school meals
Average days missed due 
to…
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP 
Baseline No food available 10 2 3 0 6 10 6 5 
No one to prepare meals 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Endline No food available 37 14 19.5 24 14 20 23 20 
112.Qualitative interviews indicated that aside from the three LRP counties, the MoE also reverted other arid 
and semi-arid counties to in-kind commodities from Term 1, 2018 and maintained in-kind provision up to 
the time of the evaluation. This included Samburu, Tana River and Isiolo that have been implementing the 
HGSMP through cash-transfers since 2015. 
• Provision of more diversified school meals
113. Aside from the actual provision of a daily school meal, the LRP aimed to provide children with a more 
diversified school meal menu, which included locally grown drought-tolerant crops. This has been 
measured through a proxy indicator of the diversity of foods in the school meals menus. No consumption 
data was collected from children. The school survey confirmed that almost half the LRP schools (46%) 
reported working on diversifying their school menus, and eight percent of schools had already completed 
the development of new menus (Figure 7). Unfortunately, the MoE’s in-kind provision food of rice/maize, 
beans, oil and salt meant that the new menus could not be utilized. The exception was in Turkana, where 
the sorghum and cowpeas procured by WFP through FDCs were distributed to schools in Turkana South. 
A field monitoring report by MoE indicated that most of the schools in that sub-county had adopted the 
new menus developed with support of USDA. However, those schools received sorghum and cowpeas for 
Term 1, 2019 so the endline survey, which focused on Term 3, 2019, did not capture that information.
Figure 7: Percentage of surveyed schools reporting developing new school menus since start of LRP
114. During Term 3, 2019, none of the schools reported serving the four promoted drought-tolerant crops in 
their school menus (Figure 8). Monitoring visits also confirmed that school cooks had improved their safe 
0
50
100
LRP Non-LRP LRP Non-LRP LRP Non-LRP LRP Non-LRP
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
No Yes, in discussion Yes, changed menus
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
32
food preparation as a result of the training they had received from WFP and MoE. WFP and MoH are 
planning an After-Action Review of this work during Q2 2020, to follow up on the inclusion of local 
commodities in school meals. 
Figure 8: Percentage of schools reporting using food commodities for their school lunches - Term 3, 2019
•
115. At baseline, the ET developed and calculated a Nutrition Score for the surveyed schools to show the level 
of diversification in the school meals. The Nutrition score is based on the volume of food items provided 
each day, the diversity in the overall meal provided and the number of days that lunch was provided. The 
score uses the actual volumes of food delivered to schools, so the calculation works regardless of whether 
the schools received in-kind commodities or commodities purchased through cash-transfers.
116. Table 30 shows that at baseline, the average Nutrition Score for LRP schools was 67.4, reducing to 64.5 at 
endline. At baseline there was no statistical difference found between LRP and non-LRP schools (p > 0.05), 
while at endline there was a statistical difference between LRP and non-LRP schools, with non-LRP schools 
scoring higher (better) (71.5) than LRP schools.83 The difference between the LRP and non-LRP schools is 
mainly due to the higher volumes of food that non-LRP schools were able to obtain from other sources, as 
described ahead.
Nutrition Score = Av ((TVCD/150), (TVPD/40), (TVOD/5), (TVCS/2)*W1/3, (DLS/70)* W1/3, (MEN/3)* W1/3
Where:
Av Average
TVCD Total volume of cereals fed per child per day 
TVPD Total volume of pulses fed per child per day
TVOD Total volume of oil fed per child per day
TVSD Total volume of salt fed per child per day
DLS Actual days lunch was provided
MEN Menu items diversity
W1/3 1/3 weighting
Table 30: Change in Nutrition Score: Baseline vs. Endline
83 p < 0.001 - Pr(|Z| > |z|) = 0.0000) following a statistical z-test.
0%
50%
100%
Rice Wheat Beans Yellow split
peas
Oil Salt Vegetables Onions MSB Beans Maize Oil Salt Onions
LRP School Non LRP School
Food Item Baseline Food Item Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Baseline –
Term 1, 2018
66.6 69.7 70.5 70.6 64.8 60.5 67.4 66.9
68.2 70.6 62.7 67.1
Endline –
Term 3, 2019
61.0 78.5 42.3 54 70.7 70.5 64.5 71.5
76.3 49.3 70.6 68.8
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
33
• Cost effectiveness of provision of school meals
117. Another objective of the LRP was to improve the cost-effectiveness of school meal delivery. Cost 
effectiveness is based on the volume of food received and the cost to buy it. As mentioned earlier, although 
schools did not receive the commodities (or cash) they were expecting, some schools have still been able 
to provide some meals during Term 3, 2019 (refer back to Table 28). This was largely due to using left over 
food from Term 2, and/or school personnel looking for alternative sources of food, including seeking 
donations from churches, PTAs, parents, or NGOs and asking traders to sell food on credit. However, even 
though 33.5 percent of surveyed schools reported obtaining alternative food sources, the volumes have 
not been sufficient to provide food every school day. 
118.Over the 70-day school term period of Term 1, 2018 (baseline) each child should have received 13.8kg of 
food based on the SMP ration84 and Table 31 shows that the average volume received at baseline was 
13kg. For the 45-days of Term 3, 2019, children should have received 9kg of food. Table 31 shows that the 
volumes obtained is considerably less that. Since no food was provided by the MoE during Term 3, 2019
the mean volume for LRP schools is zero. For the 18 non-LRP schools that received cash transfers from 
MoE to buy their own food, the average volume was 4.1kg, well below the required volume. For schools 
finding alternative sources to supplement the left-over commodities from Term 2, the average volumes 
were 4.8kg for LRP schools and 7.9kg for non-LRP schools. Non-LRP schools in Baringo managed to obtain 
the required volume of 9.2kg per child. Overall, there is a significant difference between LRP and non-LRP 
schools (p<0.001),85 with non-LRP schools receiving more commodities.
Table 31: Mean volume of food per child received
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Total
Baseline: Mean volume of food per child, Term 1, 2018 LRP schools 12.8 14 11.6 12.8
Non-LRP 
schools 16.1 12.9 9.6 12.9
Endline: Mean volume of food per child provided by 
MoE, Term 3, 2019
LRP schools 0 0 0 0
Non-LRP 
schools
0 0 4.1* 4.1*
Endline: Mean volume of food per child provided from 
alternative sources, Term 3, 2019
LRP schools 7.8 2.4 6.9 4.8
Non-LRP 
schools
9.2 6.3 6.4 7.9
* Only includes data from the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash transfers, as they were the only schools that purchased any food 
using MoE resources.
119. Discussions with school personnel during the quantitative interviews indicate that the volume of food 
received by schools during Term 2, 2019 was insufficient in most schools to last into Term 3. Interviewees 
reported that there are often differences in the school’s enrolment figures and the figures in the MoE HQ 
planning data. This is the most common reason cited for schools not being provided with sufficient food 
to last the year. Qualitative evaluation interviews also identified insufficient resources at central level after 
sweeping budget cuts across several ministries. On top of that, during Term 3, 2019, due to a technical 
difficulty, the MoE was unable to provide cash-transfers to other HGSMP counties if they had bank 
accounts with banks other than Kenya Commercial Bank (KCB).
84 The recommended SMP ration provides a total of 197g per child per day = 150g cereals, 40g pulses, 5g oil and 2g salt. 85 The results of a t-test are: diff = mean (Non LRP) – mean (LRP); Ho: diff = 0; Ha: diff > 0; Pr (T > t) = 0.0002
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
34
120. The Cost-Effectiveness Score developed by the ET at baseline provides an estimate of the funding provided 
to feed one child per day (in KES). The Score is calculated using the volume of food delivered, and the cost 
of the that food, so at endline, it was only possible to calculate the Cost-Effectiveness Score for the 18 non￾LRP schools in that received cash-transfers from the MoE. 
Cost-effectiveness Score = GMC * VCPD
Where:
GMC = ATA/ATV Actual grouped median cost = actual total cost of commodities/ actual total volume of 
commodities
VCPD = VCPT/DLS Volume per child per day = Volume per child per term/ number of days lunch is served
121. Table 32 shows that at baseline, the cost of providing food to schools in the three targeted LRP counties 
was between 10-13 KES per child per day, with Baringo being the most expensive at 12.1 KES. At endline 
however, the monies spent by the 18 non-LRP schools in West Pokot for their school meals, equates to 
only 8.7 KES per child per day. The N/A for all the remaining schools indicates that either no food was 
delivered in Term 3 from the MoE and/or no food was provided from any other source that had to be paid 
for (i.e. it was donated).
Table 32: Change in Cost-effectiveness Score
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Baseline: Term 1, 2018 11.5 12.7 10.9 9.8 9.6 8.9 10.7 10.4
12.1 10.4 9.3 10.5
Endline: Term 3, 2019 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.7* N/A 8.7*
N/A N/A N/A N/A
* Only includes data from the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash transfers, as they were the only schools that purchased any food 
for the school meals.
122. The baseline assessment recommended that WFP support the MoE to review the HGSMP transfer rate 
once updated market assessment findings were available for Baringo and West Pokot. With those 
assessments indicating transfer rates of 10-13 KES the baseline values align with the market assessments. 
At endline, the only schools that received cash-transfers have spent less than 9 KES per child, which is 
insufficient to procure the required value of commodities for the term. This accounts for the low volume 
of commodities reported by the 18 non-LRP schools earlier in Table 31. Additional findings from the school 
survey can be found in Annex 20.
Summary of key findings: Effectiveness: 
• WFP has implemented most of the LRP project activities as planned, resulting in several positive outcomes. 
However, the MoE’s provision of in-kind commodities to schools throughout the project period, instead of the 
cash-transfers that were planned, means that many of the intended school-related objectives have not been 
achieved. 
• It was not possible for WFP to have foreseen the sudden change in position on cash-transfers by the MoE 
especially after successful transitional cash transfers in arid areas prior to handover of arid counties to 
government. The evaluation found that the most likely reason was a change of senior leadership in the MoE.
• Out of the 191 schools surveyed, only 18 non-LRP schools in West Pokot reported receiving cash-transfers for 
HGSMP as planned. None of the other schools received any resources (food or cash) from the MoE for school 
meals for Term 3, 2019. As a result, only around a quarter of schools were able to provide lunch every day. 
Although many schools tried to obtain food from other sources to supplement any left-over food from Term 2, 
many schools (n=75) were unable to provide any school meals during Term 3, 2019.
• For the 45-days of Term 3, 2019, children should have received 9 kgs of food. However, since no food was 
provided, the mean volume for LRP schools is zero. For the 18 non-LRP schools that received cash transfers to 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
35
buy food, the average volume purchased was 4.1kg, well below the required volume to feed children for the 
whole term.
• The in-kind provision of commodities also made it impossible for most schools to include the locally procured, 
drought-tolerant crops as part of the school meals in Baringo and West Pokot Counties. The only LRP sub-county 
from which there is any evidence of consumption of a more diversified school meals basket is Turkana South, 
where schools received in-kind provision of sorghum and cowpeas by WFP through the FDCs with FOs. As a 
result, there was no significant change in the Nutrition Score from baseline to endline.
• The market assessments have been effective at confirming that cash is a viable option in each of the three LRP 
counties, and that the market would be able to supply the HGSMP schools. However, the information collected 
by the assessments, including estimates of appropriate cash-transfer values were not utilized effectively by the 
MoE.
• The development of national and county level strategies on small holder procurement have not occurred as 
planned. However, WFP have found other ways to promote small holder procurement, including shifting focus 
to the county ECDEs and working with Turkana County Department of Education on an ECDE Framework. 
Although smallholder procurement is not specifically mentioned within the document, this is an important 
starting point for future work.
• The Cost effectiveness Score could only be calculated for the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash 
transfers, as they were the only schools that purchased any food. Their score indicates spending of 8.9 KES per 
child per day, which is insufficient to procure enough food for the full term. 
• WFP have conducted several formal training exercises and workshops as part of the LRP. All of these were 
conducted in collaboration with the relevant government ministries. While the evaluation received positive 
feedback on all the training work, most participants did not have a chance to put the learning into practice due 
to schools not requiring local procurement. The exception has been the procurement training for FOs and 
traders. As the HGSMP procurement process follows the government’s procurement process, traders have been 
able to use their learning to bid for other government tenders, particularly for secondary school and boarding 
school meals. Similarly, the training for FOs has contributed to more FOs monitoring product quality 
requirements.
• The market forums and other support to FOs has effectively resulted in changes to FO production including a 
greater percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing members food commodities, and FOs in West Pokot 
reported selling a greater percentage of their production. This despite the in-kind provision by MoE reduced the 
potential market opportunities for FOs, acting as a disincentive to produce the promoted crops.
• The collaborative approach that WFP has taken on implementation with MoE, with MoA, MoH and MoTIC has 
been an effective capacity strengthening approach, providing government personnel with added confidence to 
provide training on their own in future.
• The Cost effectiveness Score could only be calculated for the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash 
transfers, as they were the only schools that purchased any food. Their score indicates spending of 8.9 KES per 
child per day, which is insufficient to procure enough food for the full term. 
• WFP have conducted several formal training exercises and workshops as part of the LRP. All of these were 
conducted in collaboration with the relevant government ministries. While the evaluation received positive 
feedback on all the training work, most participants did not have a chance to put the learning into practice due 
to schools not requiring local procurement. The exception has been the procurement training for FOs and 
traders. As the HGSMP procurement process follows the government’s procurement process, traders have been 
able to use their learning to bid for other government tenders, particularly for secondary school and boarding 
school meals. Similarly, the training for FOs has contributed to more FOs monitoring product quality 
requirements.
• The market forums and other support to FOs has effectively resulted in changes to FO production including a 
greater percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing members food commodities, and FOs in West Pokot 
reported selling a greater percentage of their production. This despite the in-kind provision by MoE reduced the 
potential market opportunities for FOs, acting as a disincentive to produce the promoted crops.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
36
• The collaborative approach that WFP has taken on implementation with MoE, with MoA, MoH and MoTIC has 
been an effective capacity strengthening approach, providing government personnel with added confidence to 
provide training on their own in future.
2.4 Evaluation Theme 3: Efficiency
2.4.1 Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries at the right time?
123. Timeliness of procurement: One of the objectives of the LRP was to improve the timeliness of school meal 
procurement and delivery. This was based on the assumption that schools would be receiving cash 
transfers and doing their own procurement. As it was, none of the LRP schools and only 18 (18.9%) of the 
non-LRP comparison schools went through any procurement process. Out of those 18 schools, only 7
(39.4%) completed the procurement process before the start of Term 3, 2019. The LRP has therefore not 
been able to achieve the target of 90 percent of schools completing the procurement process before the 
start of term (Figure 9).
Figure 9: Percentage of schools reporting food procurement process completed before start of Term 3, 2019
124. Timeliness of delivery: For the 18 non-LRP schools in West Pokot that reported receiving cash from the 
MoE, 13 (70.2%) received their locally procured food before the start of the term. For the schools that 
received food from alternative sources, only six percent of LRP schools and 25 percent of non-LRP schools 
received their food before the start of the Term 3, 2019. This is understandable, because schools only 
started looking for alternative food sources once Term 3 had started. These figures indicate that the LRP 
has not been able to achieve the target of 90 percent of schools having their food delivered before the 
start of term (Figure 10).
Figure 10: Percentage of schools reporting that school lunch commodities from non-MoE sources were delivered
before the start of Term 3, 2019
125. For the schools receiving food from alternative sources, the average delivery time was 35 calendar days
after the start of Term 3, 2019 for LRP schools and 26 days for non-LRP schools, both longer delays than 
at baseline (Table 33). The high number of schools not being able to locate alternative sources, therefore 
having no delivery during Term 3 is why the average is so high.
0
50
100
LRP Schools Non-LRP Schools LRP Schools Non-LRP Schools
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
0%
50%
100%
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
LRP Target = 90%
LRP Target = 90%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
37
Table 33: Average number of days after start of Term 3, 2019 that food was delivered
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP 
Percentage of schools receiving food deliveries 
from the MoE before the start of Term 3, 2019 0 0 0 0 0 70.2* 0 70.2*
Percentage of schools receiving food delivery 
from any source before the start of Term 3, 
2019
3% 14% 1% 0% 2% 12% 6% 25%
Baseline: Average number of days delayed –
Term 1, 2018 21 9 3 1 24 9 16 6
Endline: Average number of days delayed –
Term 3, 2019 39 13 32 41 33 21 35 26
* Only includes data from the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash transfers, as they were the only schools that received any 
resources from MoE for Term 3, 2019.
126. Aside from no delivery in Term 3, 2019, qualitative interviews indicate that even in other terms when food 
was provided, the MoE’s procurement process has been challenging. One term, the bean delivery was 
delayed, and although the rice was ready to be sent to schools, the MoE waited to be able to transport 
rice and beans together, resulting in a very long delay before schools received any commodities. Delays 
are also common once food is received at county level, as additional transport needs to be organized to 
send the food to schools. Some stakeholders also voiced concern that county warehouses are not in 
appropriate condition to store food, resulting in a risk to food safety and quality.
127. Like the other evaluation scores developed by the ET specifically for the LRP, the Timeliness Score was 
designed to provide a way to compare the timeliness of the MoE’s/schools food delivery over time. As 
with the Cost-Effectiveness Score, the Timeliness Score can only be calculated for schools that actually 
received resources from the MoE, either as in-kind or cash for Term 3, 2019. Again, this is only the 18 non￾LRP schools in West Pokot that received cash transfers.
Timeliness Score = (FD – DD – ML)/ (FD) * 100
Where:
FD = Full days (Term days + maximum number of delayed delivery days + maximum number of days of lunch missed)86
DD = Actual number of delayed delivery days
ML = Actual number of missed school meal (lunch) days
128. The result was a Timeliness Score of 70.2 percent, which is significantly lower (worse) than at baseline 
(Table 34). This is due to delays in cash-disbursement, followed by procurement and delivery delays.
Table 34: Change in Timeliness Score
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP
Baseline –
Term 1, 2018
77.9% 91.8% 95.9% 99.1% 79% 86.2% 84.7% 92.5%
84.9% 97.5% 82.6% 88.6%
Endline –
Term 3, 2019
0 0 0 0 0 70.2%* 0 70.2%*
0 0 70.2% 70.2%
* Only includes data from the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash transfers 
86 For Term 1, 2018: Term days = 70, maximum delayed delivery days = 70, maximum number of days of lunch missed = 70
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
38
Summary of key findings: Efficiency
• One of the objectives of the LRP was to improve the timeliness of procurement of school meals commodities 
by providing schools with cash transfers, enabling them to do local procurement of commodities, which would 
hopefully result in more timely delivery of commodities to the schools. However, since the MoE did not 
provide any cash resources to LRP schools for Term 3, 2019, none of the LRP schools were required to 
undertake a procurement process. 
• The target of 90 percent of LRP schools completing procurement before the start of term has therefore not 
been achieved.
• Further, none of the LRP schools received any in-kind resources from the MoE for Term 3, 2019, so the target 
of 90 percent of LRP schools having their food delivered before the start of term has not been achieved.
• The Overall Timeliness Score for the LRP schools is therefore zero. 
2.5 Evaluation Theme 4: Impact
129. At baseline, stakeholders were overwhelmingly positive about the LRP schools’ transition to the HGSMP 
citing the potential improved timeliness of food delivery and economic benefits to local communities. 
Unfortunately, despite the strong implementation of all the project activities by WFP and partner 
ministries, the MoE’s provision of in-kind commodities to the LRP schools has not enabled local 
procurement to take place as planned, which has significantly reduced the intended impact.
130. To measure the overall impact of the LRP, the ET had planned to use the Impact Score developed at 
baseline, which takes into account the intended outcomes as measured by the timeliness, cost￾effectiveness and nutrition scores described earlier. 
Impact Score = ((TS + NS - CS)/187) *100
Where:
TS = Timeliness Score
NS = Nutrition Score
CS = Cost Effectiveness Score
131. Table 35 shows that at baseline, non-LRP schools had a better overall score than the LRP schools, indicating 
more timely, cost-effective and nutritious school meals were provided through the HGSMP (cash transfers 
from the MoE) than though in-kind provision by WFP or MoE (LRP schools). The difference was statistically 
different (p<0.01). There was also statistically significant difference between counties (p<0.001), with 
schools in Turkana ranked as the best performers in the three outcome areas, and West Pokot the poorest. 
Unfortunately, however, at endline the Impact Score cannot be calculated for the LRP schools since their 
Timeliness and Cost-Effectiveness Scores could not be calculated due to no resources being provided for 
Term 3, 2019. Like the other scores, the Impact Score can therefore only be calculated for the 18 non-LRP 
schools in West Pokot that received cash (Table 37). Those 18 schools showed a positive change from the 
baseline result for West Pokot non-LRP schools.
