Decentralized Evaluation
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making
Prepared by
Bert Fret, Team Leader
Fernanda M Leite Villamarin, International Consultant
Raul Mendes Fernandes, National Consultant
Final evaluation report 
March 2021
WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Office
Evaluation Manager: Elber Nosolini
Final Evaluation of the McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in 
Guinea-Bissau
From 2016 to 2019
Evaluation Report
i | P a g e
Acknowledgements
The Evaluation Team (ET) wishes to thank the World Food Programme Country Office 
(WFP CO) in Bissau for all assistance received during the evaluation mission. We are also 
grateful to all Ministry of Education (MoE) staff, both in Bissau and in the regional capital,
and in the various schools that were visited, who took the time and were available to help
us along with all the information we needed. We thank the volunteer cooks in the school 
kitchens, and the leaders of the School Management Committees (SMCs) and Parents’ 
Associations (PAs), and the local NGOs with whom we could discuss, for helping us to 
understand their perspective. And finally, our thanks go also to the pupils, boys and girls, 
whom we could interview, for volunteering, and for readily answering our questions. 
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not 
necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme (WFP). Responsibility for the 
opinions expressed in this report rest 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 the WFP concerning the legal or 
constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation 
of frontiers.
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department 
of Agriculture or the United States Government. 
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov 
ii | P a g e
Table of contents
Acknowledgements........................................................................................i
Disclaimer .....................................................................................................i
Executive Summary...................................................................................... 1
Context ................................................................................................................................................................1
Methodology........................................................................................................................................................1
Key Findings: ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Relevance ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
2. Effectiveness................................................................................................................................................... 2
3. Efficiency ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
4. Impact ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
5. Sustainability.................................................................................................................................................. 4
Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction ...........................................................................................8
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject.......................................................................................................8
1.2. Context................................................................................................................................................... 9
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations:........................................................................................... 11
1.4. Limitations:.......................................................................................................................................... 13
1.5. Ethics:................................................................................................................................................... 13
2. Evaluation Findings .............................................................................. 14
2.1. Evaluation Question 1.1: Is the project’s strategy relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs? .................... 14
2.2. Evaluation Question 1.2: Is the project aligned with the national government’s education and school 
feeding policies and strategies? ........................................................................................................................17
2.3. Evaluation Question 1.3: Does the project complement other donor-funded and government 
initiatives? ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
2.4. Evaluation Question 2.1. The extent of project implementation – Did the project carry out all 
activities as planned? (Effectiveness).............................................................................................................. 19
2.5. Evaluation Question 2.2: To what degree have the interventions resulted, or not, in the expected 
results and outcomes? In particular, to what extent did providing THRs result in increased attendance and 
enrolment of girl pupils? (Effectiveness).........................................................................................................23
2.6. Evaluation Question 2.3. Is short term hunger reduced? (Effectiveness)..........................................24
2.7. Evaluation Question 2.4. Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries in the right quantity and 
quality at the right time? (Effectiveness).........................................................................................................24
2.8. Evaluation Question 3.1. Has the programme been implemented in an efficient way? Was there 
efficient use of resources and efficient methods of work? (Efficiency)...........................................................26
2.9. Evaluation Question 4.1. To what degree has the project achieved the results that were foreseen in 
the project level framework? (Impact) ...........................................................................................................28
2.10. Evaluation Question 4.2. Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? 
(Impact)............................................................................................................................................................34
2.11. Evaluation Question 4.3. What internal and external factors affected the project’s achievement of 
intended results? (Impact).............................................................................................................................. 35
2.12. Evaluation Question 5.1: Is the school meal programme sustainable, including a strategy for: 
sustainability; sound policy; stable funding; quality programme design; institutional arrangements; local 
iii | P a g e
production and sourcing; partnership and coordination; and community participation and ownership? 
(Sustainability).................................................................................................................................................36
2.13. Evaluation Question 5.2 What substantive progress has the Government made toward developing a 
nationally owned school feeding programme? (Sustainability)..................................................................... 37
2.14. Evaluation Question 5.3. How are local communities involved in and contributing to school 
feeding? (Sustainability) .................................................................................................................................39
2.15. Evaluation Question 5.4. What needs remain in order to achieve a full handover and nationally 
owned school feeding programme? (Sustainability).......................................................................................40
3. Conclusions and Recommendations......................................................42
Overall assessment...........................................................................................................................................42
Lessons learned..........................................................................................46
Annexes......................................................................................................47
Annex 1 - McGovern-Dole FFE Framework .................................................................................................... 47
Annex 2 - Revised version of the reconstructed Logical framework of the WFP/McGovern Dole FFE 
Programme in Guinea Bissau (2016-19)..........................................................................................................49