Table 35: Change in Impact Score
* Only includes data from the 18 non-LRP schools that reported receiving cash transfers.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Baseline –
Term 1, 2018
71.1% 79.6% 83.2% 85.5% 71.8% 73.7% 75.6% 79.7%
75.4% 84.3% 72.7% 77.6%
Endline –
Term 3, 2019
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 84.2%* N/A 87.7%*
N/A N/A N/A N/A
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
39
2.5.1 Were there any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
132. In the earlier sections on the effectiveness and efficiency of the project, it is clear that the intended
objectives of improving the effectiveness of school meals through improved timeliness of procurement 
and delivery, improved cost-effectiveness and improved nutrition, have not resulted from the project. 
However, the LRP activities have resulted in several market improvements, including increased 
opportunities for FOs and traders, increased awareness of FOs and traders of the HGSMP in general, 
increased knowledge for FOs and traders on the required procurement process, and increased awareness 
among LRP school personnel on the importance of dietary diversity and how the school meal menus can 
be altered to increase the diversity of commodities. The evaluation identified some gender-related results 
from the FO data that indicate that women FO members are building their capacity.
• Less (42%) women’s FOs collectively own land compared with 54% of FOs with mixed membership
• One third (31%) of the FOs with women-only membership reported being able to access loan facilities 
compared to only 9% of FOs with mixed membership.
• 83% of women only FOs have had their committee members trained in the past year compared to 73% 
of FOs with mixed membership.
• 50% of women only FOs have had their members trained in the past year compared to 40% of FOs with 
mixed membership.
133.Qualitative interviews were also able to identify some negative outcomes for all beneficiary groups, 
farmers (FOs), traders and schools. All these negative outcomes were not as a result of the LRP per se, but 
as a result of the provision of in-kind commodities when cash-transfers had been expected. The main 
concern was that after receiving the HGSMP training both FOs and traders were preparing for the potential 
opportunity that school meals would bring. For FOs that involved growing or aggregating increased 
volumes of beans and maize and/or the drought tolerant crops promoted by the LRP. For traders, it meant 
organizing larger stock volumes to allow for increased potential sales. Ultimately, neither group had the 
opportunity to bid to supply food to the LRP or non-LRP HGSMP primary schools, leaving both groups with 
larger volumes of food to sell to other buyers. 
134. While each of the traders that participated in the qualitative interviews indicated they were eventually 
able to sell the larger stock volumes, in some cases to buyers that they met through the WFP market 
forums, and in some cases they arranged to provide to HGSMP schools on credit, while schools waited for 
the planned government HGSMP cash-transfers. Given that these cash-transfers never eventuated, it is 
not clear how long it will take for schools to be able to repay their debts. The accumulation of larger than 
normal volumes of stock was therefore only a temporary negative outcome, but the debts from schools 
has the potential to be a long-term negative outcome for traders. 
135. The FOs with larger than usual stock volumes either sold them or kept the excess for household 
consumption, so again, the negative outcome was temporary. The FOs that were not as affected by the 
government’s in-kind provision to schools were the FOs in Turkana that were given FDCs to supply sorghum 
or cowpeas to WFP. Although some of those FOs had also planned to bid for school tenders, they were 
still able to supply at least a portion of their commodities to WFP.
136. For many of the surveyed schools, both LRP and non-LRP, the main negative impact was not related to the 
decision to provide in-kind commodities per se, but the lack of delivery in Term 3, which meant that most 
schools were unable to provide school meals every school day during that term.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
40
2.5.2 What internal and external factors affect the project’s achievement of intended results?
Internal factors
137. Strong programme management and technical expertise: The design and implementation of the LRP 
activities have benefitted from strong technical expertise and experience of the WFP LRP team in 
agriculture, agri-business and market support. The LRP has also benefitted from the technical expertise of 
several other WFP teams including the Vulnerability Assessment and Mapping (VAM) (market 
assessments), nutrition (implementation) and of course decades of experience within the School Meals 
team (implementation). In addition, the flexibility demonstrated by the programme managers when it 
was clear that in-kind provision would be extended beyond Term 1, 2018 enabled WFP to expand the focus 
of LRP to include the ECDEs. This enabled the LRP capacity building activities to reach a wider audience, 
ultimately resulting in the development of the ECDC draft framework. 
138. Collaborative implementation approach: Since the handover of the HGSMP to the MoE in July 2018, WFP 
now plays an ‘enabling’ role rather than an ‘implementing’ role in the school meals programme. This
recent shift in WFP’s modus operandi has been well demonstrated during the LRP implementation, with 
WFP and central and county level authorities working together on most of the LRP activities. This 
collaborative approach was appreciated by the government key informants, as WFP was able to provide 
several capacity strengthening opportunities for government representatives, both formally and 
informally, building the government’s technical knowledge, skills and confidence to implement the HGSMP 
in future without support. 
139. Previous support to farmers/FOs in Turkana County: Some of the results of the LRP are due in part to the 
support provided by WFP and the MoA to farmers and FOs in Turkana County over the last decade. It was 
through other WFP projects that some farmers were encouraged to form the FOs that the LRP has 
supported. In addition, WFP has provided technical and financial support to some FOs to enable them to 
reach the standard that enabled them to win the FDCs with WFP for this project. Complementary funding 
from EUTF and BMZ has also enabled some of the LRP FOs to expand their businesses, including value 
adding to products, and/or establishing additional enterprises.
External factors
140. Strong relationship with Government of Kenya: The relationship between WFP and the Government of 
Kenya, particularly with the MoE, goes back decades. During this period, WFP has played a major role in 
building the national school meals policy landscape and providing ongoing technical support to the MoE. 
WFP has seconded staff to several government ministries to build their capacity, including the MoE’s 
School Feeding Unit. As a result, the technical expertise on school feeding within the MoE is now well 
established. Throughout the LRP, WFP and MoE have worked in partnership to ensure that the activities 
were completed as planned.
141.National ownership of the HGSMP: Once the MoE formally took over the implementation and 
management of the HGSMP in July 2018, all the decision-making responsibilities for the HGSMP rest with 
them. While the initial decision to provide in-kind commodities during the baseline term (Term 1, 2019) 
was founded on understandable concerns about the capacity of the market during drought, the reason/s 
behind the subsequent decision to continue provision of in-kind commodities after the drought ended, 
were more difficult to establish. It was the ongoing provision of in-kind commodities that isthe main factor 
behind the poor outcome results of the LRP. That is because the LRP was specifically designed to support 
a cash based HGSMP. The additional decision to not provide any resources, either cash or in-kind, to 
schools during Term 3, 2019, has also had significant impacts on the provision of school meals in Term 3, 
and on the endline evaluation results. These decisions all appear to be the result of a change in senior 
leadership within the MoE, with the new incumbent not previously engaged with school feeding activities. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
41
Since the provision of in-kind commodities is a permitted modality according to the HGSMP 
Implementation Guidelines87 and NSMS, the MoE was within its rights to make those decisions.
Summary of key findings: Impact
• The LRP was specifically designed to support the transition to cash-based transfers in the LRP schools. The 
impact of the LRP was therefore considerably reduced by the MoE’s decision to provide in-kind commodities 
to schools instead of providing cash-transfers to school as planned.
• The intended outcomes of improved timeliness of procurement and delivery, improved cost-effectiveness 
and improved nutrition, have not been realized, and the overall impact of the LRP could not be quantitatively 
measured as per the evaluation design.
• The LRP activities have resulted in some improvement of market opportunities for FOs and traders, increased 
awareness of FOs and traders of the HGSMP in general, increased knowledge for FOs and traders on the 
required procurement process, and increased awareness among LRP school personnel on the importance of 
dietary diversity and how the school meal menus can be altered to increase the diversity of commodities.
• The LRP activities have also resulted in increased awareness of government’s intent to use cash-transfers for 
local procurement for school meals, increased knowledge for FOs and traders on the required procurement 
process, and increased awareness among LRP schools on the importance of dietary diversity and how the 
school meal menus can be altered to increase the diversity of commodities. The evaluation also identified 
some gender-related results from the FO data that indicate that women FO members are building their 
capacity.
• Qualitative interviews also identified some negative outcomes for FOs and traders, as both groups were left 
with larger than usual volumes of commodities after planning to sell stock to the HGSMP schools. Some 
traders also allowed schools to buy commodities on credit, pending future payment of the cash-transfers, 
however with uncertain plans for reverting to cash, it is unclear when schools will be able to pay off those 
debts.
• Aside from the MoE’s decision to provide in-kind commodities, there were several other internal and external 
factors that have contributed to the achievement of the intended results. These include strong programme 
management and technical support from WFP, the collaborative approach taken to implementation and the 
support WFP had provided to farmers and FOs in Turkana County in previous years.
2.6 Evaluation Theme 5: Sustainability
142. As a programme designed to support the HGSMP, the LRP was never intended to be a sustainable 
programme in its own right. However, several of the LRP activities have contributed to sustainable results. 
The LRP was specifically designed to support schools in the three targeted counties to transition to the 
cash-based modality of the HGSMP instead of being provided with in-kind commodities. Although the 
decision to implement an in-kind modality throughout the two-year implementation period reduced the 
effectiveness of the LRP, it in no way reduces the sustainability of the HGSMP itself. The HGSMP 
Implementation Guidelines88 allow for provision of commodities using either cash-transfers or in-kind, and 
although the MoE has previously stated its long-held preference for cash-transfers due to the difficulties 
of logistics and transport and the need for the delivery of commodities to schools to be more timely, it is 
their prerogative to use either cash or in-kind depending on the situation. Since the handover of the 
HGSMP from WFP to the government in July 2018, the MoE continues to be committed to the programme, 
currently implementing the NSMNS until 2022 with an annual budget of USD 24 million (2018/19) and 
continual lobbying for additional funding.
87 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme. 88 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
42
143. The qualitative evaluation interviews received varied information about the MoE’s future HGSMP modality 
plans for the arid and semi-arid counties, therefore it is difficult to clearly state whether some of the LRP 
results are likely to be sustained or not. Some stakeholders within the MoE thought it might take several 
years before the LRP counties transition to cash as planned. If that is the case, then any knowledge 
obtained through the LRP’s training components will be lost. However, other MoE representatives 
reported that cash transfers are already being planned for school year (SY) 2020/21. If that is the case, it 
is likely that some of the learning will be retained. Regardless of the modality of the HGSMP, there are 
several results that are likely to be sustained, including the strengthened relationships between traders 
and FOs as a result of the market forums. If the strategy development work can be finalized through other 
funding, and the strategies put into place, the capacity strengthening work will also have some 
sustainability. 
144. The aspects of the LRP that the possibly the least sustainable are the procurement of drought-tolerant 
commodities from FOs for use in the HGSMP, and the use of drought tolerant crops in the school menus. 
Currently, those commodities are more expensive than maize and beans, so unless schools are provided 
with a cash transfer rate than enables procurement of these commodities, they are unlikely to do so, 
regardless of any nutritional benefits, or benefits to the local economy. If FOs can be supported to continue 
to produce drought-tolerant crops and the market demand increases, there is the potential for the price 
to come down. However, with the low cash-transfer rate compared to market prices and/or the late 
disbursement of cash transfers to schools, it is unlikely that schools will choose more expensive products 
unless the price comes down considerably.
Summary of key findings: Sustainability
• As a programme designed to support the HGSMP, the LRP was never intended to be a sustainable programme 
in its own right. However, several of the LRP activities have contributed to sustainable results.
• The decision to implement an in-kind modality throughout the two-year LRP implementation period reduced the 
effectiveness of the LRP, but it in no way reduced the sustainability of the HGSMP itself.
• It is difficult to clearly state whether some of the LRP results are likely to be sustained or not as the sustainability 
of some results depend on the MoE’s future plans regarding providing cash transfers. 
• Regardless of the HGSMP modality, the LRP has succeeded in strengthening relationships between traders and 
FOs and contributed to improving the policy landscape promoting smallholder procurement.
• The least sustainable aspect of the LRP is likely to be the use of drought tolerant crops in the school menus. 
Currently, those commodities are more expensive than maize and beans, so unless schools are provided with a 
cash transfer rate than enables procurement of these commodities, they are unlikely to purchase those 
commodities regardless of the nutritional or economic benefits to the community.
3 Conclusions and Recommendations 
3.1 Overall Assessment/Conclusions
145. The LRP offered an opportunity to ensure that the targeted schools in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot 
transition smoothly to the HGSMP by ensuring that school personnel, FOs and local traders were aware of 
the required procurement process for acquiring commodities for the school meals. It also provided a 
starting point for WFP to work with farmers and FOs in Baringo and West Pokot.
146. The LRP was designed and implemented by WFP in collaboration with MoE, MoA and MoH with the 
activities aligning well with and with MoE, MoA and MoH policies, and with WFP’s other work in Kenya. 
The evaluation found that the planned cash-transfer HGSMP modality for providing school meals was the 
preferred option of all evaluation key informants, because of the potential benefits to the local economy 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
43
and the potential to improve the timeliness and cost-effectiveness the procurement and delivery of 
commodities. The design of the LRP was therefore highly relevant.
147. The LRP has been well implemented, with the baseline recommendations being appropriately actioned. 
Unfortunately, the intended school-related outcomes of improved timeliness of procurement and 
delivery, improved cost-effectiveness and improved nutrition, have not been realized, and the overall 
impact of the LRP could not be quantitatively measured as per the evaluation design. This is largely due to 
the MoE providing in-kind commodities to the LRP schools instead of the cash-transfers that the LRP was 
designed to support. While the initial decision to provide in-kind commodities was understandable given 
the 2017/18 drought, the decision to continue providing in-kind commodities came as a surprise to WFP 
and to all the other programme partners, including the MoE technical officers. The evaluation concluded 
that WFP could not have foreseen the decision, especially since the HGSMP has moving towards national 
implementation of cash-transfers for more than a decade.
148. Despite this setback, the LRP has succeeded in strengthening the local market although not to the extent 
it was originally envisaged. Improvements were noted in crop production of some FOs and in the 
percentage of FOs aggregating their commodities to enable larger sales. The LRP also resulted in improved
relationships and linkages between FOs and traders and created awareness about the HGSMP and the 
procurement processes that are required. When implemented through a cash-transfer modality, the 
HGSMP has the potential to provide a stable, long term market for local traders and farmers as evidenced 
by the findings of the LEWIE study.
89 However, without a cash-based modality, the involvement of the local 
market is severely limited, with no incentive for local farmers to produce the specific crops for school 
meals, particularly the drought tolerant crops.
149. Finally, WFP should be commended for the ongoing effort they have made during the LRP to include 
women in the programme. Women have been actively encouraged to participate in all aspects of the 
programme, and this active recruitment has succeeded, with women making up half the traders sampled 
(46.3%) and more than half the FO membership. 
150.Overall, these findings indicate that while all the planned LRP activities and outputs have been completed
by WFP, they have not been effective at improving the timeliness or cost-effectiveness of food assistance. 
This is largely as a result of MoE providing LRP schools with in-kind commodities instead of the cash￾transfers that were planned, and which the LRP was specifically designed to support. The LRP has however 
partially succeeded in increasing the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to 
effectively and efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, however, although none of these 
groups have been able to put their learning into practice. Similarly, although capacity of school personnel 
on nutrition and diversity of the school menus has been strengthened though training and the menu 
development workshops, this training and the resulting menus have not been put to use. The expected 
boost to the local and regional food market systems that the HGSMP would have provided, as not resulted, 
although other market activities have helped FOs and traders sell greater volumes. 
151. As a programme designed to support the HGSMP, the LRP was never intended to be a sustainable 
programme in its own right. The HGSMP continues to be implemented by the Government of Kenya, with 
an annual budget of USD 24 million (2018/19) and with continual lobbying for additional funding. Since 
the handover to the government in July 2018 WFP now plays an enabling role rather than an implementing 
role. As a result, there was little that WFP could do to address the MoE’s continued provision of in-kind 
commodities in the LRP schools except provide technical support to the programme, gather evidence of 
the viability and benefits of cash transfer modality, and help the MoE improve their in-kind delivery, while 
89 Taylor, J.E et al (2019) Potential local economy impacts of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Program. UC Davis.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
44
continuing to advocate for cash-transfers with the MoE. WFP has managed that role well and have been 
flexible enough to find other opportunities to expand the reach of the LRP, including bringing in the ECDEs. 
This decision resulted in the development of a draft ECDE framework that includes supporting a home￾grown feeding programme as part of the ECDE services, with the potential to ultimately result in new 
opportunities to promote smallholder procurement. 
3.1.1 What are lessons learned from the project?
152. The LRP has twice been affected by changes in senior leadership in the LRP partner ministries. 1. A new 
senior leader in the MoE decided to provide ongoing in-kind commodities throughout the LRP period, 
despite previous agreement with the MoE that cash-transfers would be provided. This decision has 
resulted in poor outcomes for the LRP; and 2. The retirement of one of the key MoA champions of the 
process to develop the National Smallholder Implementation Strategy guiding the direct procurement by 
public institutions from smallholder farmers, resulted in the approval of the National Implementation 
Strategy stalling and the expected development of county level strategies being put on hold. While neither 
of the situations could have been foreseen, the two scenarios are potentially indicative of challenges that 
WFP will continue to face now that they not responsible for programme implementation. It would 
therefore be useful for WFP and government partners to discuss what lessons, if any, can be learned from 
these experiences and determine whether there were any contingency plans that could be put in place to 
avoid these situations repeating again. 
153.Once it was clear that the intended LRP schools would not be used a cash-based methodology as expected, 
WFP looked for other opportunities to continue to promote smallholder procurement. This flexibility 
resulted in opening new areas of work, supporting home-grown feeding in the ECDE services, which has 
strengthened their relationship with county level authorities, and potentially resulted in new opportunities 
to promote smallholder procurement. WFP programme management should be commended for this 
flexibility in programming, responding well to the situation at hand.
3.2 Recommendations
154. Based on the findings and conclusions of this evaluation, the recommendations of the evaluation team are 
outlined below. 
Priority recommendations (to be implemented before the start of the next school year)
• Recommendation 1: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should continue to advocate 
to the MoE senior leadership on the importance of school feeding, timeliness of delivery, timeliness 
of cash disbursement and importance of providing daily school meals. This advocacy role can also be 
done at county level in support of the draft ECDE framework.
• Recommendation 2: WFP and MoE should develop a position paper outlining the key decisions over 
the last decade that have led to the largely cash-based modality of HGSMP that is seen today. The 
paper should also include the evidence that underpins those decisions including recent market 
assessments in the arid areas. The paper should then be used for ongoing advocacy with the MoE as 
described in Recommendation 1. 
• Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoE school feeding technical officers should consider ways to 
support improvements in the MoE’s in-kind procurement and delivery system. This is especially 
important if the MoE intends to continue providing in-kind support to the arid and semi-arid areas 
which are among the locations most in need of the food and nutrition security improvements that the 
HGSMP can provide. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
45
• Key areas of LRP work to continue
• Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to work with county/sub-county governments to support 
farmers, FOs and market system improvement in general. This is especially important for work 
involving the MoA, as their authority has been devolved to the counties.
• Recommendation 5: WFP should continue to work together with MoH at national and county level, 
on school health and nutrition related work, especially on activities that improve the nutritional status 
of school-aged children such as the provision of nutritious, locally produced food commodities.
• Recommendation 6: WFP should look for funding to continue to the work started through the LRP 
supporting farmers and FOs in Baringo and West Pokot as the LRP was the first opportunity for support, 
and without the opportunity to put their learning into practice during the LRP, any gains made are 
likely to regress without some reinforcement.
• Recommendation 7: WFP should continue to work with the MoA and other relevant ministries on the 
promotion of small holder procurement. This should include continuing the development of county 
and national level strategies and other means to increase opportunities for small holder engagement 
in public procurement. 
• Recommendation 8: WFP should continue to support MoE’s efforts to conduct regular programme 
monitoring to ensure that HGSMP processes and procedures are being adequately followed.
• Recommendation 9: WFP and partners should continue to support the active inclusion of women in 
all WFP projects and ensure that gender related indicators are present in future WFP projects, as 
appropriate.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
46
4 Annexes
Annex 1: Endline evaluation terms of reference
Introduction
These terms of reference (TOR) are for the final activity evaluation of the World Food Programme (WFP) Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement Programme (LRP). The United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) funded programme was implemented 
in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot Counties. This evaluation is commissioned by WFP Kenya Country office and will cover the 
period from 2017 to 2020. 
These TOR were prepared by the WFP Kenya Country Office M&E unit based upon an initial document review consultation with 
stakeholders and following a standard template. The TOR are aligned to an evaluation plan developed and agreed by both WFP 
and USDA prior to the commencement of the programme. The purpose of the TOR is twofold: (i) provide key information to the 
evaluation team and help guide them throughout the evaluation process; and (ii) provide key information to stakeholders about 
the proposed evaluation.
Reasons for the Evaluation
The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below: 
Rationale 
This evaluation follows on the baseline survey conducted in 2018 and is being commissioned for the following reasons:
The USDA LRP aimed at supporting the Government of Kenya’s effort to expand the national home-grown school feeding 
programme (HGSMP) into the arid lands while stimulating local economic development through the procurement of food from 
local structured markets, increasing farmers’ incomes and creating additional jobs in the community. 
USDA is one of the longest -standing, important donors to WFP School feeding in Kenya. However, WFP Kenya received LRP funds 
for the first time in 2017. The activities under this programme were implemented for two years starting October 2017 at a total 
cost of USD 2,825,509. 
As per grant agreement signed by both USDA and WFP in 2017, there are 24 specific performance and results indicators against 
which performance of the programme will to be measured. In the evaluation plan agreed between with USDA, WFP committed 
to conduct a final evaluation to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the programme in order 
to evaluate the project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons learned. Thus, WFP is commissioning an evaluation 
at the final point of programme implementation. 
Objectives 
The main objective of this evaluation is to assess and report on the performance and results achieved (intended or unintended, 
positive or negative) of LRP programme in the three targeted counties (Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot). The evaluation will
serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
• Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of the USDA LRP support to WFP 
School Feeding Programme in Kenya from 2017 to 2020.
• Learning – As this is the first LRP support to WFP Kenya, this evaluation will generate useful lessons that WFP Kenya, 
USDA and the Government of Kenya could use to inform future programmes. Findings will be actively disseminated, and 
lessons learned will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
47
Stakeholders and Users
Numerous stakeholders both inside and outside WFP Kenya have interests in the results of the evaluation and some of these will 
play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis which may amended by the 
evaluation team at the inception phase. 
Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key stakeholders in WFP’s work. 
As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation 
and consultation in the evaluation by women, men, boys and girls from different groups. 
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis 
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO) Kenya Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, it has a direct stake 
in the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience to inform decision-making. It is 
also called upon to account internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for 
performance and results of its operation. 
Regional Bureau (RB) 
Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of country offices and technical guidance and support, the RB 
management has an interest in an independent account of the operational performance as well 
as in learning from the evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country offices.
Office of Evaluation (OEV) OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, useful and credible 
evaluations. OEV management has an interest in providing decision-makers and stakeholders 
with independent accountability for results and with learning to inform policy, strategic and 
programmatic decisions. 
WFP Executive Board (EB) The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP 
operations. The evaluation results will not be presented to the EB, but its findings may feed 
into corporate learning processes. 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether 
its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the baseline of 
women, men, boys and girls will be determined and their respective perspectives will be 
sought. More specifically, teachers, school meals procurement committees, students, 
smallholder farmers, local traders and traders should be considered as key stakeholders.
Government, National and 
County Levels
Both county and national governments have a direct interest in knowing whether WFP 
activities in the country are aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the action of other 
partners and meet the expected results. The Government has the overall ownership of the 
school feeding programme and shares the interest in learning lessons for design of future 
programmes, including transition to cash model. The key line Ministries are: Ministry of 
Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of Health including relevant 
Ministries at county level. County and Sub-county Education Officers, School Management 
Committees are also key as they are involved in school feeding programme implementation 
and policy support.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
48
United Nations and 
Development Partners 
The Kenya United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) should contribute to 
the realisation of the government developmental objectives. Kenya United Nations Country 
Team (UNCT) has therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP operation is effective in 
contributing to the United Nations concerted efforts. WFP implements the programme within 
a wider UN system of support to government priorities. The partner agencies are interested in 
learning to what extent WFP interventions are contributing to the overall outcomes committed 
to the UNDAF particularly UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, UNDAF thematic working groups, the 
Education Sector Donors Groups.
Donors [USDA, Australia, 
Germany, Japan, Russia, 
Private donors]
Whereas LRP is funded by USDA, WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. 
This project builds on the existing school feeding programme which is a multi-donor initiative. 
As such, USDA as well as other donors will have an interest in knowing how findings from this 
evaluation fit in the larger school meals programme implementation context. 
The primary users of this evaluation will be:
• The Kenya country office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to programme implementation and/or design, 
Country Strategy and partnerships.
• This final evaluation will contribute to the body of knowledge on the LRP projects. USDA may use the findings and lessons 
learnt from this final evaluation to inform future program funding, design, and implementation decisions. 
• The RB is expected to use the evaluation findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight
• WFP HQ may use evaluation findings for wider organizational learning and accountability. 
Context and subject of the Evaluation
Context
The Government of Kenya through Ministry of Education (MOE) in collaboration WFP have implemented school meals 
programme since 1980. The programme targets schools in semi-arid and arid areas where cases of food insecurity, malnutrition 
and low enrolment rates are prevalent. In 2009, the Government of Kenya started a national home-grown school meal 
programme (HGSMP) to provide a meal to children at school; to support education achievements while also stimulating local 
agricultural production through purchase of food from smallholder farmers and local food suppliers. Unlike other school feeding 
programmes, the HGSMP seeks to deliver simultaneously on ‘local’ economic growth and social protection or poverty education 
objectives.
After close to four decades of joint WFP-Government programming, the transition of school feeding activities to Government 
ownership was completed in June 2018. Until this time (June 2018), both WFP and MOE provided midday meals to 1.5 million 
children. 
WFP support is currently focused on strengthening the capacity of the Government of Kenya towards ensuring a universal and 
sustainable school feeding programme as envisaged in the National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy (2017-2022). 
The HGSMP supports access to education while also stimulating local economic development (including agricultural production) 
through procurement of food from local structured markets, increasing farms’ income and creating additional jobs in the 
community. HGSMP is an investment in the local economy, linking small-scale farmers and suppliers to an ongoing school market. 
The programme promotes smallholder farmer productivity and capacity by offering a widespread market that is accessible to 
farmers due its decentralized procurement approach. 
Structured Demand markets are markets created by public or non-profit entities that have a predictable and reliable demand for 
food products. The HGSMP provides a structured demand market. On the demand side, the procuring entity can offer a market 
and an additional source of income for smallholder farmers through inclusive public procurement processes. On the supply side, 
structured demand markets like schools can inspire farmer organizations to increase their levels of production and organization 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
49
in order to meet the demands of structured demand markets and other high-value markets. The project aimed to use the 
structured demand markets of the HGSMP to encourage local agricultural production and strengthen local food supply systems. 
The HGSMP provides market opportunities for local suppliers (traders, farmer’s organizations and smallholder farmers). However,
a 2014 external evaluation of the HGSMP concluded that it has been difficult for farmers’ groups to supply schools without 
sustained capacity development support. Moreover, it has been established that existing procurement regulations, processes 
and tools do not fully support the inclusion of smallholder farmers, promote transparency, or ensure schools get value for the 
funds spent. Food quality and safety is an important aspect in the procurement and handling of locally procured food, there is 
therefore a need to support County Governments to develop and implement food quality and safety strategies for school feeding
programmes (including aflatoxin testing). This is especially pertinent for sub counties that have been implementing HGMSP.
Schools have the potential to become powerful platforms for mainstreaming nutrition while promoting lifelong healthy eating 
habits. Daily school meal plays a considerable impact on the overall daily dietary intake of a student. Currently, for schools in the 
arid and semi-arid lands, the school basket consists of three food groups, including cereals, pulses and oil, which provides 30 
percent of the recommended daily energy requirements but is lacking in dietary diversity and micronutrient intake. The 2014 
Kenya Demographic Health Survey (KDHS) revealed that only 21 percent of children in the lowest wealth quintile consumed four 
or more food groups. Identifying local and culturally appropriate foods, including locally available drought tolerant crops, to add 
to the school meals menus can contribute to the improvement of the student’s nutritional status.
Subject of the evaluation
The LRP project was implemented over a period of two years running from U.S fiscal year (FY) 2017 -2020. The project is in support 
of WFP and the government of Kenya’s ongoing school feeding project in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot counties.
It was envisaged that the project would build on WFP’s accomplishments in supporting the expansion of the government-led 
school meal programme. Key objectives of the project are to:
• Improve effectiveness of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and improving timeliness
• Increase the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to effectively and efficiently procure local 
commodities for school’s meals, promoting sustainability of school feeding; 
• Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to culturally acceptable commodities and connecting 
them to Government of Kenya home-grown school meals programme; and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, high quality nutritious and culturally appropriate 
foods in school’s meals. 
• The objectives were to be achieved through a broad set of activities and inputs including:
Assessment and Mapping of Local Food Systems and Value Chains 
This entails WFP support to the government to conduct market assessments of local value chains in Baringo and West Pokot sub￾counties, where the Government of Kenya started providing cash transfers to schools under the Home-Grown School Meals 
Program (HGSMP) in January 2018. These market assessments aimed to map the production and supply capacity of local traders 
and farmers to schools. They were expected to be used to estimate the cash transfer rates that the government should use when
transitioning schools to the HGSMP.
Further, WFP was to support the government to conduct value chain analyses to identify and map locally produced commodities 
and local agricultural production that are well positioned to participate in the structured demand markets created by the HGSMP. 
Building upon the Cash Transfers to Schools (CTS) market assessments, the value chain analyses were to focus on the availability, 
costs and future potential of local, nutritious, and culturally acceptable food to become part of the HGSMP food basket. The 
assessments were also to consider the local availability of drought-tolerant crops in order to inform the development of diverse 
menus under the HGSMP. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
50
Capacity Building for National and County Institutions
WFP planned to work in partnership with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to train schoolteachers, parents, and education officers 
in Baringo and West Pokot on the HGSMP’s Cash Transfer to Schools (CTS) model in order to enhance accountability and 
transparency in school-based food procurement process. WFP and MOE were to establish a monitoring and oversight plan in 
Baringo and West Pokot, building upon the WFP Beneficiary Complaints and Feedback mechanism (helpline) and reporting 
structure developed by WFP and MOE under McGovern-Dole Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00.
WFP was to support the development of the Government of Kenya’s national implementation strategy to guide direct local 
procurement from smallholder farmers by government institutions, such as schools, the National Youth Service, hospitals and 
the Kenya Police Service. WFP in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries (MOALF) and the United 
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), had obtained consensus from ministries of education, health among others to 
support procurement from smallholder farmers and agricultural processors by developing an implementation strategy. The 
strategy was to be first implemented in Turkana, Baringo and West Pokot, before a national rollout. 
Capacity Strengthening for Local Traders and FOs
WFP planned to train local farmer organizations, and traders in Baringo and West Pokot on the key requirements for becoming 
suppliers to the HGSMP, including HGSMP eligibility criteria for traders, procurement procedures for schools, food quality 
assurance, and post-harvest handling. 
WFP was to collaborate with ministries of education, health and agriculture to conduct market linkage forums in Baringo and 
West Pokot Counties. The purpose of the market of the linkage forums was to provide an opportunity for potential suppliers to 
interact with school meals procurement committees. Market linkage forums increase awareness, promote transparency during 
the procurement process, and provide school meals procurement committees with the opportunity to coordinate with suppliers 
to adjust the HGSMP food basket based on locally available products. 
Develop School Meals Menus Using Local and Nutritious Produce
WFP was to support schools to develop, use, and promote diverse school meals menus based on locally produced, nutritious, and
drought-tolerant crops, including sorghum, millet, and cowpeas, in Baringo, West Pokot, and Turkana. WFP planned to analyse 
the nutrient profile of the selected crops and incorporate them into the school meal basket for select schools, ensuring that the 
newly diversified school meal basket is culturally acceptable and still meets the nutrient requirements for calories, protein, fats, 
and micronutrients for primary school students. 
WFP was to assess the inclusion of locally produced foods and nutrition education on the dietary diversity of the school meals 
and students’ diet. WFP planned to use this assessment to provide evidence-based recommendations on the minimum standards 
for school meal composition, working in collaboration with MOE and MOH. WFP planned to advocate for investments in the 
integration of health and nutrition education into the school curriculum to support the national School Nutrition and Meals 
Strategy and HGSMP guidelines.
Procure Locally Produced, Drought-Tolerant Crops
WFP planned to pilot the local procurement of sorghum and cowpeas for schools in Turkana supported under McGovern-Dole 
Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00. WFP will procure these locally produced, drought-tolerant crops using forward 
delivery contracts (FDCs) and direct contracts issued to six farmer organizations in Turkana County. The farmer organizations 
have received technical support on cultivating sorghum and cowpeas and using FDC and direct contract mechanisms through 
WFP activities supported by non-United States Government funds. The locally procured sorghum and cowpeas will diversify the 
existing food basket, by replacing a portion of the bulgur wheat and green split peas provided under McGovern-Dole Program 
Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00 for two days per week (20 days per term) for two school-terms. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
51
The LRP project used USDA cash funding to contribute towards USDA LRP highest strategic objective (LRP SO1); improved 
effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional procurement. The following activities will contribute to the 
achievement of LRP SO 1: 
• Improved cost-effectiveness of Food assistance: Capacity building for national and county institutions
• Improved timeliness of Food Assistance: Capacity building for national and county institutions and Capacity strengthening 
for local suppliers
• Improved Utilization of Nutritious and Culturally Acceptable Food that Meet Quality Standards: Assessment and mapping of 
local food systems and value chains, develop school meals menus using local and nutritious produce and Procure locally 
produced, drought-tolerant crops
• Capacity building for national and county institutions will contribute to the foundational results of increased capacity of 
government institutions and improved policy and regulatory framework. Capacity strengthening for local suppliers will also 
contribute to the foundational result of improved capacity of relevant organizations and increased leverage of private sector
resources.
For a graphical representation of the project’s theory of change, including the linkages among key activities and results, see the 
results framework in Annex 2 of this document. Further, the performance indicators table gives details of the indicators that will 
be used to measure performance of the project. 
Evaluation Approach
Scope
The evaluation will be for LRP activities implemented from 2017 to 2020 in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot Counties. 
The final evaluation will use the internationally agreed criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. 
As per the agreed-on evaluation plan, this evaluation is to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance 
of the programme in order to evaluate the project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate lessons learned. Specifically, 
the final evaluation should: (i) review the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. (ii) Collect 
additional data as appropriate for evaluation of the strategic objective and higher-level results. (iii) Assess whether or not the 
project has succeeded in achieving its objective. (iv) Investigate the project’s overall impact, and (v) identify meaningful lessons 
learned that WFP, USDA, and other stakeholders can apply to future programming. 
Worth noting, this evaluation will build upon the baseline study and process monitoring to assess the project’s contribution to 
LRP strategic objective (Improved effectiveness of Food Assistance through Local and Regional Procurement). It will assess the 
effect of the program against the following objectives: 
• Improved cost effectiveness of food assistance
• Improved timeliness of food assistance
• Improved utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable foods that meet quality standards
Evaluation Criteria and Questions
Evaluation criteria: The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact 
and Sustainability. Gender Equality and Women Empowerment (GEWE) should be mainstreamed throughout the processes. 
Evaluation Questions: Allied to the evaluation criteria, the evaluation will address the following a set of key questions outlined 
in Table 2 below. Noteworthy, detailed evaluation design and evaluation questions will be finalized by evaluation team and 
confirmed by key stakeholders during the inception period. The final evaluation will cover all areas of intervention with specific 
focus on Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot Counties. 
Below are the key criteria and broad questions to be evaluated:
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
52
 Table 2: Preliminary Key Evaluation Questions
Focus Area Key Questions – Final Evaluation Data Sources
Relevance Was the project designed to reach the right people with the right type of assistance?
Did the project’s implementation lead to meeting the intended beneficiaries’ needs with 
the right mix of assistance?
Is the project aligned with national government’s relevant policies and strategies? 
Did the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives? 
Document review, key 
stakeholder focus 
groups; 
Baseline report and 
datasets;
Effectiveness
To what degree have the interventions resulted (or not) in the expected results (outputs 
and outcomes as per the PMP)?
What internal and external factors affect the project’s achievement of intended results?
Key stakeholder focus 
groups; key informant 
interviews monitoring 
reports and other 
programme reports
Efficiency Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries at the right time?
Impact Were there any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
What internal and external factors affected the project’s results?
Key stakeholder focus 
groups
Sustainability
To what extent is it likely that the benefits of the project will continue after the end of 
the project?
What are the key factors that affect the likelihood of sustainability of the results of the 
project?
General What are lessons learned from the project?
How can WFP improve future programming, in the context of these lessons learned?
Data Availability 
The evaluation will collect both qualitative and quantitative primary data in line with the PMP. Secondary data will also be used 
as applicable. Any quantitative data collection will be done with support of WFP Kenya M&E team. The following is a list of 
background data and information available to the evaluation team. The list is however not exhaustive, and it is expected that the 
team will expand it at inception phase.
• Final evaluation report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s 
Support in Kenya from 2014 to 2016
• Baseline report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s Support 
in Kenya from 2016 to 2020
• Midterm evaluation report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s 
Support in Kenya from 2016 to 2020
• Kenya Country Strategic Plan 2018- 2023
• Standard Project Reports (SPRs)
• Annual Country Report
• Strategy to Strengthen & Expand the Home-Grown School Meals (HGSM) Programme into the Arid Lands of Kenya (Validated 
version 2013)
• USDA commitment letter for Agreement 
• Evaluation Plan
• National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy (2017-2022)
• Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Project in Kenya 2017-2020
To enhance the quality of data and information provided, the baseline team should:
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
53
• Assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the information provided. This assessment 
will inform the data collection
• Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any 
limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
Methodology
As indicated in the previous sections, the evaluation methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception 
phase and should: 
• Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above [relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability]
• Demonstrates impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information sources (variety of documents, 
interview of a variety of stakeholder groups, including men and women; national and county level) and a transparent 
sampling process;
• Ensures that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholder’s groups participate and that their different voices are 
heard and reflected in the final report;
• Mainstreams gender equality and women’s empowerment in the way the evaluation is designed, data is collected and 
analysed; findings are reported, conclusions and recommendations are made. This will enable the team to reflect on lessons 
and recommendations for the conduct of a gender responsive evaluation that may be of use to future evaluations;
• Uses an evaluation matrix as the organizing tool to ensure all key evaluation questions are addressed and the conclusions 
are based on credible evidence
• Ensure the methodology and baseline implementation are ethical and conform to the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
The evaluation team is expected to elaborate appropriate sampling methods for collecting primary quantitative and qualitative
data. The evaluation team will draw a statistically representative sample from the sample frame consisting of the total number 
of 390 schools, 3,000 smallholder farmers in multiple farmer organizations and around 200 local traders spread across the three 
targeted counties of Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot. 
The final evaluation will take a programme theory approach based on the results framework. In its execution, the evaluation will 
draw on the existing body of documented data as far as possible.
The evaluation will use mixed methods and triangulate information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability 
of findings. In particular, the evaluation will combine qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect field-level data and 
information from the three arid counties. Separate questionnaires will be applied to the different primary sources of information, 
focusing on infrastructure, staff, enrolment and attendance, exam scores, completion rates and community involvement in the 
programme.
The qualitative component of the evaluation will use participatory methods where relevant to highlight lessons learned and case 
studies representative of the interventions. In particular, the methodology will involve focus group discussions with head 
teachers, school management committee members, government officers, farmer organization representatives and traders, pupils 
and key informants drawn from education stakeholders. This component will employ relevant interview schedules as a key data 
collection method which will be collated to provide general impressions of the programme.
Fieldwork will be based on a follow-up to the baseline conducted in 2018. Where possible and relevant, before/after comparison 
will be done through design of comparable sampling strategy. 
To ensure independence and impartiality, Evaluation Committee and an Evaluation Reference Group will be established, and 
reference made to Technical Note on Independence and Impartiality for guidance. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
54
Quality Assurance
WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected from this evaluation 
and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality Assurance, Templates for evaluation products and Checklists for their review.
DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG norms and standards
and good practice of the international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products 
conform to best practice. 
DEQAS will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the
evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Step by Step Process Guide and for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation 
products ahead of their finalization. 
WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This includes Checklists for feedback 
on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant checklists will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the 
evaluation process and outputs.
In addition, to enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an external reviewer directly managed by WFP’s Office of 
Evaluation in Headquarter will provide:
• Systematic feedback on the quality of the draft inception and evaluation reports; and 
• Recommendations on how to improve the quality of the evaluation. 
This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team, but ensures the report 
provides the necessary evidence in a clear and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and accuracy) throughout the analytical 
and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the 
provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is available in WFP’s Directive (#CP2010/001) on Information
Disclosure.
Phases and Deliverables
This final evaluation will proceed through the five phases presented in Figure 1 below. The evaluation schedule annex provides 
a detailed breakdown of the proposed timeline for each phase over the full timeframe. A summary of the deliverables and 
deadlines for each phase are as follows: 
Figure 1: Summary process map
Preparation phase (September–October 2019): The evaluation manager will conduct background research and consultation to 
frame the evaluation; prepare the TOR; select the evaluation team and contract the company for the management and conduct 
of the evaluation. The TOR will be shared with USDA for comments and or inputs.
Inception phase (November 2019): This phase aims to prepare the evaluation team for the evaluation phase by ensuring that it 
has a good grasp of the expectations for the evaluation and a clear plan for conducting it. The inception phase will include a desk 
review of secondary data and initial interaction with the main stakeholders. The inception report will be shared with USDA for 
comments and or inputs.