Annex 3 – Evaluation Matrix............................................................................................................................51
Annex 4 - Interviewed Stakeholders................................................................................................................ 61
Annex 5 - Number of schools assisted by the McGovern-Dole FFE programme and visited during the 
baseline, Mid-Term and Final evaluations......................................................................................................62
Annex 7 - Project Performance Indicators ......................................................................................................63
Annex 8 – Total amount of food distributed to schools, meals prepared and served.................................... 67
Annex 9 – Approximate estimates of financial reporting ...............................................................................68
Annex 10 - Nutritional content of one school meal.........................................................................................69
Annex 11 – Results of the SABER exercise ...................................................................................................... 70
Annex 12 - To what extent have the recommendations of the baseline survey and of the mid-term 
evaluation been implemented by WFP............................................................................................................ 72
Annex 13 - Terms of Reference ........................................................................................................................ 74
Annex 14 - Documents Reviewed.....................................................................................................................92
Annex 15 – Documents gathered.....................................................................................................................96
Annex 16 - Data Collection Tools....................................................................................................................101
Annex 17 - Bibliography..................................................................................................................................113
iv | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1.1 - Overview of the McGovern-Dole FFE-WFP project in Guinea-Bissau (2016-2019)....... 8
Table 2.1 - Application of international criteria and the corresponding evaluation questions .......14
Table 2.2 - Take-home rations for boys and girls by region and income quintile (2019) ...............16
Table 2.3 - Number of girls from 4th to 6th grade receiving THR by year ........................................20
Table 2.4 - Perceptions of students (boys and girls) at WFP-supported schools who reported on 
quantity and quality of the meals provided (2019).......................................................................... 25
Table 2.5 - Main programme outcome values per year, against the baseline and the target values
............................................................................................................................................................28
Table 2.6 - Median enrolment for all applicable school levels, according to school years (2014-15, 
2017-18 and 2018-19) and gender. ................................................................................................... 29
Table 2.7- Profile of households according to the Food Consumption Score by year (2016, 2018, 
2019)...................................................................................................................................................31
Table 2.8- Profile of households according to wealth quintiles by year (2016, 2018, 2019)...........31
Table 2.9- Percentage of schools with improved source of water and toilet facilities, handwashing 
practices and separate toilets (2016, 2018, 2019).............................................................................31
Table 2.10- Percentage of SMC members who received training from WFP (2016, 2018, 2019).. 32
Table 2.11- Analysis of Results of SF End-line Survey (2019): Means values in percentage and 
significant differences between WFP assisted and non-WFP assisted schools .............................. 33
Table 2.12- Median of numbers of students in WFP and Non-WFP schools (2019)...................... 34
Table 2.13- Local communities’ participation (2016, 2018, 2019)..................................................40
List of figures
Figure 2.1 - Attendance rates of grade 4 students in WFP and non-WFP Schools (baseline, mid￾term and final evaluation)................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 2.2. - Percentage of students who ate a meal before and after school (2016, 2018, 2019).30
v | P a g e
List of Acronyms
ABC Brazilian Cooperation Agency
CIMCE Inter-ministerial School-Feeding Committee 
CO Country Office
CRS Catholic Relief Service 
DEQAS Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System
DGASCE General Directorate for School Meals and Social Affairs
DGPASE Evaluation and Planning Department of the Ministry of Education
ESP Education Sector Plan
ET Evaluation Team
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FSNMS Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System
GB Guinea-Bissau
GEEW Gender Equality and Emancipation of Women 
GoGB Government of Guinea-Bissau
HGSF Home Grown School Feeding
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
ICSP Interim Country Strategic Plan
INE National Statistics Institute
IPDH International Programme for Human Development
LIC Low-income country
MADR Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development
MAM Moderate Acute Malnutrition
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MNECJD Ministry of National Education, Culture, Youth and Sports (former name)
MENES Ministry of National Education and Higher Education (current name) 
MGD McGovern-Dole
MGD FFE McGovern-Dole Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme
MoE Ministry of Education
NAEC Nutritional assessment, education and counselling
NDSF National Directorate of School Feeding 
OEV Office of Evaluations
PA Parents’ Association
SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SFP School Feeding Programme(s)
SISSAN Food and Nutrition Security Monitoring System
SMC School Management Committees
THR Take-home ration(s)
ToR Terms of Reference
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund 
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
US United States
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
VAM Vulnerability Analysis & Mapping 
WFP World Food Programme
RB Regional Bureau
WHO World Health Organization
1 | P a g e
Executive Summary
The final evaluation of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole FFE) project (FFE-657-2015/019-00), implemented 
by the World Food Programme (WFP) in Guinea-Bissau (GB), from March 2016 to July 
2019 (extended to April 2020), had two main objectives: (1) Accountability: To account for 
the activities carried out by WFP as well as the outputs and outcomes reached; (2) 
Learning: To draw lessons for the main actors. Baseline (2016) and mid-term (2018-2019) 
evaluations preceded this end-line evaluation. The baseline study conducted before the 
start of the project provided a situational analysis and allowed WFP to establish indicator 
baseline information. It also verified the targets established in the Project Agreement. The 
mid-term evaluation covered the period from August 2017 (preparation phase) to July 
2019 (final evaluation report). This evaluation aimed at allowing the WFP to monitor the 
progress of the established indicators. 
The present end-line evaluation comprises the entirety of activities covered by the 
McGovern-Dole funded WFP school feeding project in GB (2016-2018). The final 
evaluation, in line with the completed mid-term evaluation includes: (1) a review of the 
project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability; (2) the collection 
of performance indicator data; more specifically it (3) assesses whether or not the project 
achieved its expected results; (4) identifies lessons learned; (5) assesses project 
replicability; and (6) investigates whether or not the mid-term evaluation 
recommendations were implemented. 
Main users of the evaluation are the WFP Country Office (CO), the WFP Regional Bureau 
(WFP RB), the Office of Evaluation (OEV), the Ministry of National Education and Higher 
Education (Ministério da Educação Nacional e Ensino Superior, MENES)1 along with its 
General Directorate for School Meals and Social Affairs (DGASCE), USDA, and Japan.
The study covered 100 schools, 50 of which were WFP schools and 50 of which were non￾WFP schools, as a control group. WFP schools covered a total of 19,323 students.