Preparation Inception Inception
Report
Evaluation Reporting Evaluation 
Report
Dissemination 
and follow-up
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
55
Evaluation phase (January – February 2020): The fieldwork will be completed in one month owing to the number of project 
sites and primary and secondary data collection from local stakeholders. A debriefing session will be held upon completion of the 
field work. 
Reporting phase (March 2020): The evaluation team will analyse the data collected during the desk review and the field work, 
conduct additional consultations with stakeholders, as required, and draft the evaluation report. The draft evaluation report will 
be submitted to the evaluation manager for quality assurance. Stakeholders will be invited to provide comments, which will be
recorded in a matrix by the evaluation manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before report 
finalisation. 
Follow-up and dissemination phase: The final evaluation report will be shared with the relevant stakeholders. The management 
responsible will respond to the evaluation recommendations by providing actions that will be taken to address each 
recommendation and estimated timelines for taking those actions. The evaluation report will also be subject to external post-hoc 
quality review to report independently on the quality, credibility and utility of the evaluation in line with evaluation norms and 
standards. The final evaluation report will be published on the WFP public website. Findings will be disseminated, and lessons 
will be incorporated into other relevant lesson sharing systems.
The expected deliverables from the evaluation are as follows:
• Inception report written following WFP recommended template. The report should include but not limited to: 
• Detailed baseline design
• Quality Assurance Plan
• Detailed work plan, including, timeline and activities 
• Bibliography of documents/secondary data sources utilised;
• Final data collection tools, data bases, analysis plan
• Power-point on methodology, overall survey plan, timeline and activities 
• Final report, including a first draft, and a final report using WFP recommended template. The final report should include an 
executive summary and recommendations for optimizing both project implementation and monitoring. Annexes to the final 
report include but not limited to a copy of the final ToR, bibliography, list of sampled schools, detailed sampling methodology, 
Maps, A list of all meetings and participants, final survey instruments etc.
• Clean data set
• Transcripts from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, etc.
• Table of all standard and custom indicator baseline values
• List of sites visited
• Power-point presentation of main findings and conclusions for de-briefing and dissemination purposes
Organization of the Evaluation
Evaluation Conduct
The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close communication with the 
independent evaluation manager appointed by WFP to manage the evaluation in line with WFP decentralized evaluation 
guidelines. The team will be hired through an HR process following agreement with WFP on its composition and in line with the 
baseline schedule. The team members will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject of evaluation 
or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect the code of conduct of the evaluation 
profession. The evaluation will be supported by WFP M&E team specifically in planning and implementation of quantitative data 
collection where applicable.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
56
Team composition and competencies
The final evaluation will be led by a senior evaluator and will be supported by a statistician. The duo will be external evaluators 
with no prior association with the subject of evaluation. The team will conduct this baseline in adherence to DEQAS standards
(where applicable) and requirements of the UNEG Norms and Standards and Code of Conduct for Evaluators. 
The Team Leader will be a senior evaluator with at least 20 years of experience in evaluation of complex interventions, with 
demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary teams. The team leader will preferably have experience evaluating school 
meals and or education/capacity related interventions, and experience working in Kenya. She/he will be confident in using mixed 
quantitative and qualitative methods and will have good understanding of home grown school meals programmes, nutrition/ 
procurement of local commodities to support school meals programs and additional significant experience in other development 
and management positions. 
The Team Leader will also have expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience in 
leading similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership and communication skills, including a track record of excellent 
writing and presentation skills. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: (i) defining the baseline approach and methodology; (ii) 
guiding and managing the team; (iii) leading the baseline mission and representing the baseline team; (iv) drafting and revising, 
as required, the inception report, the end of field work i.e. (exit) debriefing presentation and baseline report. 
The statistician will have at least five years of experience in data analysis for development and humanitarian organizations.
He/she must have a strong demonstrated knowledge of quantitative methods. The statistician primary responsibilities will be: (i) 
provide statistical expertise in development of the evaluation design; (ii) develop data collection and analysis plans; (iii) lead data 
collection preparation and actual collection with support from WFP M&E team; (iv) perform all required analysis and support 
drafting and revision of the final evaluation report. 
The team will abide by the Code of Conduct for evaluators (attached to individual contracts), ensuring they maintain impartiality 
and professionalism.
Security Considerations
Security clearance will be obtained prior to travel as applicable and in line with applicable standard operating procedures. The 
United Nations Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system covers consultants hired through HR process for United Nations 
including consultants contracted directly by WFP. The consultants will be required therefore obtain UNDSS security clearance
for travelling from designated duty station. In addition, the consultants are expected to complete BSAFE, the online security 
awareness training course in advance and print out their certificates. However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation 
Manager will ensure that: The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a 
security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground. The team members observe applicable 
UN security rules and regulations. The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and 
arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground. The team members observe 
applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc. 
Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The Kenya Country Office: 
The Kenya country Office management (Deputy Country Director will take responsibility to: 
• Ensure an independent Evaluation Manager for the evaluation: 
• Compose the internal evaluation committee and the external evaluation reference group 
• Approve the final TOR, inception and evaluation reports.
• Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment of an Evaluation Committee 
and of a Reference Group 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
57
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation subject, its performance and 
results with the Evaluation Manager and the evaluation team 
• Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external stakeholders 
• Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management Response to the evaluation 
recommendations
Evaluation Manager/s:
• Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
• Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational 
• Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the evaluation team
• Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support etc.)
• Ensure that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation; facilitate the team’s 
contacts with local stakeholders; set up meetings, field visits; provide logistic support during the fieldwork; and arrange for 
interpretation, if required.
• Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials as required
• Chairs the External Reference Group meetings
An Internal Evaluation Committee will be formed as part of ensuring the independence and impartiality of the evaluation. The 
membership includes M&E officer, evaluation manager, technical unit in charge of school feeding programme, Deputy (country 
director programmes), One staff each from finance and logistics unit. The key roles and responsibilities of this team includes 
providing input to evaluation process and commenting on evaluation products. 
An External Evaluation Reference Group will be formed, with representation from USDA/FAS, Ministry of Education, Feed the 
Children, WFP Country office and Regional Bureau and will review the evaluation products as further safeguard against bias and 
influence (See annex 5; External reference Group TOR).
The Regional Bureau in Nairobi: The RB management will be expected to: 
• Assign focal point for the evaluation.
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the operation, its performance and 
results. In particular, the RB should participate in the evaluation debriefing and discussions with the evaluation manager and 
team, as required. 
• Provide comments on the TORs, inception report and the evaluation report.
Headquarters: Some HQ divisions might, as relevant, be asked to discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of 
responsibility and to comment on the evaluation TOR and report. 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will review, comment and approve the baseline TOR; serve as a member of 
baseline reference group; participate in a key informant interview phone call with the selected evaluator prior to fieldwork; and 
participate in stakeholder meetings and presentation of the evaluation findings. 
The partnerships officer (Washington Office) will work closely with the WFP CO, RB, OEV and the USDA to ensure smooth 
communication and submission of key baseline deliverables. The partnerships officer will review baseline deliverables for 
adherence to USDA policy and facilitate communication with USDA; Provide feedback on draft TORs and draft baseline report; 
coordinate with the donor (USDA) to seek feedback of TORs, inception and baseline reports.
The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV will advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where 
appropriate. It is responsible to provide access to independent quality support mechanisms reviewing draft inception and 
evaluation reports from an evaluation perspective. It also ensure a help desk function upon request from the Regional Bureaux. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
58
Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, and United Nations agencies) will be identified for interviews by the evaluation team 
in addition to the list provided by WFP which will be based on the preliminary stakeholder analysis detailed in table 1. 
Communication
To enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and open 
communication with key stakeholders. These may for example take place by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and 
frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders. 
Communication with evaluation team and stakeholders should go through the Evaluation manager.
As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly available. Following the 
approval of the final evaluation report, dissemination will be broad, and workshops will be conducted both internally and with 
partners, looking at the recommendations and the way forward. Specifically;
WFP Kenya Country Office will organize an internal workshop to discuss evaluation findings and recommendations, where the 
consultant will present the key findings;
WFP in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology will organize a workshop targeting relevant external 
audiences, where the consultant will present the key findings. 
WFP will discuss the report with USDA and disseminate the findings and recommendations in various ways, including through 
discussions with WFP senior management and staff as well as with the key partners including ministries of education, health, 
agriculture as well as non-governmental partners and United Nations agencies.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
59
Annex 2: Key LRP stakeholders and their interest in the endline evaluation
Source: Endline Evaluation ToR provided by WFP Kenya
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office 
(CO) Kenya
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, it has a direct stake in 
the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience to inform decision-making. It is also called 
upon to account internally as well as to its beneficiaries, partners and donors for the programme’s 
performance and results. 
Regional Bureau 
(RB) Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of country offices and technical guidance and support, the RB 
management has an interest in an independent account of the operational performance as well as 
in learning from the evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country offices.
Office of 
Evaluation (OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, useful and credible 
evaluations. OEV management has an interest in providing decision-makers and stakeholders with 
independent accountability for results and with learning to inform policy, strategic and 
programmatic decisions. 
WFP Executive 
Board (EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP 
operations. The evaluation results will not be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into 
corporate learning processes. 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether its 
assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the baseline of women, 
men, boys and girls will be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. More 
specifically, teachers, school meals procurement committees, students, smallholder farmers, local 
traders and traders should be considered as key stakeholders.
Government, 
National and 
County Levels
Both county and national governments have a direct interest in knowing whether WFP activities in 
the country are aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the action of other partners and meet 
the expected results. The Government has the overall ownership of the school feeding programme 
and shares the interest in learning lessons for design of future programmes, including transition to 
cash model. The key line Ministries are: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and 
Fisheries, Ministry of Health including relevant Ministries at county level. County and Sub-county 
Education Officers, School Management Committees are also key as they are involved in school 
feeding programme implementation and policy support.
United Nations 
and Development 
Partners 
The Kenya United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) should contribute to the 
realisation of the government developmental objectives. Kenya United Nations Country Team 
(UNCT) has therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP operation is effective in contributing to the 
United Nations concerted efforts. WFP implements the programme within a wider UN system of 
support to government priorities. The partner agencies are interested in learning to what extent WFP 
interventions are contributing to the overall outcomes committed to the UNDAF particularly UNICEF, 
UNESCO, FAO, UNDAF thematic working groups, the Education Sector Donors Groups.
Donors 
[USDA, Australia, 
Germany, Japan, 
Russia, Private 
donors]
Whereas LRP is funded by USDA, WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. This 
project builds on the existing school feeding programme which is a multi-donor initiative. As such, 
USDA as well as other donors will have an interest in knowing how findings from this evaluation fit 
in the larger school meals programme implementation context. 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
60
Annex 3: Graphic representation of the relationship between project stakeholders
Source: Amended from a diagram originally developed by the LRP Evaluation team during the baseline inception phase
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
61
Annex 4: Results Framework – LRP Kenya
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
62
Annex 5: Completed LRP Performance Monitoring Plan 
LRP – World Food Programme - Kenya Targets Baseline values 
October 1, 2017 
- March 31, 2018
Endline: Life of 
project values
October 2017-
September 2019
# Standard/ 
Custom # Result Performance Indicator
Year 1 Year 2 Life of 
project 1 Oct 2017 –
30 Sept 2018
1 Oct 2018 –
30 Sept 2019
1 Standard #1 LRP SO 1 Number of individuals benefiting directly from 
USDA-funded intervention
31,150 31,150 31,150 721 54,895
2 Standard #2 LRP SO 1 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from 
USDA-funded intervention
61,000 61,000 61,000 0 162,082
3 Standard #3 LRP 
1.3.2.2 Value of sales by project beneficiaries
582,524 597,087 1,179,612 West Pokot: KES 
24,433,00/ USD 
244,433
Baringo: KES 
16,974,366/ USD 
169,744
Turkana: No value 
given
Turkana: USD 
147,655
4 Standard #4 LRP 
1.3.2.1
Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold by 
project beneficiaries
415 150 565 West Pokot: 
9,334.3MT
Baringo: 2020.4MT
Turkana: 16.4 MT
Turkana: 349.6 mt
5 Standard #5
LRP 
1.4.3/ 
1.4.4
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a 
result of USDA assistance
220 220 220 5 FOs (9 contracts) 5 FOs (12 contracts)
6 Standard #6
LRP 
1.4.3/ 
1.4.4
Value of public and private sector investments 
leveraged as a result of USDA assistance
582,524 597,087 1,179,612 0 Turkana: USD 
147,655
8 Standard #8
LRP 
1.4.1/ 
1.4.2
Number of policies, regulations and/or 
administrative procedures in each of the following 
stages of development as a result of USDA 
assistance
1 2 3 0 0
• National 
implementation 
Strategy in 
progress
• ECDE 
Framework 
drafted
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
63
9 Standard #9 LRP 1.3
Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a result of 
USDA assistance (by commodity and source 
country)
365 0 365 0 Turkana: 349.6 mt
10 Standard 
#10 LRP 1.3 Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA 
assistance (by commodity and source country)
165,120 0 165,120 0 Turkana: USD 
147,655
12 Standard 
#12
LRP 1.1/ 
1.2
Cost of transport, storage, and handling of 
commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance 
(by commodity)
100,301 0 100,301 0 18,242
13 Standard 
#13 LRP SO 1
Number of social assistance beneficiaries 
participating in productive safety nets as a result of 
USDA assistance
30,000 30,000 30,000 0 50,564 
(All the children in 
the schools that 
received FDC 
commodities from 
WFP)
14 Standard 
#14 LRP 1.3.2
Number of individuals who have received short￾term agricultural sector productivity or food 
security training as a result of USDA assistance
200 200 400 2,535 3,099
#1 Custom N/A Cost of distribution in schools in LRP areas 
compared to non LRP areas
TBD TBD TBD __ N/A
#2 Custom N/A Percentage of LRP schools procuring food before 
beginning of the term
80% 90% 90% N/A 0
#3 Custom N/A Percentage of schools where food is delivered to 
schools before school term begins
80% 90% 90% 19.8% 0
#4 Custom N/A Percentage of schools using diversified school 
meals menus
50% 100% 100% 0% 0
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
64
Annex 6: List of LRP baseline recommendations (2018)
• Recommendation 1: WFP and partners should continue to implement the LRP project as per the 
current agreement (2017-2020) including WFP providing technical support to the MoE and LRP 
schools as they transition to the HGSMP. 
• Recommendation 2: WFP should undertake additional data collection in LRP schools once they 
have transitioned to the HGSMP. This should include collection of timeliness and cost data and 
recalculation of the timeliness and cost-effectiveness scores.
• Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoA should ensure that the planned LRP market linkage forums 
provide opportunities for FOs to meet with local traders.
• Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to support the development of a framework that 
supports and prioritizes procurement from local farmers. This may include uncoupling 
commodities and allowing FOs to provide only the items they grow and not the whole school meals 
basket.
• Recommendation 5: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to develop practical guidance for LRP 
schools on ways to introduce locally produced drought tolerant crops into their school menus 
within their limited resources. 
• Recommendation 6: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to ensure that schools receive regular 
nutrition support since this is a new project area. 
• Recommendation 7: WFP should support the MoE to review the HGSMP transfer rate once 
updated market assessment findings are available for Baringo and West Pokot at end of 2018/early 
2019.
• Recommendation 8: WFP and the MoA should continue to support farmers to improve their 
production capacity. 
• Recommendation 9: WFP should continue to support County Governments to develop and 
implement food quality and safety strategies for school feeding programmes (including aflatoxin 
testing).
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
65
Annex 7: Maps of Kenya showing WFP and government supported school feeding activities during LRP 
baseline (March 2018) and at endline (October 2019).
• Map 1 – March 2018
Source: WFP Kenya
• Map 2 – October 2019
Source: WFP Kenya
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
66
Annex 8: Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation questions Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of 
data analysis
Data availability
RELEVANCE
Determine if the LRP project design is relevant and coherent with key policies and strategies and identify any shortcomings.
Was the project designed to 
reach the right people with 
the right type of assistance?
i.e. were women and girls 
appropriately targeted, and 
their relevant needs met?
Does the project meet a 
specific need?
How was targeting done? 
How were schools chosen for 
the LRP? How were Farmer 
Organizations chosen? How 
were suppliers chosen? Have 
any key groups been 
excluded?
Do stakeholders have 
suggestions for improving the 
LRP design and/or targeting 
criteria?
Clear project purpose. 
Clear targeting criteria 
and rationale for 
selection of all 
beneficiary groups (FOs, 
supplier and schools). 
LRP project related 
documents including 
market assessments 
if available.
Background 
documents on the 
context of agriculture 
in the
targeted counties.
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Secondary document 
review. 
Qualitative interviews 
with WFP personnel, 
school personnel, FOs 
and traders.
Descriptive 
analysis.
Triangulation of 
documents and 
results from key 
informant 
interviews.
Project 
documentation and 
policy documents 
are available.
WFP to provide 
additional 
documentation 
when available.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
Information on 
interventions by
other partners to be 
collected by the
team with support 
from WFP and 
through KII 
interviews as 
appropriate. 
Is the project aligned with 
national government’s 
relevant policies and 
strategies, including gender 
policies?
Does the current design of the 
LRP align with relevant 
policies and strategies of the 
Government of Kenya and 
WFP? 
Does the LRP design align with 
other WFP work in Kenya? 
Does the LRP design align with 
the work of other 
development partners 
working in the same sector?
Do stakeholders have 
suggestions for improving the 
LRP design?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with 
government objectives 
and legislative direction. 
LRP project related 
planning
and implementation
documents.
Government and WFP 
policy documents.
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Secondary document 
review. 
Qualitative interviews 
with MoE 
representatives at 
national and county 
level.
Does the project 
complement other donor￾funded and government 
initiatives?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with the 
direction of other 
development actors. 
Evidence of partnerships.
Evidence of 
complementarity and no 
evidence of duplication.
Documentation of 
projects by other 
development actors
at national and 
district level. 
Interviews with other 
development 
partners.
Secondary document 
review. 
Qualitative interviews 
with other 
development actors.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
67
Evaluation questions Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of data 
analysis
Data availability
EFFECTIVENESS
Determine if the activities outlined in the LRP are likely to result in an effective programme.
Has the project resulted in 
increased access to markets for 
sale of agricultural products? 
E.g. were women farmers 
targeted and supported to 
increase their access to markets 
for sale (or provide gender 
disaggregated data)
Is the produce from targeted FOs 
being sold to schools?
What are the current volumes of 
food commodities (and type) being 
produced by the FOs? (compared to 
how much food schools need) i.e. 
Are producers able to meet 
demand?
Is it likely that project activities will 
enable farmers to supply adequate 
volumes of food for the schools in 
their locations? If not, what are the 
current challenges faced by 
farmers?
Current value of sales by 
project beneficiaries (FOs 
and traders)
Current volume of 
commodities (metric tons) 
sold by project 
beneficiaries.
Ability of FOs and traders 
to access the school 
procurement process.
Identified support required 
by schools, FOs and 
traders.
Quantitative 
survey of key LRP 
stakeholders.
FO and trader 
records (if 
required).
WFP monitoring 
data.
Interviews with 
key LRP 
stakeholders.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with 
key LRP 
stakeholders.
Quantitative 
survey of FOs and 
traders.
Quantitative data 
analysis of survey 
findings.
Comparison of case 
and control school 
findings.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey 
findings and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Information from 
stakeholders will 
be collected in the 
field.
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate. 
Has the project contributed to 
strengthening local and regional 
food market systems?
Has the presence of the HGSMP had 
any impact on the local markets? 
Changes in price? Volume? Etc.
Ability of FOs and traders 
to meet demand.
Number of traders and 
local farmers contributing 
to HGSMP
Evidence of improved 
linkages between farmers 
and schools
Quantitative 
survey of key LRP 
stakeholders
WFP monitoring 
data and market 
surveys
Interviews with 
key LRP 
stakeholders.
Quantitative 
survey of FOs and 
traders.
Has the project resulted in 
improved access to culturally 
acceptable foods? E.g. have the 
nutritional needs of boys and 
girls been met?
Is there evidence of increased 
access to and use of various, high 
quality nutritious and culturally 
appropriate foods in school’s 
meals? What are the barriers to 
this?
Evidence that schools use 
locally procured food to 
provide diversified school 
meals e.g. menus.
Number of schools using 
diverse menus
Interviews with 
key LRP 
stakeholders.
Quantitative 
survey of school 
personnel.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
68
Evaluation questions Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of data 
analysis
Data availability
Has the project 
resulted in improved 
cost-effectiveness of 
food assistance 
delivery?
What are the costs of providing 
food assistance to schools –
through HSGMP and through 
other means?
Comparison of the price of 
school meals of the HGSMP 
and the in-kind modality 
being used in Turkana
Cost for procurement, 
distribution and delivery of 
food under the two 
modalities
Endoline to establish changes 
in the cost of food assistance 
provision over time. 
WFP financial data Secondary document 
review. 
Qualitative interviews 
with WFP
Quantitative data 
analysis of WFP data
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate.
EFFICIENCY
Determine if the activities outlined in the LRP are likely to result in an efficient programme.
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
assistance?
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
procurement for 
schools?
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
delivery to schools?
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
distribution schools?
What is the current procurement 
process for selling food 
commodities to schools? What 
are the barriers to access?
What is the current lead-time for 
procurement? For delivery? And 
for distribution?
How often does LRP face pipeline 
breaks compared with other 
food procurement modalities 
(i.e. Turkana)?
Timeliness of food delivery to 
LRP schools (Term 1, 2018):
• Number of schools 
receiving food prior 
to start of term.
• Dates when funding 
provided to schools.
• Tendering process 
start dates.
• Food delivery dates
• Distribution dates
Frequency and duration of 
pipeline breaks. 
Number of school feeding 
days
Quantitative survey 
of key LRP 
stakeholders.
School records (if 
required).
Documentation 
from tender 
process of Term 1, 
2018.
Secondary document 
review. 
Qualitative interviews 
with key LRP 
stakeholders
Quantitative data 
analysis of survey 
findings.
Comparison of case 
and control school 
findings.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate
How many schools are currently 
receiving their food commodities 
before the first day of school 
term? 
Do stakeholders have 
suggestions for improving the 
timeliness of procurement?
Quantitative survey 
of FOs, traders and 
school personnel.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey 
findings and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
69
Evaluation questions Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of data 
analysis
Data availability
IMPACT
Determine if the LRP is likely to have any unintended positive or negative outcomes or impact.
What are the possible 
unintended outcomes, 
either positive or 
negative? Is the 
project taking into 
consideration an 
appropriate mitigation 
strategy? Can these 
unintended outcomes 
be gender 
disaggregated?
Can stakeholders identify any 
potential unintended outcomes or 
impacts of the project? And 
identify mitigation measures?
Stakeholder able to identify 
potential negative outcomes 
or impacts.
Potential mitigation strategies 
identified and/or already 
actioned.
LRP project 
documents re 
potential risks 
identified during 
design phase and 
mitigation measures 
undertaken.
Qualitative interviews 
with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant interviews 
and quantitative 
survey results.
LRP project documents 
are available from WFP.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
Do the other assessment findings 
indicate that a change to project 
design is required in order to 
prevent negative impacts?
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Qualitative interviews 
with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant interviews 
and quantitative 
survey results.
LRP project documents 
are available from WFP.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
What internal and collected in the field.
external factors are 
likely to affect the 
project’s results?
What are the key factors that are 
likely to contribute to the success 
or otherwise of the LRP?
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
SUSTAINABILITY
Determine if the results of the LRP are likely to be sustainable.
What are the 
challenges that could 
affect the 
sustainability of the 
programme? 
To what extent is it 
likely that the benefits 
of the project will 
continue after the end 
of the project?
Are the LPR activities likely to 
produce sustainable results? 
Can stakeholders identify any 
specific barriers to 
sustainability?
What is the involvement of the 
government?
How much input is from WFP vs. 
Government?
Stakeholders believe that 
project will be sustainable.
Evidence of sufficient 
government involvement and 
funding.
Evidence of partnerships and 
leveraging private funding.
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Qualitative interviews 
with key LRP 
stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant interviews 
and quantitative 
survey results.
LRP project documents 
are available from WFP.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
What are the key 
factors that are likely 
to affect the 
sustainability of the 
results of the project?
Multiple stakeholders identify 
similar factors that are likely to 
affect to sustainability of the 
project.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
70
Annex 9: List of data and documents provided to the evaluation team by WFP Kenya
• 190701 Final Value Chain Study Report Baringo County .pdf
• 190701 Final Value Chain Study Report West Pokot County.pdf
• 200680 SPR 2017- Published Version.pdf
• ACR- Final Published Report.pdf
• AMAL FO profiles and contacts -Turkana.xls
• Approved CSP 2018.pdf
• Baringo and West Pokot LRP Supplier Information-excel sheet.xlsx
• Copy of WFP Kenya - Performance Monitoring Plan_ver2.xlsx
• Final Baseline Report 13 November.pdf
• Kenya LRP-615-2017-035-00- Signed Agreement.pdf
• Kenya MGD SF Midline Report Final 31 October 2018 Revised 18 June 2019.pdf
• Kenya- LRP biannual narrative report -April -September 2019 reviewed.docx
• Kenya- LRP Semi-annual Narrative Report - Oct 2018 -March 2019.docx
• Semi-annual LRP Report Narrative April- September 2018.docx
• Semi-annual Report Narrative September 2017- March 2018- LRP.docx
• SPR-200680-12.02.2019.pdf
• West Pokot Food Supply Chain Assessment Report - Final- 28.09.2018.pdf
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
71
Annex 10: Quantitative survey tools
Local and Regional Procurement Project
 Endline Evaluation Survey Questionnaire for Traders/Suppliers
Introduction
INTERVIEW DATE ______/______/______
 DD MM YY
INTERVIEW START TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
A. Personal Information
Full Names of Business 
Owner
Address Mobile/Phone 
No.
Email address
Gender of owner (Tick one)
r Male
r Female
Age bracket r 18-35 r 36-55 r Over 55 
County
Sub￾County
Trading 
Centre
Educational Qualifications 
(Please tick the highest 
education level attained)
rPrimary r Secondary rDiploma rDegree
B. Business Information
Full Names of Business
Which year did the business 
begin?
No. of 
Employees Gender of Employees r Male ……………. r Female ………….
Does your business have the 
following licenses? Valid trade license r Yes r No
A business registration certificate r Yes r No
Any other related licenses 
………………………………………………………………………
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
72
C. Grain Trading
1.What staple 
commodities do 
you trade in?
Cereals
r Maize
r Rice
r Sorghum
r Bulgur wheat
r Others Cereals 
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………
Pulses
r Beans
r Peas
r Cowpeas
r Pigeon peas
r Green grams
r Others Pulses 
………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………
………
2. Please estimate 
total volume of 
commodities you sell 
each year
________________________ MT per year
3. From whom do 
you buy most of your 
commodities?
r Small Scale farmers 
 If yes, please estimate the number of smallholder farmers you purchase 
from each year r<50 r 50-100 r >150
r Large Scale farmers
r Farmer Organizations 
 Please estimate the volume of commodities purchased from FOs 
……………. (MT)
r Other traders/middlemen
r Others (specify)
4. When you have to 
transport 
commodities, what 
means of 
transportation do 
you usually use?
r Carried (head or back)
r Bicycle/Motorcycle
r Pick up
r Lorry
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
73
(multiple answers 
allowed)
r Public Transport
r None/ Don’t transport
5. What facilities do 
you use for long –
term storage?
rBasic earth granaries (traditional storage)
rPermanent Owned Warehouse (Belongs to the trader) Capacity in MT 
………………
rPermanent Rented Warehouse
6. Current volume of 
grains in KShs./Stock 
(MT/Bags)
_______________ KShs
_______________MT
7. To whom do you 
sell your 
commodities?
(multiple answers 
allowed)
rHouseholds/individuals rRetail store
rMillers/brewers/processors rOther traders
rHospitals rGovernment Food agencies
rInternational Development Agencies rSchools 
rNGOs
Others…………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………
……………......………………………………………………………………………….……………………………
……………
8. Did you sell 
commodities to 
schools through a 
competitive tender 
between 2016-2017? 
r Yes If yes, were you able to provide all the required food items as ordered 
before the start of school term? r Yes r No If no, why not?
 r Order from school came too late
 r Unable to locate some required 
items
 r Delayed due to problems of 
transport 
 r Other (specify) 
r No If no, have you bid but not won? r Yes r No 
9. Have you ever 
received any 
training on how to 
prepare bids for 
tender, or any 
similar training? 
r Yes If yes, please provide details of which agency and year of training.
r No
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
74
10. What are the 
main barriers to you 
purchasing higher 
volumes of food 
commodities from 
smallholder 
farmers?
r Volume of commodities produced by each farmer
r Purchase price
r Transportation of commodities￾r Other 
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
11. What are the ______
major challenges 
encountered in 
grain trading? 
Please rate between 
1(least)-5(major)s
Lack of finances 
_____________________________
Lack of proper equipment 
_____________________________
Limited market/market information 
_____________________________
High transport costs 
_____________________________
Any other major challenges 
_____________________________
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
75
Agricultural Market Access and Linkages for Smallholder Farmers
Baseline Survey Questionnaire for Farmer Organizations
Introduction
My name is and I am working for the World Food Programme /. 
Thank you [name of organization] for making time 
to meet with us. We are conducting a survey of farmers’ organizations and would like to get 
information about groups’ governance, production, assets, marketing of its members’ commodities, 
financial management, trainings and sustainability. 
The United Nations World Food Programme is the world's largest humanitarian agency fighting hunger 
worldwide. The mission of WFP is to help the world achieve Zero Hunger in our lifetimes. Every 
day, WFP works worldwide to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry and that the poorest and most 
vulnerable, particularly women and children, can access the nutritious food they need.
We would like to talk with you to understand the group better so that we can plan and support you 
in a more informed way. The survey is voluntary and we shall not use the information for any other 
reason than aforementioned. 
Do you have any questions?
Questionnaire number
Name of the interviewer
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
76
Background Information 
County: 
Sub-county:
Village name: 
Urban/Rural:
Name of farmers’ organization 
Contact Person 
Mobile Number
Name of respondent
Position in the farmers’ organization
Date of interview |__|__| |__|__| 20|__|__|
Day Month Year
Section A. Group Governance 
A1. In what year was this farmer’s organization established? |__||__||__||__|
A1.1 Is your farmer’s organization legally registered? If No skip to A2 1 = Yes
2 = No
A 1.2 In what year was this farmer’s organization legally registered? |__||__||__||__|
A2. How many registered 
members does the 
organization have? 
How many have paid their 
annual membership fee to 
date? 
How many elected leaders (committee 
members) does the organization have? 
A B C
1 Men |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|
2 Women |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|
A3. How many members of the organization are transitioned from food 
assistance
Men Women
|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|
A 3.1 No Formal 
education
Primary education Secondary 
education
Post-Secondary 
education
How many of the committee members have? 
(completed)
A4. Is there clear division of responsibility for the committee 
members? (Each committee members role should be 
clearly defined and also executed)
(Probe 
1 = Yes
2 = No
A5. Are executive committee members held accountable for 
management of the group? 
1 = Yes
2 = No
A5.I Please indicate how
1. Regular elections
2. Minimum mandatory committee meeting attendance
3. Performance of roles/activities assigned in the Committee
A6. Is there an incentive to be a committee member? 
(Reward (payment or in-kind) to committee members 
1 = Yes
2 = No
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
77
depending on amount of responsibility and this should 
be documented)
A7. How many group members are active? 
A8. Type of farmer organization/group? (Circle the answer)
1 = Self Help Group
2 = Community Based Organization (CBO)
3 = Cooperative/FO with trading company
4 = Other (specify)
A8.I What governance system governs your group? 
1. A constitution
2. Articles of association 
3. Other
A9. How often does your organization hold elections? (Circle 
the answer) 
1 = Every year
2 = Every two years
3 = Every three years
4= Other (specify)
A10. Were elections done as per the governance system if 
there is one? (Refer to A8.1)
1 = Elections done as per the governance system stipulations
2 = Elections not done as per the governance system stipulations 
A11. How often does the organization hold meetings for all 
members? (Circle the answer)
1 = Weekly 2 = Monthly 3 = Bimonthly
4 = Quarterly 5 = Annually 6= Never meet 7=Other
A12. Is the frequency of meetings done as per the 
governance system? 
1 = Done as per the governance system stipulations
2 = Not done as per the governance system stipulations 
A13. What kind of records does the organization keep? 
(Circle all answers applicable)
Verify the records by seeing them
1 = Minutes of meetings
2 = Membership register
3 = List of assets
4 = Store inventory for food commodities and other assets
5 = Invoices, delivery notes and receipt books 
6 = Bank Statements or Deposit and withdrawal slips
7 = Financial statements and Monthly, Annual Income /Expenditure 
Account, 
8= Member contribution records
9 = Training records
10= Other (specify)____________________
A14. How many employees does the organization have Men |__|__|Women |__|__| If none move to section B
A14.1 Type of employee (for the different types of employees 
indicate numbers under casual or permanent, or otherwise zero)
Type of employee Contract type 
Casual
Contract type 
Permanent
155. Manager 
156. Accountant
157. Clerk
158. Watchman 
159. Others (Specify)
Section B. Production 
B1. Estimated cumulative total area actually planted by members 
in acres? 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
78
B2. Type of crop grown (Grains)? 
1. Sorghum 5. Green grams 
2. Pigeon peas 6. Maize
3. Cow peas 7. Other (Specify) 
4. Beans 
9.
B2.2 Type of crop grown (Vegetables)?
1. Kale 5. Irish Potatoes 
2. Cabbages 6. Other (specify) 
3. Tomatoes 
4. Onions 
160.
B2.3 Type of crop grown (Fruits)?
1. Mangoes 
2. Watermelons 
3. Paw paws 
4. Other (Specify) 
161. 
B3. Seasons? Mm/yy –mm-yy (to capture all seasons)
B4. How many members of the group have their soil quality 
tested before planting? 
B5. Besides crop production what other agricultural activities are 
undertaken by the group?
1. Poultry farming
2. Bee keeping
3. Cattle farming
4. Dairy Farming
5. Fish Farming
6. Goat farming
7. Other (specify) 
B6. Do members of the group use certified/recommended 
inputs? If no, skip to B15
1. Yes
2. No
B6.1 Which are the certified/recommended inputs used?
1. Seeds
2. Fertilizer
3. Agrochemicals
4. Feeds
5. Other (specify)
B7. Does this organization collectively buy inputs? If no, move 
to question B15
1 = Yes
2 = No
B7.1 How do members of the groups access the inputs? If 
through donation, skip to B12
1. Direct Purchase
2. Donation 
B7.2. How many of your registered members access inputs 
through the organization? Men |__|__||__| : Women |__|__||__|
B7.3 If not all members are accessing inputs through the 
organization what are the reasons? ?
1. Lack of adequate awareness/knowledge 
2. Lack of access to credit
3. Poor FO governance/management
4. Purchase inputs individually
5. Any other reason (specify);
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
79
B8. Where (which suppliers) has the organization bought inputs 
from in the past one year? (Tick/circle all that apply)
1= Seed companies
2 = Pest/Disease control companies
3= NCPB
4 = Input suppliers
5 = Retailers
6 = Other (specify) 
B 9. Did the organization sign any contract with the suppliers 
above? 
1 = Yes
2 = No 
B110.Who determines the prices paid when the group purchases 
inputs? 
1 = Supplier
2 = Farmer Organization
3 = Government
4 = Other (specify)
B111. Where are most of your suppliers located? 
1 = Within the ward 
2 = Within the county but outside the ward
3 = Outside the county
4 = Outside the country
B12.Did you receive the following types of assistance? 
(Prompt as necessary) Who provided the assistance? 
1 = Yes
2 = No See codes below
a b
1 Subsidized or free seeds |__| |__|
2 Subsidized or free fertilizer |__| |__|
3 Subsidized or free farming implements (tools/ 
agriculture machinery ) |__| |__|
4 Subsidized or free pesticides/herbicides |__| |__|
5 Providing or rehabilitating storage facilities |__| |__|
6 Loans of agricultural tools or work animals |__| |__|
B12 b: Assistance provider codes
1 = Government
2 = International/national NGO
3 = International development agencies (UN, USAID, GTZ, etc.)
4 = Buyers
5 = National/Umbrella Farmers’ Association
6 = Other (specify)
B13. What is the most common way the organization gets inputs from the suppliers? |__|
B13: Delivery method codes
1 = Organization collects inputs from suppliers 
2 = Suppliers deliver to the organization
3= Not Applicable 
B14. What is the most common way the organization gets inputs to its members? |__|
B14. Delivery method codes
1 = Members collect inputs from farmer organization
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
80
2 = Farmer organization delivers inputs to its members
3= Not Applicable
B15. How do members handle their commodity 
during/after harvest?
1. Timely harvest
2. Conduct sorting for the produce after harvesting
3. Placing produce on open/bare ground during harvesting and 
drying
4. Use of tarpaulins during harvesting/drying
B16. How does the organization support members on 
post-harvest management?
1. Provide drying facilities
2. Provision of handling equipment/technology – (hermetic bags, 
tarpaulins, moisture meters etc)
3. Provision of transport facilities to farmers
4. Provision of Storage facilities
5. Post-harvest information sharing/education to members
6. Other (specify)
B17. If aggregating/ selling collectively, what is the 
estimated quantity of commodity produce expected from 
all members per season? (list per commodity)
1. Commodity one |__||__||__||__|mts
2. Commodity two |__||__||__||__|mts
3. Commodity three |__||__||__||__|mts
B18. What is the estimated percentage of the main 
produce that is consumed by members at the household 
level?
1. Less than 25%
2. 25-50%
3. 50-65%
4. Over 75% 
B19. Does the organization have strategies in place which 
make the members less vulnerable to weather-related risks 
or natural disasters? The weather-related risks or natural 
disasters include floods, drought, high/low rainfall, high/low 
temperature, high/low humidity, earthquakes and volcanic 
activities. If none skip to B20
1 = Yes
2 = No 
B19.1 If yes, what type of strategies are in place? 
1 = Insurance
2 = Irrigation
3 = Crop diversification and intercropping
4 = Mixed farming
5= Drought and pest resistant varieties
6= Other (specify)
B 20. Does the organization have strategies in place which 
make the members less vulnerable to biological and 
environmental risks? The biological and environmental risks 
include crop/livestock contamination, diseases and pests, 
soil erosion If none skip to section C
1 = Yes
2 = No
B20.1 If yes, what type of strategies are in place? 
1 = Drought/pest resistant varieties
2 = Adequate production and harvesting techniques
3 = Adequate post-harvesting techniques and technology
4 = Food safety and Quality management 
5 = Crop diversification and intercropping 
6 = Good farm hygiene
7 = Other (specify)
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
81
Comments
Section C. Group Assets 
C1. Does this organization have access to storage facilities? 1 = Yes
2 = No (If no skip to C4)
C2. If yes, what are the terms ownership? 
1 = Leased/loaned temporarily
2 = Long term lease
3 = Own temporary store
4= Own permanent store
5 = Other (specify)
C3. What is the capacity of the store? (Record in MT)
C4. Does the organization have any of the following marketing 
equipment? 
1 = Yes 
2 = No move to C5
C4.1 If yes, for each equipment list the following?
Type/Name Number
Current Condition
1. In good condition
2. In need of service
3. Broken down
4. Never Used
1. Sieve
2. Drier
3. Tarpaulins
4. Sheller
5. Moisture meter
6. Weighing scale
7. Pallets
8. Other (specify)
162.
C5. Does the organization own land collectively? If No skip to 
section D 1 = Yes
2 = No
C5.1 If yes record the size in acres |__|__||__||__|__||__|
C5.2 How is the land utilized? 
1. Own farming activities 
2. Own aggregation activities 
3. Leasing to others for use 
4. Building storage facility
5. Not utilized
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
82
6. Other 
Comments
Section D: Marketing 
D1. Does this organization have a business plan? If No skip to section D2 1 = Yes
2 = No
D1.1 Who developed the business plan? 
1. Committee members
2. External party (such as consultant, NGO, 
Financial institution, County Government 
officer)
D1.2 Has the organization followed through on the business plan 1 = Yes
2 = No
D1.3 What is the strength of the business plan (strength measured by: SMART 
objectives, market analysis, projection of volumes to be aggregated )- ensure 
you review the copy of the business plan
1= Considered weak
2= Considered average
3 = Considered strong
D1.4 Is there clear system of monitoring business plan (are the respondents able 
to explain the system) list a few aspects of the system
1 = Yes
2 = No
D2. Does this organization have a marketing plan? If No skip to section D3 1 = Yes
2 = No
D2.1 Who developed the marketing plan ?
1. Committee members
2. External party (such as consultant, NGO, 
Financial institution, County Government 
officer)
D2.2 Has the organization followed through on the marketing plan 1 = Yes
2 = No
D3. Does the organization monitor market trends/requirements related to 
product quality and market demand? If No skip to section D4
1 = Yes
2 = No 
D3.1 What are the sources of these information? 
1. Media (radio, TV, Newpapers)
2. County staff (extension, agribusiness 
officers)
3. Mobile application 
4. Others 
D4. Does this organization aggregate and market members’ food commodities? If 
no, move to question D112.2
1 = Yes
2 = No
D5. What percentage of total production volume do members sell through the 
organization? 
D6. Where (which markets) has the organization sold their commodities in the 
past one year? (Tick/circle all that apply)
1= Consumers (individuals)
2 = Retailer traders
3= Wholesaler traders
4 = Schools
5 = Millers
6 = Hospitals 
7 = Brewers
8= WFP
9= NCPB
10 = Other (specify) 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
83
D7. In the past one year, what is the total quantity (mt) that the organization has 
sold to different markets? (Record exact value in mt) 
D8. Does the organization ensure they aggregate good quality commodity? If no, 
move to question D9
1 = Yes
2 = No
D8.1 How do they ensure the standards are adhered to? 