Context 
GB is a low-income country (LIC), with 70% of the population living below the poverty line
of USD 1.9 per day. Women are most affected by poverty due to inadequate healthcare, 
low levels of education, poor literacy rates, and low-income rates. Roughly half of the 
population 15 years of age or older are illiterate, and malnutrition among children under 
5 years old is staggering: in 2016, up to 4.2% and 6.1% of children under five had severe 
and moderate acute malnutrition, respectively.
The main activities of the McGovern-Dole FFE project, which cost USD 20 million, were 
the provision of school meals to pupils in 758 primary schools, and of take-home rations 
(THRs) of rice to girls in grades 4, 5, and 6 with sufficient attendance (80%). It also 
included activities related to capacity building and equipment provision. WFP’s main 
partner was MENES and its DGASCE. 
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach was implemented for data collection. Primary data was 
collected from stakeholders using inquiry techniques such as questionnaires, interviews, 
and on-site observation. The quantitative survey used a non-experimental method. Data 
were collected by applying the same questionnaire as the base-line and mid-term surveys
in 100 schools, distributed in eight regions of GB. The final sample consisted of 50 WFP￾schools and 50 non-WFP schools. Interviews were conducted with school directors (n=100, 
one in each school visited), male (n=500) and female (n=500) students (five per sex per
school) and male (n=500) and female (n=500) students’ parents and guardians (n=1,000). 
1 Previously named Ministry of National Education, Culture and Youth and Sports (MNEJCD) 
2 | P a g e
Existing WFP reports were used for triangulation along with other sources of data2. Both 
gender equality and human rights were mainstreamed throughout the evaluation process.
The qualitative survey was based on semi-structured individual and group interviews 
during the fieldwork phase of the evaluation. These interviews were held in 30 WFP￾schools located in six regions of GB: Oio, Bafata, Cacheu, Biombo, Quinara and Gabu. In 
Bissau, interviews were carried out with the WFP staff involved in SF project management,
as well as stakeholders from the Ministry of Education (MoE), the Ministry of Agriculture,
and other government institution; national non-governmental organizations (NGOs); and 
the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF). Additionally, the ET gathered secondary 
data from databases, reports, surveys, web resources, and other documented sources for 
triangulation. Results from the mid-term school feeding survey were also considered for 
data comparison.
Some limitations were encountered during fieldwork, such as unreliable road or sea access 
and diverse language use. Nevertheless, measures were taken to mitigate these barriers as 
much as possible, i.e., by using local interpreters; by inviting a key actor from the Bolama￾Bijagós region (which was not visited) for an interview in Bissau.
Key Findings:
1. Relevance
The school feeding program (SFP) is very relevant to the needs of pupils, their families 
and local communities, and is aligned with educational policies and strategies of the 
Government of Guinea Bissau (GoGB). It alleviates short-term hunger and supplements 
household food income. The THRs given to girls from 4th to 6th grade have motivated 
parents to send their daughters to schools. The strategy to evolve towards a programme
based on locally purchased foods, or Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF), further 
increases the relevance of the programme to local communities. This shift should provide 
a local selling opportunity for farmers - increasing their income - and could thus have a 
positive effect on the local economy, thereby reducing poverty. Currently, two pilot 
initiatives are testing different modalities of local food purchases. One is funded by the 
GoGB, and the other is funded by Japan. 
2. Effectiveness
All activities linked to the handling of school meals at schools were generally well 
performed and short-term hunger has been reduced. Overall, the targeted numbers of 
pupils (boys and girls from grades 1 to 6) have been served the agreed upon number of
quality school meals. Meals were 7.67 % in excess of the predicted number. Girls from 4th
to 6th grade with an attendance of 80% or more have received a monthly THR of rice for 
their families in higher numbers than foreseen (1.4% more3). Delays were negligible. The 
planned number of kitchens, storerooms and firewood saving stoves have all been 
renovated or constructed.
There is still space for improvements for some of the accompanying activities that have 
been performed to a lesser degree, e.g., the training of various locals and MENES personnel
(30,36% of target, see activity 8, table A.7.1, Annexe 7 p. 69), and the number of timely 
school feeding reports produced (50,45% of target, see activity 9, same table, p. 70). The 
high turnover of the MoE’s staff and recurrent strikes have been among the reasons for this 
insufficient level of performance. 
The DGASCE benefitted from capacity strengthening and has been involved in the local 
purchase pilot projects. However, further improvements should be made to increase 
government ownership. The local purchase pilot project extension in the region of Biombo 
2
Sources: I) UNICEF Annual Reports; II) Guinea-Bissau Interim Country Strategic Plan 2018-2019; III) Rethinking School Feeding: Social 
Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector. World Bank (2009). Available at: 
https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974-5, access in 8/12/2019; IV) World Food Programme/Partnership for 
Child Development /World Bank: Workshop for Assessing National Capacities in School Feeding in Guinea-Bissau - SABER Action Plan;
V) Terms of Reference, Mid-term and Final Evaluations of McGovern-Dole funded School Feeding project in Guinea-Bissau (2016-2018). 
3 See Annex 7, p.67.
3 | P a g e
will be implemented in 2020 by MENES so that it can gain management experience and 
improve ownership. 
The WFP provided important technical assistance to MENES and to the GoGB in the areas 
of policy formulation and development of a legal framework. This has led to the 
promulgation of the National School Feeding Law.
Outcome results for the specific subgroup of girls from grades 4 to 6 were not defined as 
indicators, hence no quantitative data exist for this subgroup, and no proof of the effect of 
the THR could be measured. However, qualitative data gathered through interviews with 
several stakeholders reflect that THRs is correlated to an increase in enrolment, the 
maintenance of school attendance, lower school dropout rates, and a narrow gender gap in 
the target schools. Quantitative data show a stagnation during the years the project was 
underway for the overall retention rate of all pupils from grades 1 to 6, and no reduction of 
the drop-out rates for WFP assisted schools, which remained at 5%. Nevertheless, this rate 
is much lower than the most recent national dropout average4. This includes all non￾supported primary schools. 
While WFP did reach poor children, the programme did not reach the poorest children 
from the poorest and most vulnerable communities. The unequipped and makeshift 
schools (including rudimentary kitchens) in these more vulnerable communities did not 
meet WFP technical selection criteria. The WFP CO justified this by stating the need to 
safeguard children from unsafe meals by ensuring proper food storage, proper hygiene 
conditions in kitchens, and acceptable school infrastructure for teaching and learning.
Also, WFP has shifted its focus exclusively to rural schools with local food production, 
stopping its support of urban schools in an effort to reach more of the poorest children. 
3. Efficiency
WFP has used very efficient methods, work procedures and monitoring systems to ensure
the correct flow of food from the Port of Bissau to beneficiary schools. Control over the food 
stock and its use in the schools was more efficient when there was an active School 
Management Committee (SMC) and Parent Association (PA). The toll-free anonymous 
complaint and denunciation phone number (106) is well known and regularly used by local 
communities. WFP has leak-proof systems to record the messages and deal with the issues
accordingly.
Interviews with stakeholders from local NGOs revealed that the quality and sustainability 
of their work are frequently jeopardized by the lack of budget and inadequate infrastructure 
provided by WFP for them to conduct their activities, e.g., lack of vehicles. Because the 
NGOs involved in the two HGSF pilots about local food purchases are only offered short￾term contracts, planning for them is difficult. According to the WFP CO, this mainly 
happens because the pilots are funded annually so they cannot set-up any agreements
longer than that.
4. Impact
Qualitative data indicate that the SF programme had a positive impact on student 
attendance and retention, and on enrolment and attendance rates of girls. There is an
assumption that the provision of daily school meals to students helps them to achieve their 
nutritional needs and that they have the potential to improve attentiveness during classes.
An increase of knowledge on safe food preparation and storage was not fully attained
because sufficient numbers of local stakeholders were not trained, particularly women
(cooks) and SMC members. This was mostly observed during the 2018-19 school year. 
Nevertheless, WFP’s training of SMC and schools increased awareness about diet 
diversification. Targets related to the treatment of pupils with deworming medication were 
only achieved in 2018, with insufficient actions related to this during the 2016-17 and 2017-
18 school years. 
4 The analysis of the school carreer of a generation of children in GB shows that 23% of a given age groups does not enter primary school,and 
that 18% of those who enter, drop out before grade six. Plano Nacional da Educação, Ministry of Education 2017, p.9.
4 | P a g e
Both pupils and cooks reported insufficient equipment and utensils in visited schools due 
to losses or breakage. Follow-up actions by the WFP to tackle this issue were highly 
recommended by the ET.
The WFP played a key role in assisting the MoE and the GoGB to formulate the new 
National School Feeding Law and to advocate for its promulgation. The GoGB funded 
HGSF project has exceeded its initial target number of schools. However, the WFP CO has
been the principal implementer so far, instead of the DGASCE.
Targets to promote local knowledge on management of the SFP were not reached, as 
insufficient numbers of education staff (only 30.4%) were trained at the regional and local 
levels. Female staff in particular were trained in much smaller numbers than had been 
planned.
A major unintended effect was the migration of pupils from non-beneficiary schools to 
assisted ones. The role played by school canteens in several schools’ decision not to adhere 
to the frequent teacher strikes was also a positive and unexpected event. To a minor extent, 
certain children who took a school meal were being given a smaller than normal portion at 
the evening family meal that same day, based on the quantitative results survey.
5. Sustainability
The WFP was the main entity responsible for implementing the programme, but has 
supported the DGASCE on a growth path towards increased capacity and involvement. 
Advances were made towards establishing a National School Feeding Law, and the HGSF 
pilot project is well appreciated locally. The Inter-Ministerial School Feeding Committee 
(CIMCE) is being relaunched by MENES. The DGASCE staff have strengthened their
management capacities and will now implement a part of the pilot project in the Biombo 
region. In most schools, SMC and PA performed an operational and supportive role. 
Despite this, most of members saw their participation as essential for controlling the 
quantity and quality of foods delivered to schools and guaranteeing community ownership 
and programme sustainability. 
There is currently no sufficient and sustainable funding within the GoGB to implement 
the SF programme with only national resources. Additionally, political instability is a
handicap for progress towards increased government ownership. The DGASCE has not yet
created and implemented its own M&E system, quality-control procedures, and modus 
operandi procedures for the SF programme.
Conclusions and Recommendations 
Overall assessment: The McGovern-Dole FFE programme was well implemented 
between 2016 and 2019, particularly in relation to the management of the flow of US food 
commodities from the port of Bissau to the pupils in the 758 assisted primary schools in 
GB. Other aspects of the programme that need further improvements include training of 
cooks and of SMC and PA leaders in the management and monitoring of the food at school 
level, the construction of fuel wood saving stoves and the training of school directors and 
inspectors in the reporting procedures about the use of the food in the school kitchen. 