1. By harvesting at the right time and using good practices at harvesting 
(harvesting dry, mature produce, shielding from rain)
2. By testing the moisture content
3. Ensuring produce is clean and free of any foreign matter
4. Grading and sorting of produce after harvest 
5. Proper storage techniques 
6.Any other (specify) 
D9. Did the organization sign any contract with the buyers above? If no, move to 
question D10 1 = Yes
2 = No 
D9.1 If yes, how many contracts did the organization sign |__|__||__|
D9.2 What was the monetary value of the contract(s)
D9.3 Of the total contracts signed, how many were executed successfully? |__|__||__|
D9.4. Of the total contracts signed, how many were partially defaulted |__|__||__|
D9.5. Of the total contracts signed, how many were totally defaulted |__|__||__|
D10.Who determines the commodity prices? 
1 = Buyer
2 = Farmer Organization
3 = Government
4 = Other (specify)
D11. Where are most of your buyers located? 
WFP market is considered outside the county 
1 = Within the ward 
2 = Within the county but outside the ward
3 = Outside the county
4 = Outside the country
D12. On average, how many of your registered members market their 
commodities through the organization? 
D12.1 How many of the members that market commodities through FO are 
women? |__|__||__|
D12.2 If not all members are marketing their commodities 
through the organization , what are the reasons ?
1. Lack of adequate awareness/knowledge 
2. Inadequate production
3. No (not enough) storage
4. Difficult to find markets to sell large volumes 
5. Farmers unwilling to deliver to group
6. Any other reason (specify);
D13. What is the most common way the organization gets produce from members to a collection point for sale 
or delivery?
|__|
D13. Delivery method codes
1 = Farmer organization collects produce from members
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
84
2 = Members deliver their produce to the organization
3 = The buyer collects the produce from individual members (If Buyer collects then skip D14)
D14. What is the most common way the organization gets members’ produce from the organization’s 
collection point to a market/buyer where you can sell? |__|
D14: Delivery method codes
1 = Organization delivers products to buyers
2 = Buyers collect from organization
D15. What are the five most critical problems your organization faces in selling 
staple commodities on behalf of your members? 
a b c
|__| |__| |__|
D15: Problems codes
1 = Limited consumer demand for products
2 = Limited access to pricing information
3 = High costs of collecting and preparing commodities for 
market
4 = Limited access to credit to pre-purchase commodities 
from members
5 = Low volume of staple commodities available from 
members (for example, because of late payment from 
buyers, lack of trust in organization, low production, 
etc.)
6 = Government trade restrictions 
8 = Poor transportation infrastructure
9 = Not able to meet quality demands of buyers
10 = Unpredictable prices/price fluctuations
11 = Other (specify)
D16. What source of price and market information have members relied on most often? |__|
D16: Market information sources
1 = Radio/TV
2 = Information boards at local agricultural offices
3 = Newspapers
4 = SMS system/mobile phone
5 = Other (specify)
D17. Does the organization have any value addition activity on current produce If 
No skip to D18
1 = Yes
2 = No
D17.1 If yes specify
1. Sorting
2. Grading
3. Packaging
4. Milling
5. Polishing
6. Baking
7. Fortification
8. Drying
9. Other (specify)
D18. How can your organization be assisted to market its produce?
1. Improve infrastructure
2. Avail market prices
3. Price determination
4. Training on marketing
5. Policy and advocacy
6. Market linkage
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
85
7. Support on aggregation
8. Other (specify)
Comments
Section E: Group Financial Management
E1. Does your group have a bank account 1 = Yes 2 = No
E1.1 What type is the account 1. Savings 2. Current (transactional) 3. Fixed(investment)
E2. Has this organization ever applied for cash loans? 1 = Yes 2 = No
(If “Yes”, go to question E3) 
(If “No”, go to question E6)
E3. Were any credit applications approved and the loans received? 1 = Yes 2 = No
(If “Yes”, go to question E4) 
(If “No”, go to question E5)
E4. Please tell me about the cash loans this organization has received in the last one year.
Lender
Purpose of the 
loan
What amount did you 
receive?
What is 
the current 
status of 
the loan?
What is the 
interest rate 
per annum? 
(%)
How many members 
benefitted? (Gender 
disaggregated)
What is 
the 
repayment 
period (no. 
of months)
Men Women
a c d e f g h
1 |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
2 |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
3 |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__| |__|__| |__|__|
E4 a: Lender types 5 = Agricultural supply 
companies
E4d: Loan status codes
1 = Fully repaid
2 = Payments up to date but 
not fully paid off
3 = Payments not yet due
4 = In default
 1 = Bank
 2 = Buyers (forward payment)
 3 = Microfinance institution, 
including SACCOS
 4 = NGOs, International 
development agencies (UN, 
USAID, GTZ, etc.)
6 = Affiliated farmers’ 
organization
7 = Government fund
8 = Other (specify)
E4b: Purpose of loan
1 = To purchase inputs and 
equipment
2 = Buy more products 
(aggregation)for sale 
3= Build/improve infrastructure 
(store, water and sanitation, 
irrigation, electricity) 
4= Buy land 
5= Market product (including 
transport) 
6 = Other (specify)
E5. What was the main reason the farmers’ 
organization did not receive the loan?
(Go to question E7)
|__|
1 = Had other outstanding loans
2 = Could not provide business plan
3 = Did not meet the qualification criteria
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
86
4 = Could not provide requested collateral
5 = Lack of credit history
6 = Other (specify)
E7. Does this group offer credit services to its members? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If “Yes” go E8)
E7.1 Why doesn’t the group offer credit to members 1. Lack of funds 
2. Members do not require credit from the FO 
3. Members defaulted in the past 
4. Most members access credit individually
5. Other (specify)
E8. If yes, please tell me about the cash loans this organization has given to its members in the last one year.
How much was disbursed to 
members?
What is the interest rate 
per annum? (%)
How many members benefitted? (Gender 
disaggregated)
Men Women
a b c d
1 |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
2 |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
3 |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__| |__|__|__|__| |__|__|__| |__|__|__|__|
E9.( For groups aggregating) does the organization pay members for 
their commodity before the buyers make payment (If No skip 
to E10)
1 = Yes
2 = No
E9.1Where do the funds come from?
1. Loan from a financial service provider;
2. Advances from buyers; 
3. Farmer Organization’s financial reserves; 
4. Other {Specify} 
E10. Does the organization set aside some funds to facilitate 
production and marketing activities 
1 = Yes
2 = No
E11. Does the organization ensure a financial strategy and planning? 
(makes budgets, financial projections, allocation of funds and 
monitoring use)
1 = Yes
2 = No
E12. Does the organization retain reserves for use in times of financial 
distress? (savings, profits, membership fees and others) 
1 = Yes
2 = No
Section F: Training 
F1: Has any of your committee members been trained in the past year? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If “No”, go to question 
F2) 
F1.1 If yes, how many were trained on?
E6. Why has the organization never applied for 
credit? |__|
1 = Did not need credit
2 = Lack of consensus in the organization
3 = No credit providers in our area
4 = Credit providers do not give credit to farmers
5 = Rates are too high
6 = Do not have the required collateral
7 = Lack of knowledge about access to loans
8 = Other
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
87
TOPIC YES NO Number of 
committee 
Members trained
Training provider e.g. Cereal 
Growers Association, Ministry of 
Agriculture
Male Female
a. Group dynamics(governance)
b. Organizational behaviour
c. Leadership Skills
d. Other (specify) 
e. Other (specify)
F2: Has any of your members been trained in the past year? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If “No”, go to question F3) 
F2.1 If yes, how many were trained on?
TOPIC YES NO Number of 
Members trained
Training provider e.g. Cereal 
Growers Association, Ministry of 
Agriculture Male Female
a. Good agronomic practices
b. Conservation agriculture
b. Post-harvest handling
c. Entrepreneurship
d. Gender in agribusiness
e. Setting and negotiating prices for produce
f. Procurement processes e.g. filling in 
tenders
g. Record keeping
h. Aflatoxin awareness
i. Financial Management/literacy
k. Collective marketing (aggregation) 
l. Contract management 
m Price margin and profit calculation 
n. Other (specify)
F3. Does the organization offer services to its members (If “No”, go to 
comments section) 
1 = Yes
2 = No
F4. If yes, what types of services do they provide
1 = Trainings and other technical assistance
2 = Quality control and inspection
3 = Market research
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
88
4 = Other
Comments: How has the organization applied the skills obtained during the trainings? 
Comments: What is the impact of the trainings on the activities of the organization? 
Comments: What other areas do your members need training in the next year?
Comments: What other services are provided by NGOs and government that have not been covered during this session?
Section G: Sustainability
G1. Does the group have good relations with organizations who can assist them in 
building their group capacities?
1 = Yes
2 = No
G2. Can the group operate and function independently from organizations that assist in 
building group capacities?
1 = Yes
2 = No
G3. Does the group have a good relationship with the local communities it is operating 
in?
1 = Yes
2 = No
G4. Does the group have adequate technical support from the line ministries? 1 = Yes
2 = No
G5. What other support does the group feel it is required but not addressed by the current enablers?
GPS coordinates (record in decimal 
degrees)…………………………
Latitude (N/S) Longitude East
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
89
Local and Regional Procurement Project
Endline Evaluation Survey Questionnaire for Teacher’s responsible for school 
meals and/or School Meal Committee Members
Introduction
INTERVIEW DATE ______/______/______
 DD MM YY
INTERVIEW START TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
______/______
HH MM 
County: 
Sub-county:
ID and name of school: |__||__||__| _____________________________________________________________
Type of school |__| Day school |__| Boarding school |__| Both day and boarding school
Case or control school: 
|__| Case (LRP targeted): 
|__| Control
Number of students as at 
Term 3, 2019 (Excluding 
ECD)
Contact Person 
Mobile Number
Provision of school lunch
1. How does your school currently 
provide school lunch?
|__| Directly provided by WFP 
|__| Through WFP funding (cash) (Cash to Schools)
|__| Through MoE funding (HGSMP)
|__| Directly provided by the government
2. Other than the source above, does 
your school also get food for lunch 
from any of the following sources?
YES NO
|__| |__| The county government
|__| |__| School’s farm
|__| |__| The church
|__| |__| The parents teachers association
|__| |__| Direct contributions from parents
|__| |__| Other NGOs
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
90
3. For Term 3, 2019 was food for 
lunch delivered before the school 
term began? (tick the appropriate 
cell).
|__| Yes 
|__| No 
4. How many days after start of Term 
3, 2019 did the lunch food delivery 
arrive?
 
____________ days 
(If delivered before start of term enter zero)
5. Did your school experience any of 
the following problems with the 
lunch food supplied during Term 3, 
2019?
YES NO
|__| |__| Bags arrived in poor condition (e.g. open/torn)
|__| |__| Food was infested
|__| |__| Incorrect amount arrived (i.e. not as ordered)
|__| |__| Supplier refused to bring food directly to school
|__| |__| Other
(specify) _____________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
6. During Term 3, 2019, how many 
days was the school NOT able to 
provide lunch due to the following 
reasons?
Number of days
|__|__| No food available
|__|__| No one to prepare meals
|__|__|Not enough water
|__|__| Not enough firewood
|__|__|Food cannot be prepared when it rains due to poor condition of kitchen
|__|__|Other (please specify) ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
7. In total how many days during 
Term 3, 2019 did you NOT provide 
school lunch? 
____________ days
8. For Term 3, 2019 was the lunch 
food procurement process
completed before the start of the 
term?
|__| Yes
|__| No
|__| WFP procured the food
|__| Central government procured the food
9. How many traders did your school 
utilize for school lunch provision 
during Term 3, 2019?
|______|
10. What was the total volume for 
each commodity your school 
procured for lunch during Term 3, 
2019 (in KG)?
11. What was the total value of 
commodities procured for school 
lunch during Term 3, 2019?
Commodity Q10. Total Volume Q11. Total Value
Sorghum
Rice
CSB
MSB
Bulgur Wheat
Beans
Yellow split peas
Green gram
Maize
Oil
Salt
Cowpeas
Vegetables
Fruits
Tomatoes
Onions
Other 1 (specify)………………………………
Other 2 (specify)………………………………
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
91
Other 3 (specify)………………………………
Other 4 (specify)………………………………
TOTAL
12. How much did the 
school/teachers’ have to pay 
during Term 3, 2019 for additional
lunch food transportation or any 
other costs not included in the 
tender value? (e.g. storage, 
unloading etc.).
|_______| Food transport
|_______| Food storage
|_______| Food unloading
|_______| Other (specify)
Please estimate the total additional monies spent during Term 2, 2019.
|_______|
School menus
13. What meals do you serve last 
week for lunch on the following 
days?
(Use the codes in question 14)
Monday: |__| |__| |__| |__|
Tuesday: |__| |__| |__| |__|
Wednesday: |__| |__| |__| |__|
Thursday: |__| |__| |__| |__|
Friday: |__| |__| |__| |__|
14. Does the school have a written 
nutrient profile for the meal?
Meal Code Q14. Does the school have a 
written nutrient profile for the 
meal?
YES NO 
1. Sorghum |__| |__|
2. Rice |__| |__|
3. CSB |__| |__|
4. MSB |__| |__|
5. Wheat |__| |__|
6. Beans |__| |__|
7. Yellow split peas |__| |__|
8. Green gram |__| |__|
9. Maize |__| |__|
10. Oil |__| |__|
11. Salt |__| |__|
12. Cowpeas |__| |__|
13. Vegetables |__| |__|
14. Fruits |__| |__|
15. Tomatoes |__| |__|
16. Onions |__| |__|
17. Other 1 (specify)……………………………… |__| |__|
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
92
18. Other 2 (specify)……………………………… |__| |__|
15. Has your school done any work 
with WFP during the last two 
years to revise your school lunch 
menus?
|__| Yes, we are in discussion
|__| Yes, we changed our menus
|__| No 
16. Does your school currently do any 
activities to promote consumption 
of a wide variety of foods (dietary 
diversity) for lunch?
YES NO 
|__| |__| Use drought tolerant crops for school meals (including sorghum, millet or 
cowpeas)
|__| |__| Provide more than one type of school meal for lunch
|__| |__| Nutrition education for the children talking about the benefit of eating a wide 
variety of foods
|__| |__| School personnel received training from WFP or MoE on improving dietary 
diversity of school meals
|__| |__| Use food from a school garden in school meals
|__| |__| Other (please specify) ____________________________________________
Capacity building
17. How many of the following staff 
members received training in the 
last two years on the Home￾Grown School Meal Programme 
(HGSMP) from WFP/MoE?
Staff Cadre Total Number in School Total Number Trained
Head Teacher
Teachers (Deputy head 
teacher, senior teacher, 
any other teacher)
School meals committee 
members
School chairman
Other (please specify)
………………………………………
18. How many of the following staff 
members received training in the 
last two years on tendering 
processes for procuring food from 
local traders for school meals from 
WFP/MoE? 
Staff Cadre Total Number in School Total Number Trained
Head Teacher
Teachers (Deputy head 
teacher, senior teacher, 
any other teacher)
School meals committee 
members
School chairman
Other (please specify)
………………………………………
19. How many full-time cooks (cooks 
every school day) does your 
school have?
|______| 
20. Other than the full-time cooks, 
how many other teachers/ 
members of staff /other people 
help in preparing school lunch?
|______| 
21. How many cooks/members of 
staff/teachers that help prepare 
lunch were trained in the last two 
years on good nutrition and 
menus?
|______| Cooks
|______| School meal teacher
|______| School meal committee member
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
93
School observations: 
1. Has the school received their food delivery for Term 1, 2020? |__| Yes |__| No 
If yes, when was it received? (specify date) ___ / ___/ 
If no, are you still able to serve school meals |__| Yes |__| No
2. Ask to see the nutrient profiles of any meals. How many meals have written profiles? |__|
3. Please take a photograph of any nutrient profiles that schools have.
4. Please ask if you can see the school’s food store. 
5. Please take a photograph of the food store ensuring that we can see how the food is stored on 
the ground.
INTERVIEW END TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
______/______
HH MM 
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
GPS Coordinates __________________________________________________
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
94
Annex 11: Description of the calculation of the evaluation indices
1. Cost-effectiveness score
Cost-effectiveness Score (CS) = GMC*VPCD
GMC = ATA/ATV
VPCT = ATV/#Children
VPCD = VPCT/DLS
Where:
GMC = Actual grouped median cost
ATA = Actual total cost of commodities
ATV = Actual total volume of commodities
VCPT = Volume per child per term
VCPD = Volume per child per day
DLS = Days lunch served
Validation of the Cost-effectiveness Score
There is no statistical difference between the ATA (Actual total cost of commodities) and the cost effectiveness 
score, p > 0.05.
Assumptions
• The cost effectiveness is computer using the direct cost of food items only.
2. Timeliness score
Timeliness Score (TS) = (FD-DD-ML)/ (FD)*100
Where:
FD = Full Days (Maximum term days + maximum delayed delivery days + maximum lunch missed days)
DD = Actual delayed delivery days
ML = Actual missed lunch days
Assumptions and justification
• The maximum term days are 70.
• The maximum delayed delivery days are 70.
• The maximum days for missing lunch is 70.
• Some of the “delayed” delivery is voluntary given the surplus food in the school store. We control 
for ‘voluntary delay” by including actual days lunch was not served in the schools.
• The outcome index is a percentage (maximum is 100 percent where delay days are 0 and actual 
days lunch was not served in the schools is 0.
• The extraction method is mean score to mitigate exclusion of the decimal performing schools from 
contributing to the overall score.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Std. 
Deviation
Std. Error 
Mean
95% Confidence Interval 
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 ATA -
CS 20753.7 277762.9 28497.9 -35829.5 77336.9 .728 94 .468
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
95
3. Nutrition score
Nutrition Score (NS) = Av ((TVCD/150), (TVPD/40), (TVOD/5), (TVCS/2))*W1/3, (DLS/70)* W1/3, (MEN/3)* W1/3
Where:
Av = Average
TVCD = Total volume of cereals per child per day fed
TVPD = Total volume of pulses per child per day fed
TVOD = Total volume of oil per child per day fed
TVSD = Total volume of salt per child per day fed
DLS = Actual days lunch was provided
MEN = Menu items diversity
W1/3 = 1/3 weighting
Assumptions and justification
• The maximum cereals consumed in a day is 150 grams.
• The maximum pulses consumed in a day is 40 grams.
• The maximum oil consumed in a day is 5 grams.
• The maximum salt consumed in a day is 2 grams.
• The maximum actual days lunch was provided is 70
• The maximum menu item diversity value is 5 representing unique combinations in a week of 5 
days. 
4. Overall Impact Score
Overall Impact Score = (TS + NS - CS)/187*(100)
Where:
TS = Timeliness Score
NS = Nutrition Score
CS = Cost Effectiveness Score
Assumptions
• The maximum Timeliness Score is 100%
• The maximum Nutrition Score is 100%
• The observed Cost Effectiveness Score is 13
• The desired situation is to spend a maximum of 13 KES per child per day while providing the most 
nutritious food every school day and in a timely manner
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
96
Annex 12: Qualitative data collection tools
Semi-structured interview guides
1. WFP personnel (LRP and/or market access team)
• How were counties/sub-counties selected?
• How were traders and FOs selected?
• How were schools selected? 
• To what extent are government authorities (national, county, sub-county) involved in the LRP? 
• How does the LRP relate to key government policies/strategies? 
• Have any WFP policies specifically been included in the design? 
• Does the LRP relate to any work by other agencies?
• Explain transition from SMP to HGSMP in the three LRP counties:
• Timing of transition
• Specific challenges encountered per county
• Explain previous work with targeted FOs/ traders if any.
• Specific activities implemented
• What are the key challenges you foresee for the LRP?
• Has there been any specific consideration of gender issues? How have they been incorporated? 
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development as a 
result of USDA assistance
Quantity of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance 
Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance 
Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security training as a 
result of USDA assistance
2. MoE personnel (government representatives)
• What is/going to be the role of the MoE in the LRP?
o Check any specific roles for national and county/sub-county MoE.
• Please comment on co-operation and information sharing between the MoE and WFP? 
• What do you feel are going to be the main challenges for the MoE in implementing HGSMP? 
o Any challenges related to LRP?
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
97
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of development 
as a result of USDA assistance
3. School Meals Committee members
Knowledge of LRP
3. What do you know about the new WFP LRP project? What are they hoping to achieve?
4. How many traders did your school utilize for SM provision during SY 2016/17?
5. Did you have any problems with any of the tenders?
a. Elaborate
Purchase of local food commodities for provision of school meals
6. Experience purchasing through tenders.
a. What have been the best aspects of purchasing through tender instead of having food 
provided by WFP?
b. What have been the most difficult aspects of local purchase?
c. Comment on the current procurement process.
d. Have you experienced any issues re timeliness with local procurement?
e. How can procurement process be improved?
7. Approximately how many traders do you use to purchase the stock for the school meals programme? 
8. Was your school able to provide school meals every school day during SY 2016/2017. If no, why not? 
Any reason related to insufficient food?
9. Discuss cost-effectiveness of procurement
10. Discuss timeliness of tender process and timeliness of delivery
a. Check timing of completing tender
b. Check timing of delivery of commodities (preferably before start of school term)
11. Volume of commodities procured locally during SY 2016/17?
12. Main commodities purchased.
13. Value of commodities procured for school meals during 2016/17
14. Value of any additional monies spent on transport or any other costs related to food (transport, 
storage, loading, unloading etc.).
Capacity building
• Did your school administrator receive training during 2016/17 on HGSMP?
• Did any of your School Board of Management members receive training during 2016/17 on HGSMP?
• Has your school administrator received training during 2017/18 on buying food from local traders? 
Tender process?
• Did any of your School Board of Management members receive training during 2017/18 on buying 
food from local traders? Tender process?
• Have any of your cooks been trained on menus, hygiene and food handling procedures? Yes No
• If yes, how many were trained during SY 18/19?
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
98
School menus
15. How many menus (per month) does your school currently follow for school meals?
16. Does your school have any nutrient profiles for the meals being provided?
a. Yes No (If yes, how many meals have profiles? ____)
17. Has your school done any work with WFP during SY2017/18 to revise your school menus?
18. If yes, are you currently using revised menus?
Suggestions and complaints
19. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the project? Make it sustainable? 
20. Have you received any complaints about food purchased locally during SY 2016/17 or about WFP? 
a. Any issues with working with WFP or their partner agencies? (Programmatic or financial)
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Percentage of LRP schools procuring food before beginning of term
Percentage of schools where food is delivered to schools before term begins
Percentage of schools using diversified menus
Turkana only: Cost of distribution in schools in LRP areas compared to non-LRP areas
4. Grain traders
• How familiar are you with the tender process?
• What is your relationship with local small holder farmers?
• How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools?
• What do you find most difficult about the tender process? What is the easiest aspect? Do you have 
any suggestion for improving the tender process? 
• What foods have the school meal committees most regularly purchased from you? 
• Were you given any guidance about the type of food that can be purchased? Or the quality of food 
that is required? Elaborate 
• Where are your suppliers based? 
• Where are your buyers based?
• Do you supply to clients outside of XX County? Elaborate how far they trade. 
• Have you made any changes to your business or business practices as a result of this project or due 
to the transition to CTS/HGSMP? 
• Have there been any positive impacts of this project on your business? Elaborate 
• Have there been any negative impacts of this project on your business? Elaborate
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
99
5. Farmer Organizations 
• The LRP is a project that will help farmers be more prepared for tendering processes and access a 
new market opportunity (school meals).
o Has this FO ever directly applied for school meals or other large tenders?
o If yes, what have you found to be the main challenges in the tendering process?
• What are the main challenges you face in participating in local tenders?
• How familiar are you with the tender process?
• What is your relationship with local traders?
• How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools?
Check monitoring of the following indicators: 
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
100
Annex 13: Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation
Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation was used to define and validate the consistency of matching and 
clustering of LRP and non-LRP schools. This technique was used to match control and treatment schools with 
similar spatial and demographic attributes. The matching and clustering process are validated by the model 
strength. The model converged at a silhouette value of 0.7 as shown in the figure below. The silhouette value is 
a measure of cohesion of study cases which included control and treatment schools. The silhouette ranges from 
−1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the clustered study cases are well matched.
The mean enrolment of 288.65 was validated by the grouped median of the initial unmatched population of 
229.67. The grouped median is a trimmed median that mitigates all the outliers in both the LRP and non-LRP 
schools.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
101
Annex 14: List of surveyed LRP and non-LRP comparison schools
Baringo County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Tangulbei Primary School Bartabwa Primary School
2 Lomuge Primary School Chemogoch Primary School
3 Chepkalacha Primary School Chemoinoi
4 Koipapich Primary Chepnyorgin Primary School
5 Koloa Primary Chesongo Primary School
6 Ngoron Emining
7 Tukomoi Primary Kabilany Primary School
8 Kaisakat Primary School Kaboron Primary
9 Chemayes Primary School Kalabata Primary School
10 Ptikii Primary School Kamweton Primary School
11 Loiwat Primary School Kapkelelwa Primary School
12 Dira Primary School Kaptara Primary School
13 Nalukumong'in Katunoi Primary School
14 Cheptunoyo Primary Kimose
15 Kositei Primary School Kipkaren
16 Chemolingot Boarding School Kipsoit Primary School
17 Tamkal Primary School Kures Primary School
18 Meuto Primary School Lomanira Primary
19 Barpello Primary Lombagishu Primary School
20 Maaron Primary School Molo Sirwa Primary
21 Nginyang Boarding Primary School Nato Primary
22 Aic Chemoril Primary School Ngurubeti Primary
23 Chesacam Primary School Noiwet Primary
24 Chepturu Primary School Radad Primary School
25 Tilingwa Primary School Rosoga Primary
26 Kapunyany Primary School Sosion Primary School
27 Chepelow Primary Tebei Primary School
28 Plesian Primary Terik Primary School
29 Churo Primary School Tiloi Primary School
Turkana County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Namalteny Lotiira Primary
2 Nakuse Primary Maggies Akatuman Primary
3 Lomunyenakwan Primary Kawarnaparan Primary
4 Agape Primary Kotela Primary
5 Nakukulas Primary Kotaruk Primary
6 Lochwaa Angikamatak Primary Nagis Primary
7 Arumrum Kanukurudio Primary
8 Nakwasinyen Primary Namoruputh Primary
9 Kalodicha Nataparkakono Primary
10 Kangitit Primary St.Teresa Nakwamor Primary
11 Kanaodon Primary Lokangae Primary
12 Aic Nadoto Primary Katiko Primary
13 Naregaekamar Nakoriogora Primary
14 St.Emmaculate Ngimuriae Primary
15 Lorogon Primary Kodopa
16 Abururu Naremit Primary
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
102
17 Naoyaregae Kabokorit Primary
18 Namorutunga Primary St. Cosmas Napopongoit
19 Lokorkor Lorengipi Primary
20 Kangimanyin Nameyana Primary
21 Nakatongwa Kalopiria Primary
22 St. Teresa Kimabur Kalokol Girls Primay
23 Loyapat Katula Primary
24 Kalapata Kabulokor Primary
25 Kakoel Lokamarinyang Primary
26 Kidewa St. Bakhita Teremkus
27 Kaaruko Longech Primary
28 Kangakipur Nanyangakipi
29 Kakong Loturerei
30 Kadam Lolupe Primary
31 Kaibole Napuu Primary
32 Lomonyang Primary School Kangagetei Primary
33 Namakat Kangirisae
34 Nayanaekaton Kaikir
West Pokot County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Kapkewa Primary School Runo Primary School
2 Kasei Primary Chemaley Primary School
3 Timale Primary School Wakor Primary School
4 Kiwawa Primary Koposes Primary
5 Mbaru Primary Katimoril Primary
6 Kauriong Primary Sigor Girls Primary School
7 Cherangan Primary School Kapsimatia Primary School
8 Konyao Dorcas Primary School Chepserum Primary School
9 Konyao Arid Primary Ipeet Primary School
10 Nakwapuo Primary School Rukey Primary School
11 Kopulio Primary School Chepkukui Primary School
12 St Joseph Ack Nakwijit Primary School Tindar Primary School
13 Ngotut Primary School Lodupup
14 Kodera Primary School Kochar Primary School
15 Korpu Saya Primary School
16 Aic Asilong Primary School Ortum Boys Primary School
17 Kamketo Primary School Ortum Girls Primary School
18 Naruoro Primary School Kangisha Primary School
19 Kacheliba Primary School Ptulungwo Primary School
20 Tiyenei Primary School Pserum Primary School
21 Nakwoilal Primary School Sebit Primary School
22 Chepkinah Primary School Loklochoi/Nachecheyat
23 Natemeri Primary School Chepkobegh Primary School
24 Chelopoy Primary School Sokka Primary School
25 Aic Akiriamet Sobukwo Primary School
26 Lokichar Primary School Murpus Primary School
27 Sincholol Primary School Seretow Primary School
28 Aic Kameris Parek Primary School
29 Nauyapong Mixed Boarding Primary School March Pass Primary
30 Korkou Primaryschool Sangat Primary School
31 Kapterema Primaryschool Cheposekek
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
103
32 Takar Primary School Miskwony Primary School
33 Kasaka Primary School Tunoyo Primary School
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
104
Annex 15: Detailed description of the original (baseline) school sampling methodology
A total sample of 192 schools were used (96 LRP schools and 96 non-LRP schools).
a) There are 382 LRP schools and 613 non LRP schools totalling 995 schools.
b) Schools with similar characteristics were clustered using the silhouette measure of cohesion and separation. 
The model converged at 0.7. The most cohesive cluster had skewness of 0.098 returning a universe population 
of 354 LRP and non LRP schools
c) A population of 354 LRP and non-LRP schools were matched using the Silhouette measure of cohesion and 
separation that was utilized to define and validate the consistency of matching and clustering of LRP and non￾LRP schools. This technique was used to match LRP and non LRP schools with similar spatial and demographic 
attributes. The matching and clustering processes were validated by the model strength. The model converged 
at a silhouette value of 0.7. The silhouette value is a measure of cohesion of study cases which included LRP 
and non LRP schools. The silhouette ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the clustered study 
cases are well matched.
d) The actual sample was determined by the formula below:
n = z² x (p) x (1-p)
m²
n = sample size
z = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96)
p = percentage picking choice (0.5)
m = margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.05)
Correcting for finite population (N = 354) 
n =
 n
1 + 
n - 1
N
n = required sample; n = old sample size; N = population
BASELINE SAMPLE SIZE
School sample = 192
Sample size for treatment schools = 96
Sample size for control schools = 96
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
105
Sample distribution by county
Replacement of Schools
Schools that were impossible to access during data collection were replaced. The access barriers included 
insecurity, flood-affected roads and bridges, and distance (for instance, it was not feasible to travel for a whole 
day to track one school within limited resources available for the study). Such schools were replaced by schools 
in the same silhouette cluster or overlapping schools in the contiguous cluster.
The evaluation model:
Where:
OS (Overall Score) = Score at T1 relative to T0; FTO = Farmer and Trader Organization Index/ranking; Schools = 
Selected Schools impact score; Group = Exposure Variable; RE = Covariates (Both direct outcomes and the 
confounding); E = Model Estimation/Error Terms; LT = Latent Variables
At baseline, the study team computed score indices for the key outcomes, namely cost-effectiveness, timeliness, 
nutrition scores and the overall impact benchmarking score. These measures will be computed again at the 
endline phase and the variance computed while controlling for random effects using multivariate analyses.
County Matched Weight LRP Schools Non LRP Schools
Baringo 30.2 29 29
Turkana 35.4 34 34
West Pokot 34.4 33 33
Total 100 96 96
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
106
Annex 16: Evaluation field mission schedule
LRP Endline Evaluation -Quantitative Data Collection: John OTSOLA – Feb 10-29
Date Activity Location
Feb 10 Finalization of planning for enumerator training WFP Office, Nairobi
Feb 11-14 Enumerator training: School survey, FO survey and 
Trader survey
WFP Office, Nairobi
Feb 15-16 Travel to field sites Nairobi to LRP Counties
Feb 17-28 Quantitative data collection Turkana, West Pokot and Baringo 
counties
LRP Endline Evaluation - Qualitative Interview Schedule: Sophie DUNN - Feb 17-21, 2020
Department Designation Name Date Time Venue
WFP
CCS Programme Policy Officer 
(SMP)
Charles Njeru __ TBD B234
Resilience, 
Livelihood 
and 
Nutrition
Programme Policy Officer 
(Agriculture Markets)
Olive Wahome __ TBD O2 
Office
Programme Policy Officer 
(Market Linkage)
Daniel Ndungu 17.02.20 9am
Programme Policy Officer 
(Supply Chain)
Rosemary Babu 17.02.20 9am
Nutritionist Joyce 
Owigar/Josephine 
Mwema
18.02.20 10.30am Nutrition 
Office
Programme 
Operations
VAM Team Allan Kute 18.02.20 9.30am VAM 
office
Julius Kisingu 19.02.20 3.30pm Skype
Field offices
Head of Nairobi satellite 
Office
Kipsang Rotuno 20.02.20 2.30pm Skype
Head of Nairobi Lodwar 
Field Office
Ruth 
Amatalo/Gabriel 
Ekaale
24.02.20
GOK
MOE Deputy Coordinator-School 
Meals Programme
Boniface Ouko 20.02.20 10am Jogoo 
House
MOA Head of Nutrition Mrs. Wambugu 
and Kithale David 
__ TBD
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
107
LRP Endline Evaluation – Field Schedule: Sophie DUNN: Feb 23-29, 2020 
Day Time Activity Contact 
person
23rd February 
2020 14.00-16.00 Depart Nairobi for Lodwar by Flight
WFP 
Lodwar 
Office 24th February 
2020
8.00 - 9.00 Meet WFP Lodwar staff for Briefing/Planning
9.00 -10.00 onwards Commence Qualitative Interviews
Afternoon - Commence Qualitative Interviews, Depart for 
Eldoret with evening flight, overnight at Eldoret
25th February 
2020
7am to 9am Travel from Eldoret to Kapenguria
WFP 
Nairobi 
Field 
Office/Polly
9am to 9:45am Meeting with County Director of Education and 
County School meals Programme Officer
10am to 10:45am Meeting with County Director of Agriculture
11:00 – 01:30pm
Travel to and meeting with two Farmer 
organisations, one all male group and one all￾female groups.
1:30- 2:00pm Lunch
2:00- 3.00pm Meeting with two suppliers
3.00- 5:30pm Travel to and visit to one school in North Pokot 
(HGSMP)
26th February 
2020
9:00am to 2:00pm Travel from Kapenguria to Kabarnet
WFP 
Nairobi 
Field 
Office/Polly
2:30pm to 3:15pm Meeting with County Director of Education and 
County School meals Programme Officer
3:30pm to 4:15pm Meeting with County Director/Officer of 
Agriculture
6.00pm Overnight at Marigat
27th February 
2020
10:00- 1:00pm
Travel to and meeting with two Farmer 
organisations, one all male group and one all￾female group
1:00- 1:30pm Lunch
1:30- 2:30pm Visit to school
3:00pm Depart to Nakuru enroute to Nairobi
28th February 
2020 6.00am Depart to Nairobi
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
108
Annex 17: Stakeholders Interviewed
• Number of qualitative interviews conducted
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Name Position Organization Gender
Nairobi+
1 Ada Ihenachor International Programme Specialist 
(School Feeding and Humanitarian Branch) FAS/USDA F
2 Boniface Ouko Deputy Coordinator School Meals 
Programme Ministry of Education M
3 Immaculate 
Nyaugo Programme Manager – Healthy Diets Ministry of Health F
4 Allan Kute VAM Officer WFP M
5 Charles Njeru Programme Policy Officer (School Meals 
Programme) WFP M
6 Daniel Ndungu Programme Policy Officer (Market 
Linkages) WFP M
7 Fidelia Mwende Programme Associate, Nairobi Field Office WFP F
8 Josephine 
Mwema Programme Policy Officer (Nutrition) WFP F
9 Judy Ndungu Programme Policy Officer (School Meals) WFP F
10 Julius Kisingu Programme Policy Officer (Markets) WFP M
11 Kipsang Rotuno Head of Nairobi Satellite Office WFP M
12 Mari Hassinen Head, Country Capacity Strengthening WFP F
13 Rosemary Babu Programme Policy Officer (Supply Chain) WFP F
14 Zippy Mbati Programme Policy Officer (Refugee Self￾Reliance) WFP F
Baringo
15 Vincent Abuje County Direction of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
16 James Chepkech Representative of Country Director and 
County Government 
Ministry of Education M
17 Moses Karati Country Director of Education Ministry of Education M
18 Susan Mitie County School Meals Programme Officer Ministry of Education F
19 Anne Kimwa County Nutrition Coordinator Ministry of Health F
20 Jackson Langat Country Weights and Measures Officer Ministry of Industry, Trade 
& Cooperatives
M
Turkana
21 Samson Akichem 
Lokale Trader Emany Traders Ltd M
Nairobi+ Turkana West Pokot Baringo
Farmer Organizations __ 2 2 2
Traders __ 1 2 0
Ministry of Agriculture 0 1 3 2
Ministry of Education 1 3 2 3
Ministry of Health 1 3 1 1
Ministry of Industry, Trade & 
Cooperatives
0 0 1 0
WFP 10 1 2
USDA 1 __ __ __
TOTAL 13 11 13 8
45 interviews/FGDs
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
109
22 Eli Karani County Agribusiness Officer Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
23 Vitales Juma County M&E Officer Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
24 Josephine 
Walela County Education Officer Ministry of Education F
25 Peter Magiri Country Director of Education Ministry of Education M
26 Anne Kimwa Country Nutrition Coordinator Ministry of Health F
27 Ann Kanume 
Wumboi Public Health Officer Ministry of Health, Turkana 
Central Sub-County
F
28 Lelak Mohave Public Health Officer Ministry of Health, Turkana 
Central Sub-County
F
29 Gabriel Ekaale Programme Policy Officer (Agribusiness) WFP M
West Pokot
30 Susan Domoo Trader Kapchok Stores F
31 Christine Krop Trader Lelan Stores F
32 Stephen Adieme Agricultural Extension Officer Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
33 Thomas Wasike Acting County Director of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
34 Wekesa Agricultural Extension Officer Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation
M
35 Atina Ntabo Quality Assurance and Standards Officer 
(Monitoring)
Ministry of Education M
36 Jacob Onyiego County Director of Education Ministry of Education M
37 Charles Manyara Sub-County Director of Education Ministry of Education, West 
Pokot Sub-County
M
38 Jane Limangura County Nutrition Coordinator Ministry of Health F
39 Ibrahim Lomoi Chief Officer Ministry of Industry, Trade 
& Cooperatives
M
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS WITH FO MEMBERS
Group name Female Male
Baringo County
1 Karmoskoi Tingtinyon Farming System 8 9
2 Namunyak Women’s Group 11 0
Turkana County
3 Etic Women’s Group 8 0
4 Kolioro Irrigation Scheme 9 17
West Pokot County
5 Myakith Youth Group 1 12
6 Kameto Women’s Group 4 0
TOTAL 41 38
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
110
Annex 18: Additional findings from the Farmer Organization survey
• Characteristics of surveyed Farmer Organizations, by county.
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Number of surveyed FOs 46 36 16 23 35 21
Membership Total members 978 31,142 424 11,895 27,165 622
Average number 
per FO 21 865 26.5 517 776 30
Median number 
of members
17 394 17.5 22 417 23
Average % female 74% 56.8% 66.3% 72.0% 61.5% 65.3%
Active members 83.7% 66.2% 91% 92.6% 61.2% 87.8%
• Planting data by county
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Total area planted by members 
(acres)
Total area 1,200 18,701 634 868 15,947 481
Average 26 519.5 40 38 456 23
Median 17 253 27.5 10 210 10
% of members using certified/recommended 
inputs
81.2%% 61.7% 90.1% 91.3% 88.6% 52.4%
% of members having their soil quality tested 
before planting
No 
data
28.6% No data 5% 34% 1.3%
• Percentage of FOs reporting use of various agricultural inputs
• Equipment accessible to FO members
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baringo
Baseline
Baringo
Endline
Turkana
Baseline
Turkana
Endline
West Pokot
Baseline
West Pokot
Endline
Total Baseline Total Endline
Seeds Fertilizer Agrochemicals Feeds Other
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baringo
Baseline
Baringo
Endline
Turkana
Baseline
Turkana
Endline
West Pokot
Baseline
West Pokot
Endline
Total Baseline Total Endline
Sieve Drier Tarpaulin Sheller Moisture meter Scales Pallets
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
111
• Percentage of FOs reporting different methods of handling their commodity during/after harvest
• Assistance provided to FOs from the government or other agencies
• Training provided to FOs in the last one year
Baseline Endline 
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Total Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Total
FOs reporting their committee 
members have been trained
17.4% 72.2% 12.5% 36.7% 78.3% 71.4% 76.2% 74.7%
• Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their members in the past one year
0
50
100
Baringo
Baseline
Baringo
Endline
Turkana
Baseline
Turkana
Endline
West Pokot
Baseline
West Pokot
Endline
Total Baseline Total Endline
 Timely harvest
Conduct sorting for the produce after harvesting
 Placing produce on open/bare ground during harvesting and drying
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baringo Baseline Baringo Endline Turkana Baseline Turkana Endline West Pokot Baseline West Pokot Endline
Subsidized or free seeds Subsidized or free fertilizer
Subsidized or free farming implements (tools) Subsidized or free pesticides/herbicides
Providing or rehabilitating storage facilities Loans of agricultural tools or work animals
Baseline Endline 
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Good agronomic practices 21.7 66.7 68.8 39.1 25.7 33.3
Conservation agriculture 21.7 47.2 81.3 30.4 25.7 28.6
Post-harvest handling 13.0 52.8 68.8 17.4 22.9 33.3
Entrepreneurship 21.7 19.4 100.0 30.4 22.9 23.8
Gender in agribusiness 4.3 47.2 62.5 34.8 20.0 9.5
Setting prices for produce 6.5 38.9 50.0 26.1 20.0 9.5
Procurement processes 4.3 19.4 37.5 26.1 14.3 14.3
Record keeping 26.1 25.0 87.5 43.5 22.9 23.8
Aflatoxin awareness 4.3 44.4 25.0 21.7 20.0 14.3
Financial management 17.4 27.8 31.3 43.5 22.9 23.8
Other 13.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
112
Group assets
• Land ownership by FOs
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Percentage of FOs owning land 0% 100% 25% 34.8% 74.3% 33.3%
Average size of land owned by 
FO
__ 512 acres 0.9 acres 7.3 acres 845.6 acres 8.6 acres
•
• Use of most farming equipment90 by FOs did not change significantly since baseline. Most FOs 
reported using sieves at both baseline and endline, with few other equipment. The main change 
was in the use of pallets (34% at endline – zero at baseline) and scales (9-32%) increased.