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme had an important positive impact on alleviating
short-term hunger of children and their families. It also contributed to the increase of 
enrolment, attendance, and retention rates, and to the stabilisation of the dropout rates for 
both boys and girls. Although the project framework includes (SO1) “Improved Quality of 
Literacy Instruction”, no planned activity was set to achieve this goal (see Annex 1). 
Therefore, the progress of the project's outcomes related to this objective as a result of 
USDA assistance could not be evaluated. The (SO2) “Improved health and dietary 
practices” and the foundational result “Capacity building in the Education Ministry” were
both partly achieved. 
Conclusion 1 (Relevance): The SFP is very relevant to the needs of pupils, families and 
communities, as it reduces short-term hunger and supplements household food income. 
Key stakeholders, including at the school level, perceive the THRs for girls from 4th to 6th
5 | P a g e
grade with an 80% attendance or more as having encouraged parents to send their 
daughters to school longer. The strategy to evolve towards a HGSF approach further 
enhances its relevance for the local communities as it increases local producer incomes. 
Conclusion 2 (Relevance): Certain relevant indicators are absent from the list of 
performance and result indicators in the Financing Agreement, and consequently also from 
the WFP M&E system. These are: (1) retention rates, or alternatively, dropout rates of girls
from grade 4th to 6th grade with 80% attendance or higher who receive THRs of 4 kg of dry 
rice at the end of each month; (2) the frequency of school meals, expressed as the
percentage of the school days with lessons, which could show the relative importance of 
delays in WFP’s deliveries to schools or of organizational problems at the school level (See 
recommendation 1). 
Conclusion 3 (Relevance): The WFP SF programme reached most of the poorer, 
vulnerable pupils of the country because the programme focused on rural areas, and 
covered about 60% of all existing schools. However, the WFP’s criteria for admission of 
primary schools into the SF programme actually exclude most of the poorest children livng 
in the most vulnerable communities, as their unequipped and makeshift community 
schools do not meet WFP selection criteria, which include a minimum level of 
infrastructure. 
Conclusion 4 (Effectiveness): Two different pilot projects are currently being 
conducted by WFP. Both pilots have reached a size that exceeds what is needed for an 
experiment. However, no clear trajectory has been defined that would lead to some kind of 
a decision-making process. With its Japanese funded pilot, the WFP is increasingly rolling 
out a model that has not explicitly been chosen by the main actors, particularly not by the 
MoE. This is becoming an untenable situation (See recommendation 4). 
Conclusion 5 (Effectiveness): The WFP has in some cases accepted proposals from 
local NGOs it wishes to subcontract, that have insufficient budgets. This implied a risk for 
insufficient provisions, undermining their work and consequently, their project
deliverables. On the other hand, the support-NGOs in the local purchase pilot projects are 
only offered the perspective to be hired for their services for a series of consecutive shorter 
periods, instead of for the full duration of the pilot project. This makes planning and 
management of staff, resources, and means of transport much more complicated (See 
recommendation 7). 
Conclusion 6 (Effectiveness and sustainability): WFP has been the dominant actor 
in the SF programme in GB over the past three to four years, partly thanks to the 
McGovern-Dole FFE programme. The MoE and its DGASCE, have slowly developed a 
certain level of capacity, via their collaboration with WFP and their monitoring of 
operations at the school level. Notwithstanding a formal discourse that reaffirms the 
ownership of the school canteen programme by the DGASCE, in practice WFP has been 
responsible for putting in place operating systems, norms and procedures, as well as its 
monitoring and evaluation system. Efforts to develop and strengthen capacity in the 
DGASCE have been limited so far, for various reasons (See recommendations 9 and 10). 
Conclusion 7 (Effectiveness): School meals have generally been regular and timely, 
of sufficient size and satisfactory quality. In those schools that participate in the local 
purchase pilot projects, variations in the diet have been appreciated because they broke the 
monotony of rice-and-beans meals. 
Conclusion 8 (Gender): The recommendation from the baseline survey (2016) for 
WFP to conduct a more in-depth study on parents’ motivations for keeping their daughters
at home, rather than attending school classes has not been implemented. The end-line 
evaluation demonstrated that other delicate factors beyond food shortages could be 
contributing to this outcome, with THRs being considered just one of the factors that could
promote a change in parents’ mindsets (See recommendation 5).
6 | P a g e
Conclusion 9 (Gender): The poor infrastructure of school toilets was pointed out by 
school directors, teachers and the PA as one of the reasons for pre-adolescent and 
adolescent girls to abandon school. Another possible reason was the walking distance to 
school, as it increases the risk of girls being harassed (See recommendation 6).
Recommendations 
Recommendation 1: Directed to WFP (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): The WFP 
should, during the current school year of 2019-20, start monitoring the output indicators 
that refer specifically to girl pupils in grades 4, 5 and 6, even if its contract with USDA for 
the McGovern-Dole FFE programme will come to an end in April 2020. The cancellation 
of the monthly THRs of dry rice for the girls’ families offers an opportunity to measure the 
impact of this practice in GB, by measuring the impact of its sudden absence on attendance,
retention and dropout rates. 
Recommendation 2: Directed to WFP (Priority 2, within 6 months – 1 year): The WFP 
should try to further integrate its SF programme with local efforts, e.g., UNICEF and INDE,
to improve teachers’ skills and provide didactic materials as well as more efficient access 
to deworming medication for school children. Active partnerships with actors and 
initiatives that work on improved teaching pilots would add value to reaching this target,
as well as appropriate indicators to be closely tracked over time. 
Recommendation 3: Directed to WFP-GB (Priority 2, within 1 year): The GB CO of 
WFP should, in relation to the SF programme, continue to adopt a more developmentalist5
approach regarding the SF programme with a focus on sustainability, particularly in 
relation to the following two evolutions: 
(a) the shift to an HGSF programme, in which food is purchased from local producers, 
because it requires a lot of developmental and organisational work on the production side, 
and to consolidate the link between school and community. This requires specific new
skills. 
(b) the preparation and step by step implementation of the hand-over process of the 
management of the SF programme to the MoE and its DGASCE requires a specific set of 
new skills and attitudes, quite different from those required for the effective management 
of food supply. The pilot project in the Biombo region is a good opportunity for 
improvements in relation to this.
(c) the management of the WFP CO should take the initiative for such a shift in attitudes 
and skills which may imply a retraining of staff. 
Recommendation 4: Directed to WFP (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): WFP 
should assist the DGASCE of the MoE in its reflection about the future HGSF model and 
modalities, and the process to make a fundamental choice on the basis of the various pilot 
projects that have been or are being conducted now. WFP could seek funding and offer 
organisational assistance for: (1) a jointly commissioned external evaluation by qualified 
consultants to assist in the participatory analysis of the accumulated experience of both 
WFP and the MoE; (2) an externally facilitated workshop with representation by all 
categories of stakeholders to determine which model or which modalities are best suited to 
be rolled out in the local context. Such an evaluation would be an opportunity to consult 
the communities, and to explore ways to set up a structure in which a more permanent 
dialogue or consultation between the WFP and the DGASCE along with the various SMCs 
and PAs can take place. Examples of this include the latter participating in self-evaluations, 
and a channel being created for an upward flow of complaints, suggestions, opinions, and 
so forth. 
Recommendation 5: Directed to WFP (Priority 2, within 1 year): The WFP should
jointly organize with the DGASCE a more in-depth study into the motivations of parents to 
5 Development work pursues sustainable post-intervention goals. From the very beginning the end of the assistance is envisaged and 
planned, even if at medium or long term. 
7 | P a g e
keep their daughters at home, and discontinue their school education. All factors that play
a role in girls’ education should be identified and analysed to allow for a more balanced 
and complementary set of actions. 
Recommendation 6: Directed to WFP (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): The WFP 
CO should endeavour to urgently implement improvements in the availability and 
conditions of the toilet facilities for pupils in the assisted primary schools, in order to avoid 
the possible drop-out of pre-adolescent/adolescent girls. The WFP should proactively seek 
forms of collaboration with partners that are active in the field of water and sanitation. 
Recommendation 7: Directed to WFP (Priority 2, by the next round of contracts). The 
WFP should review the action and budget proposals of the local NGOs it wishes to 
subcontract for specific, critical support activities and add a sustainability criterion to their 
analysis. The NGOs should have enough means and funds to implement their tasks in 
optimal circumstances, and the sustainability of their outputs and outcomes should not be 
jeopardized by insufficient budgets. Being too economical can lead to a loss of efficiency in 
the long run. 
Recommendation 8: Directed to DGASCE (Priority 1, within the next 3-6 months): In 
the interest of better SF results for the children, the DGASCE should work with the WFP to 
generously share its experience and know-how with the CRS, the new McGovern-Dole 
operator, for the next 3 years. WFP and the DGASCE should negotiate the modalities for 
the continued existence and use of the toll free complaint and denunciation phone number
(106) with CRS so that it can be used by both WFP and CRS beneficiaries, and later by the 
MoE and its partners. 
Recommendation 9: Directed to the MoE (Priority 1, within the next 3-6 months): The 
DGASCE should be more proactive in the process of determining inclusion and exclusion 
criteria for school/community selection. This should take into account criteria that cover 
the areas of nutrition status, food security, and education, respectively managed by the 
WFP (VAM and SISSAN) and by the MoE. The decision concerning the inclusion or 
exclusion of schools and communities is a political decision based on criteria that reflect 
the minimally required physical conditions that belongs to the MoE. 
Recommendation 10: Directed to the DGASCE of the MoE of GB (Priority 2, within 1
year): The DGASCE should start to develop and define its own management, monitoring 
and evaluation (M&E) systems for the SF programme, probably in a gradual process, and 
in close dialogue with the WFP, integrating all the good elements from the WFP’s
experience and from former (International Programme for Human Development, IPHD) 
and future McGovern-Dole operators as much as possible. As the Ministry’s own 
management and M&E systems take shape and used regularly, the MoE should ask every 
successive McGovern-Dole operator to adopt and follow these national management and 
M&E systems. 
8 | P a g e
1. Introduction 
The primary aim of the final evaluation of the McGovern-Dole FFE project (FFE-657-
2015/019-00), implemented by the WFP in GB, was to assess the extent to which the project 
has succeeded in achieving its goals at the end of the contract period. An extension period,
lasting until April 2020 was agreed upon between the USDA and the WFP, in order to allow 
the distribution and regular use of the significant6 remaining stock of food commodities at 
the time of the nominal closure of the project in August 2019. 
The objectives of this final, external evaluation were the following: (1) accountability - to 
account for the activities carried out by WFP and the outputs and outcomes reached; (2) 
learning - to analyse internal and external factors that have positively or negatively influenced 
the achievement of the expected outputs and outcomes which should allow main actors to 
draw lessons for the future. 