• Percentage of surveyed FOs having access to storage facilities 
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Access to storage 
facilities 60.8% 52.8% 87.5% 30.4% 51.4% 28.6%
• FO member training
Baseline Endline 
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Total Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Total
FOs reporting their committee 
members have been trained
17.4% 72.2% 12.5% 36.7% 78.3% 71.4% 76.2% 74.7%
Average number of committee 
members trained
3 5 4.5 4 4 15 3 8
FOs reporting their members 
have been trained
37% 75% 93.8% 60.2% 60.9% 34.3% 33.3% 41.8%
• Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their committee members in the past one year
• Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their committee members in the past one year or 
nominating additional training topics
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Good agronomic practices 39.1 25.7 33.3 31.7
Conservation agriculture 30.4 25.2 28.6 27.9
Post-harvest handling 17.4 22.9 33.3 24.1
Entrepreneurship 30.4 22.9 23.8 25.3
Gender in agribusiness 34.8 20 9.5 21.5
Price setting 26.1 20 9.5 19
Procurement process 26.1 14.3 14.3 17.7
Record keeping 43.5 22.9 23.8 29.1
Aflatoxin awareness 21.7 20 14.3 19
Financial management 43.5 22.9 32.8 29.1
Other 8.7 0 0 2.5
90 FO member were asked about their use of sieves, driers, tarpaulins, shellers, moisture meters, scales and pallets.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Group dynamics/governance 52.2 54.3 61.9 55.7
Organizational behaviour 52.2 40 47.6 45.6
Leadership skills 60.9 57.1 71.4 62
Other 4.4 20 19.1 15.2
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
113
Additional training requested
• Baringo: Group dynamics; Marketing and market linkages; Post-harvest management; 
Agribusiness and financial management; Conservation agriculture; Increasing productivity and 
sound agricultural practice
• Turkana: Cooperative management; Good agronomic practices; Marketing and market linkages; 
Post-harvest management; Agribusiness and financial management; Aflatoxin prevention
• West Pokot: Group marketing; Financial management and record keeping, and how to develop 
school meals menus using local and nutritious produce
• Percentage of FOs reporting members sell commodities to various buyers
• Percentage of FOs reporting barriers to selling their members products
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Baseline Endline Baseline Endline Baseline Endline
Households 50.0 34.8 66.7 37.1 0.0 42.9
Retail traders 58.3 47.7 88.9 37.1 50.0 38.1
Millers/brewers 8.3 8.7 11.1 8.6 25.0 0.0
Other traders 50.0 21.7 11.1 22.9 25.0 33.3
Hospitals 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 25.0 0.0
Government food agencies/NCPB 0.0 4.3 22.2 0 0.0 4.8
International development agencies 
(WFP) 0.0 0.0 44.4 8.6 0.0 0.0
Schools 16.7 17.4 33.3 5.7 25.0 33.3
Others 0.0 8.7 0.0 8.6 0.0 0.0
Baseline Endline
Percentage of FOs
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Total Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Total
Limited consumer demand 57.25 8.33 4.17 28.57 13 25.7 28.6 22.8
Limited access to price 
information 4.35 22.22 25.00 8.50 21.7 17.1 23.8 20.3
High cost of collecting/ 
preparing commodities for 
market
7.97 2.78 10.42 7.14 17.4 17.1 4.8 13.9
Limited access to credit 0.00 22.22 6.25 1.36 13.0 14.3 14.3 13.9
Low volume of commodities 
available from members 9.42 16.67 2.08 6.80 4.4 25.7 23.5 19
Government trade 
restrictions 1.45 25.00 8.33 4.76 4.4 0 0 1.3
Poor transport 
infrastructure 2.90 19.44 33.33 9.52 39.1 34.3 47.6 39.2
Not able to meet quality 
demands 17.39 13.89 27.08 15.65 8.7 0 4.8 3.8
Unpredictable prices 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 34.8 20 47.6 31.65
Other 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.02 4.4 2.9 9.5 5.1
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
114
• Volume and value of total sales by FOs during last one year
Baseline Endline
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot
Volume of maize sales 
per FO (MT)
Average 30.7 
(n=42) 9.6 (n=8) 392.1 
(n=16)
8
(n=9)
32.4
(n=29)
5.4
(n=12)
Median 19.8 9.6 12.5 8 15.2 4.1
Volume of bean sales per 
FO (MT)
Average 11.9 
(n=37) NIL
128.8 
(n=14)
7.8
(n=7)
847.9
(n=1)
2.9
(n=9)
Median 5.1 2.9 7.8 847.9 2.9
Volume of sales of other 
commodities per FO (MT)
Average 10.1 19.0 12.7 8.0 15.2 2.5
Median 2.5 6.3 1.1 8.0 14.0 2.5
Total volume of sales 
Total all 
FOs
2,020.4 
MT 176 MT 9,334.3 
MT
359MT 9,757MT 66.6MT
Median 38.9 MT 9.3MT 19.1 MT 8MT 14MT 2.5MT
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
115
Annex 19: Additional findings from the trader survey
• Personal characteristics of surveyed traders, by county (n)
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Total Baringo West Pokot Total
Number of surveyed traders Total 13 41 54 3 25 28
Gender Male 7 22 29 (53.7%) 0 12 12 (42.9%)
Female 6 19 25 (46.3%) 3 13 16 (57.1%)
• Age breakdown of surveyed traders (n)
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Total Baringo West Pokot Total
Male Female Male Male Female Male Male Female Male Female Male Female
18-35 years 2 4 11 11 13 15 0 0 4 2 4 2
36-55 years 5 2 11 8 16 10 0 3 8 11 8 14
Total 7 6 22 19 29 25 0 3 12 13 12 16
13 41 54 3 25 28
• Educational qualifications of surveyed traders (n)
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Total Baringo West Pokot Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Primary 1 0 12 7 13 7 0 0 5 8 5 8
Secondary 6 1 7 8 13 9 0 2 7 2 7 4
Diploma 0 3 0 3 0 6 0 1 0 2 0 3
Degree 0 2 3 1 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 7 6 22 19 29 25 0 3 12 13 12 16
13 41 54 3 25 28
• Business information of surveyed traders, by gender (West Pokot only)
West Pokot
Male Female
Average time in business 11 years 12 years
Average number of employees 2 3
Percentage of targeted traders with a valid business license 75% 77%
Percentage of targeted traders with a business registration certificate 33% 62%
• Main mode of commodity transportation used by surveyed traders (%) 
• Main commodity storage facility used by surveyed traders (%)
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
Carried by hand/Head/Back 0.0 4.9 0.0 28.0
Bicycle or motorcycle 7.7 24.4 66.7 80.0
Pick up 69.2 17.1 33.3 28.0
Lorry 53.8 63.4 66.7 72.0
Public transport 7.7 0.0 33.3 40.0
None/Don’t transport 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
Basic earth granaries 15.4 7.3 0.0 4.0
Permanently owned warehouse 7.7 39.0 33.3 16.0
Permanently rented warehouse 76.9 53.7 66.7 80.0
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
116
• Total estimated value and volume of grains in stock
Baseline Endline
Baringo West Pokot Baringo West Pokot
KES Average 239,615 159,996 506,850 983,290
Median 117,500 10,800 560,000 297,500
Range 0-1,260,000 0-5 million 160,550 - 800,000 0 – 7,350,000 
MT Average 12.6 1348.3 226.1 25.2
Median 5 200 266.4 5.9
Range 0-50 0-8,925 3-180 0-280
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
117
Annex 20: Additional findings from the school survey
• Number of days schools reported NOT providing school meal
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Baseline –
Term 1, 2018
Mean 9.6 2.9 2.6 0.5 5.9 10.1 5.8 4.5
Maximum 32 21 24 10 45 42 45 42
Grouped median 2 1.5 1.8 0.1 2.6 3.5 1.4 0.4
Endline –
Term 3, 2019
Mean 36.8 14.2 19.5 24.4 13.8 20.2 23 20
Maximum 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Grouped median 42.9 2 17 18.3 6.3 14.7 21.8 10
• Number of suppliers utilized by the school
Baseline – Term 1, 2018 Mean 1 1 1 1 2 1
Range 2 0 2 2 2 1
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 0
Maximum 3 1 3 3 3 1
Grouped median 1 1 1 1 2 1
Endline – Term 3, 2019 Mean 1 1 1 1 1 1
Range 0 1 0 0 1 1
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 1
Maximum 1 2 1 1 2 2
Grouped median 1 1 1 1 1 1
• Percentage of schools reporting consumption of foods for school meals during Term 3, 2019
School Type Food Item
Baseline Endline
N Percent of Cases N Percent of Cases
LRP School Rice 93 96.9% 55 57.3%
Wheat 45 46.9% 0 0%
Beans 62 64.6% 69 71.9
Yellow split peas 34 35.4% 0 0%
Oil 96 100.0% 66 68.8%
Salt 94 97.9% 52 54.2%
Vegetables 1 1.0% 1 1.0%
Onions 1 1.0% 1 1.0%
Non LRP School MSB 1 1.1% 0 0%
Beans 95 100.0% 85 89.5%
Maize 95 100.0% 50 52.6%
Oil 95 100.0% 85 89.5%
Salt 95 100.0% 78 82.1%
Onions 1 1.1% 2 2.1%
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
118
• Additional monies paid by teachers (KES) 
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP
Baseline -
Term 1, 2018
Food transport 1,500 __ 10,000 __ 4,250 5,620 5,000 5,620
Food storage __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Food unloading 1,500 __ 2,400 __ __ __ 2,220 __
Other __ 3,000 5,000 __ __ 10,000 5,000 6,500
Total 3,000 3,000 17,400 0 4,250 15,620 12,220 12,120
Endline -
Term 3, 2019
Food transport __ 2,750 __ __ 7,688 4,229 7,688 4,018
Food storage __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
Food unloading __ 500 1,010 __ __ 1,000 1,010 750
Other 400 6,000 __ __ 2,400 2,125 1,400 3,417
Total 400 9,250 1010 10,088 7,354 10,098 8,185
• Percentage of schools completing procurement before Term 3, 2019
Completed 
procurement –
Term 3, 2019
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
Yes __ 55.2% 5.7% 3% 6.3% 39.4% 4.2% 31.6%
No 75.9% 31.0% 62.9% 81.8% 43.8% 57.6% 60.4% 57.9%
N/A (food was 
provided)
24.1% 13.8% 31.4% 15.2% 50% 3.0% 35.4% 10.5%
• Percentage of schools reporting using these food commodities for their school lunches 
Baseline Endline
School Type Food Item N Percent of Cases N Percent of Cases
LRP School Rice 93 96.9% 55 57.3%
Wheat 45 46.9% 0 0%
Beans 62 64.6% 69 71.9
Yellow split peas 34 35.4% 0 0%
Oil 96 100.0% 66 68.8%
Salt 94 97.9% 52 54.2%
Vegetables 1 1.0% 1 1.0%
Onions 1 1.0% 1 1.0%
Non LRP School MSB 1 1.1% 0 0%
Beans 95 100.0% 85 89.5%
Maize 95 100.0% 50 52.6%
Oil 95 100.0% 85 89.5%
Salt 95 100.0% 78 82.1%
Onions 1 1.1% 2 2.1%
• Summary of baseline findings on timeliness
Target LRP 
schools
Non-LRP comparison 
schools
Percentage of schools procuring food before the beginning of Term 
1, 2018
90% N/A 76%
Percentage of schools with food delivered before the beginning of 
Term 1, 2018
90% 19.8% 57.3%
Percentage of schools with food delivered before the beginning of 
Term 2, 2018
90% 34.4% 28.1%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
119
Percentage of schools procuring food before the beginning of Term 
3, 2019
90% 56.9% 76.7%
Percentage of schools with food delivered before the beginning of 
Term 3, 2019
90% 11.8% 55.8%
Percentage of schools with food delivered before the beginning of 
Term 1, 2020
90% 75% 74.7%
• Percentage of schools experiencing problems with food commodities received - ENDLINE
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP
Bags arrived in poor condition 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3.0% 0% 1.1%
Food was infested 0% 0% 2.9% 0% 0% 3.0% 1.0% 1.1%
Incorrect amount arrived (i.e. not as 
ordered)
0% 3.4% 2.9% 0% 0% 6.1% 0% 3.2%
Supplier refused to bring food 
directly to the school
0% 0% 0% 3.0% 6.3% 3.0% 2.1% 2.1%
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
120
• Schools receiving food from alternative sources
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Secondary 
sources of food LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP 
County 
Government
1 (Day 
School) __ __ __ __ 4 (Day 
School)
1 (Day 
School) 4 (Day School)
School 
garden/farm
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
__ __ __ __
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
Church 1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day 
School) __
2 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
3 (Day School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
PTA __
2 (Day 
School) __
2 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
1 
(Boarding 
School)
10 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
11 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Boarding 
School)
10 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
4 (Day School)
12 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
Direct 
contribution 
from parents
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
__ __
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
5 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
2 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
6 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
3 (Day School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
NGOs
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School) __
2 (Day 
School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
__ 1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
1 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
4 (Day School)
2 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
Total
4 (Day 
School)
3 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
4 (Day 
School) __
7 (Day 
School)
5 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
1 (Day 
School)
1 
(Boarding 
School)
17 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
8 (Day 
School)
14 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
5 (Day 
School)
1 (Boarding 
School)
20 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
19 (Day 
School)
19 (Day & 
Boarding 
School)
11 12 41 64
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
121
Annex 21: Bibliography
Awiti, C et al (2018) Kenya Economic Update: Policy options to advance the Big 4 - unleashing Kenya’s private 
sector to drive inclusive growth and accelerate poverty reduction (English). April 2018, Edition No. 17, World 
Bank Group
Dunn, S & Otsola, J (2018) Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) Project in Kenya, 2017-
2020. Final Report, June 2018.
FAO/Government of Kenya (2018) Kenya Food Composition Tables. Nairobi.
FEWSNET (2019) Kenya Food Security Outlook Update: 3.1 million expected to face crisis (IPC3) or worse by 
October. August 2019.
Government of Kenya’s Vision 2030: https://vision2030.go.ke
http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en
http://www.vision2030.go.ke
https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/profile/KEN/WEO
Hanrahan, C.E. (2010) Local and regional procurement for U.S. International Emergency Food Aid. Congressional 
Research Service.
Kisingu, J. & Mutuku, J. (2018) Food Supply Chain Assessment Report: Baringo County
Kisingu, J., Mutuku, J. & Kithale, D (2018) Food Supply Chain Assessment Report: West Pokot County
Republic of Kenya (2009) National Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009-2020. 
Republic of Kenya (2011) National Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit 
(ASCU).
Republic of Kenya (2011) National Zero Hunger Strategic Review. May 2018
Republic of Kenya (2012) National Agribusiness Strategy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU). 
Republic of Kenya (2016) Cabinet memo on strengthening smallholder farmers’ production and marketing by 
facilitating direct access to public food procurement opportunities. Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and
Fisheries and National Treasury. November 2016.
Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food 
Programme.
Republic of Kenya (2017) Assessment report on public institutional food procurement form small holder farmers 
in Kenya. December 2017.
Republic of Kenya (2018) National school meals and nutrition strategy 2017-2022. Ministry of Education, 
Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
Republic of Kenya (2018) The National Education Sector Strategic Plan for the period 2018-2022. Ministry of 
Education.
Republic of Kenya (2018) Third Medium-Term Plan (2018-2022): Transforming Lives: Advancing socio-economic 
development through the “Big Four”. National Treasury and Planning. Nairobi 
http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ken189643.pdf
Republic of Kenya (2018) Towards zero hunger: Strategic Review. May 2018
Republic of Kenya (2018) Turkana SMART Nutrition Surveys. June 2018
Republic of Kenya (2018) West Pokot County Integrated SMART Survey Report. June 2018.
Republic of Kenya (2019) Agricultural Sector Transformation and Growth Strategy: Towards sustainable 
agricultural transformation and food security in Kenya (2019-2029). Abridged Version. Ministry of Agriculture 
and Irrigation.
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
122
Republic of Kenya (2019) Baringo County: 2019 Long rains food and nutrition security assessment report. July 
2019.
Republic of Kenya (2019) Sessional Paper No.2 of 2019 on National Policy on Gender and Development. Towards 
creating a just, fair and transformed society free from gender-based discrimination in all spheres of life practices. 
Ministry of Public Service, Youth and Gender.
Taylor, J.E et al (2019) Potential local economy impacts of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Program. UC 
Davis.
The County Early Childhood Education Bill (2018). 
http://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/bills/2018/CountyEarlyChildhoodEducationBill_2018.pdf
Turkana County (2018) Turkana County Integrated Development Plan, CIDP II: 2018-2022. Popular version. 
UNCTAD (2018) East African Community Regional Integration: Trade and Gender Implications. United Nations.
UNDP (2019) Inequalities in Human Development in the 21st Century. Briefing note for countries for the 2019 
Human Development Report. Kenya.
United Nations Evaluation Group (2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation. New York: UNEG.
United Nations Kenya (2018) United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for Kenya, 2018-
2022. Nairobi
WFP (2016) Turkana County Strategy to improve access to markets for smallholder farmers and small-scale 
processors (2016-2019).
WFP (2018) Safe Food Handling and Preparation, sorghum and cow peas menu and recipes development report 
– Turkana County – September 2018; 
WFP (2019) Sorghum, finger millet, green grams and cowpeas menu and training package development 
workshop report for West Pokot County – July 2019.
WFP (2019) Sorghum, finger millet, green grams and cowpeas menu and training package development 
workshop report for Baringo County – July 2019.
WFP (2019) Traditional Nutritional Foods in Baringo County: Value Chain Study Report
WFP (2019) Traditional Nutritional Foods in West Pokot County: Value Chain Study Report
WFP (2020) School meals supply chain compliance assessment report
WFP Kenya (2018) Kenya Country Strategic Plan 2018-2023. WFP/EB.A/2018/8-A/3
WFP Kenya (2018) The Kenya Retail Engagement Initiative: Getting more value from Bamba Chakula cash 
transfers. Infobrief No. 17. Kenya
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
123
5 List of Acronyms
AMAL Agriculture, Market Access and Linkage
BMZ Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Germany)
CIDP County Integrated Development Plan
CO (WFP) Country Office
CSP (WFP) Country Strategic Plan
DoA Department of Agriculture
DoE Department of Education
ECDE Early Children Development Education 
EQAS (WFP Centralized) Evaluation Quality Assurance Service
ET Evaluation Team
EUTF European Union Trust Fund
FAO (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization
FCT Food Composition Tables
FDC Forward Delivery Contract
FO Farmer Organization
GAM Global Acute Malnutrition
GDI Gender Development Index
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEEW Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women
GII Gender Inequality Index
HDI Human Development Index
HGSMP Home Grown School Meals Programme
HQ Headquarters
IPC Integrated (Food Security) Phase Classification
KES Kenyan Shilling (currency)
LEWIE Local Economy Wide Impact Evaluation
LRP Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Programme
MoA Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MoE Ministry of Education
MoH Ministry of Health
MoITC Ministry of Industry, Trade and Cooperatives
NESSP National Education Sector Strategic Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NSMNS National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy
OECD-DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance 
Committee
P4P Purchase for Progress
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
RBN (WFP) Regional Bureau Nairobi
RF Results Framework
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SMC School Meal Committee
SY School Year
TOR Terms of Reference
UNDSS United Nations Department of Safety & Security
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
WFP Kenya Endline LRP Evaluation Report – May 2020 |Page
124
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USD United States Dollar (currency)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VCA Value Chain Assessment
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP World Food Programme
[Name of commissioning Office
]
[Link to the website]
[Place, Month and Year, Report number]