The main users of this report include both internal and external programme stakeholders, 
such as the WFP CO, the WFP RB and the OEV, the MoE (MENES) and its DGASCE, USDA 
and Japan. Its main findings and recommendations should allow them to correct, improve or 
maintain actions and strategies in the GB SF programme.
This evaluation covers all activities that were considered in the agreement between the 
FAS/USDA and the WFP for the period between 2016 and 2019, in eight regions7 of GB. The
present extension, until April 2020, has also been considered. 
According to the Terms of Reference (ToR), the scope of the final evaluation is the entirety 
of activities covered by the McGovern-Dole funded WFP school feeding project in GB (2016-
2018). The evaluation was carried out with samples from all eight targeted geographic 
regions. 
The final evaluation, in line with the completed mid-term evaluation: (1) reviews the 
project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability and (2) collects
performance indicator data; more specifically it (3) assesses whether or not the project 
achieved its expected results; (4) identifies lessons learned; (5) assesses project replicability; 
and (6) whether or not the mid-term evaluation recommendations were implemented. 
Gender equality and human rights were mainstreamed throughout the evaluation questions
and sub-questions in order to capture different perspectives of men, women, boys and girls. 
The end-line evaluation relies on the Baseline Study and Mid-term results for the baseline 
data and situational analysis necessary to evaluate the project at interim and at the final stage
as well as the mid-term evaluation, which was conducted halfway through project 
implementation, from January to November 2018. 
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject
The Financing Agreement FFE-657-205/019-00 established the allocation of USD 20 
million over three financial years (2016 - 2018), as shown in Table 1.1. below.
Table 1.1 - Overview of the McGovern-Dole FFE-WFP project in Guinea-Bissau (2016-2019) 
Type of Intervention: Operation
Dates Approval date: December 2015. Start date: March 2016. End date: July 2019. 
Prolonged until April 2020
Amendments
Requested by the WFP in August 2017: Coverage extended from 638 to 758 schools. 
Updated target for number of kitchens and storerooms to be constructed.
Addendum in 2019 to continue food distribution activities until April 2020
Duration Three years and four months, but now extended to four years and one month
Beneficiary Numbers
Planned: FY 2016 145,000 students; FY 2017 160,000 students; FY 2018 173,000 
students. During school year 2019-2020: 173,000 pupils.
Planned: 638 schools, increased in 2017 to 758 schools
Donors MGD-USDA: USD 20 million (FY 2016: USD 6,217,100; FY 2017: USD 6,891,400;
and FY 2018: USD 6,891,500)
6 1.103.75 MT of rice, 222.35 MT of beans and 110.86 MT of vegetable oil. Together 1,436.96 MT. 
7 These are: Biombo, Cacheu, Oio, Gabú, Bafatá, Tombalí, Quinará, and Bolama-Bijagós.
9 | P a g e
Type of Intervention: Operation
Main Activities School meals, THR, improving school feeding structures (kitchen and storage) 
trainings, M&E system, supporting SF pilot 
Amount Transfered Planned: In-kind food: 1,956 MTs of beans, 9,894 MTs of rice and 737 MTs of 
vegetable oil. Of these 12,587 MT, only 11,103.69 MT have been received by WFP.
USD Requirements Initial: USD 20 million (USD 6,217,100, USD 6,891,400 and USD 6,891,500)
Past Evaluations MGD-WFP SFP baseline survey 2016
MGD-WFP Mid-line survey and evaluation 2018
Source: own elaboration, WFP
While the financing agreement defined the terms of the implementation and set target 
values for a list of indicators related to activities, outputs and outcomes, the McGovern-Dole 
programme’s own logical framework (Annex 1) remained the overarching global reference 
framework to which the project in GB had to correspond. In an effort to harmonize both 
frameworks of reference, the Mid-term ET merged them into a single, reconstructed logframe 
for this McGovern-Dole FFE programme project in GB. The present end-line evaluation has 
tried to further improve this reference instrument. See the updated version of this
reconstructed logframe in Annex 2.
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme has two strategic objectives (SO) and one 
foundational result. SO1 is the improved literacy of school-aged children in beneficiary 
schools, and SO2 is the increased use of better health and dietary practices of school-aged 
children (see Annex 1). The foundational results are the increased capacity of government 
institutions, improved policy and regulatory framework, increased government support, and 
increased engagement of local organisations and community groups. 
Three outcomes should lead to the achievement of SO1: (1) Improved quality of literacy 
instruction; (2) Improved attentiveness; (3) Improved student attendance. The activities of 
the McGovern-Dole FFE programme supported outcomes 2 and 3 only. No activity was 
foreseen for improved literacy instruction, the first outcome. This specific domain of quality 
of instruction in primary schools is indeed outside WFP’s mandate and field of expertise. 
The MENES, more particularly the DGASCE, has been WFP’s main partner in the 
implementation of this project. The DGASCE collaborated with WFP in various areas, such as 
the selection of schools to be included, the monitoring of the implementation process, and the 
regular internal evaluations. The WFP also collaborated with the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Rural Development (MARD) and the Ministry of Health (MH). 
Throughout the implementation period of this project, WFP has been contracting local 
NGOs because of their specific know-how and knowledge of the local conditions in specific
regions of the country. They have supported the creation and strengthening of SMC, the 
construction and maintenance of school kitchens and firewood saving cooking stoves, the 
monthly collection of reports on the use of food in schools, and the sensitization of 
communities to participate in school activities, especially the school canteen. Local NGOs also 
played a crucial role in the HGSF pilot project that started in 2015, with funding8 from the 
Government of Guinea-Bissau (GoGB) as well as in the new second pilot project funded by
the Japanese Cooperation that started in the 2018-2019 school year. In both pilots, the NGOs
mostly support and advise female farming groups in their production efforts. They purchase 
food products, deliver the products to schools, and ensure, by different mechanisms, the 
payment of producers. They also work on strengthening the relationship between the local 
communities and schools. 
1.2. Context 
GB is an LIC with 70% of its population living below the poverty line ($1.90 per day)
9, 
ranking 177 out of 189 countries on the 2018 Human Development Index10. The country has
significant potential in both agriculture and fishing. Despite this, the gross domestic product 
8 During the first school year 2015-2016 there was also an important financial contribution by the European Union.
9 WFP. Guinea-Bissau Interim Country Strategic Plan 2018-2019.
10 Human Development Index. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/GNB. Access 28th Nov. 2019.
10 | P a g e
(GDP) grew only 0.4% between 2000 and 2014, underperforming the 1.9% average of Sub￾Saharan African countries during the same period11
. Poverty is more prevalent in the rural 
areas (75.6%) than in urban Bissau (51.2%)12. Most families pursue self-sufficient farming, 
but turn increasingly to cashew nut production, the country’s main cash and export crop. 
Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System (FSNMS) data from October 2017 show 
that on average, 20% of rural families were food insecure, with 18% being moderately insecure 
and 2% being severely insecure13. In November 2016, a crisis year, 26.3% of families were 
moderately food insecure, and 4.3% were severely food insecure. This resulted in chronic 
malnutrition among children under the age of 5. A total of 1.4% of all children were found to 
be with moderate acute malnourishment, and 0.3% with severe acute malnourishment in 
2017. The same indicators for the difficult year of 2016 resulted in 6.1% having moderate 
acute malnourishment, and 4.2% having severe acute malnourishment. According to WHO 
standards, this was a high degree of malnutrition. 
In good years, with a normal harvest and a favourable price of cashew nuts, most families 
have a sufficient level of food consumption, e.g., in October 2017 86.5% of all rural families 
had an acceptable food consumption score14. Families consume, on average, 2.5 meals per 
day, with children consuming three meals. During the lean periods however, from July to 
October, many families struggle to make ends meet and to feed themselves properly. They 
then start to have one meal per day, mostly in the late afternoon. During those periods, 
children often go to school without having breakfast and lunch. 
The education system of the country is in a critical situation15, partly as a result of many 
years of political instability. Additionally, resources allocated to education only represent 6% 
of GB’s GDP, which is far below the African average. Almost half of school-aged children are 
absent from school. This is often due to the scarcity of schools offering a full curriculum, which 
leads to extensive dropouts. The primary school completion rate is 62%, reflecting delayed 
enrolment, a 20% repetition rate, and high numbers of dropouts between grades 4 and 5, 
especially among rural girls16. Roughly half of the population older than 15 years old is 
illiterate, with large disparities between men (45%) and women (71%). This is because girls 
face huge difficulties in relation to schooling. Until recently, parents did not attach much 
importance to school education, particularly for girls. 
Political instability has reduced economic growth, increased poverty and unemployment 
(especially among women and youth), constrained household access to food, and limited the 
availability of health, education and other basic social services. This has greatly affected the 
economy of the country. Other recent shocks that contribute to poverty and chronic food 
insecurity in GB include irregular rainfall, the volatility of prices for imported rice and cashew 
nuts for export, and seasonal floods in certain areas17. 
Although all forms of discrimination based on sex are prohibited according to articles 24 
and 25 of GB’s Constitution, a lack of gender equality persists, and results in an important 
hunger and poverty gap. Men are dominant in the family hierarchy and in the social sphere.
Higher rates of poverty and unemployment among women limit access to food, health and 
education. Early marriage (17.2 %) and pregnancy (17%) are the most common reasons for 
girls to drop out of secondary school, despite the legal age of marriage for women in GB being
1818. Work is the most common reason for boys (38.6%). Among women aged 20-49 years, 
11 World Bank. 2016. Guinea-Bissau Turning challenges into opportunities for poverty reduction and inclusive growth: systematic country 
diagnostic (SCD). Available at: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/100721467968248103/pdf/106725-CSD-P155168-IDA￾SecM2016-0127-IFC-SecM2016-0078-MIGA-SecM2016-0076-Box396273B-PUBLIC-disclosed-7-5-16.pdf. Access 28th Nov. 2019.
12 Idem Footnote 5 
13 Source: FSNMS Enquête oct. 2017, SISSAN bulletin
14 Idem footnote 7
15 Source: UNESCO, November 2016 – Country Note 26
16 UNESCO, A major overhaul of the Guinea-Bissau education system is well overdue (November 2016).
17 Source: WFP Guinea-Bissau Interim Country Strategic Plan 2018-2019 (January 2019.)
18 UN General Assembly, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Guinea, 2015, p.20, (accessed June 2020)
11 | P a g e
37% were married before the age of 18, and 7% were married before 1519. Long distances to 
schools and a lack of proper sanitary facilities are other critical barriers to educational 
participation, especially for girls. Only 6% of secondary school teachers are female20. There is 
a higher rate of food insecurity among woman led-households21 (34.7%), than among 
households headed by men (28%). 
The Education Sector Plan 2017-2025 (ESP) recognizes food insecurity as a major factor 
affecting completion rates and it acknowledges the lack of facilities and staff to provide meals. 
This ESP establishes the guidelines for school canteens. A School Canteen Law, first drafted 
in 2015, was promulgated in June 2019. The government’s Zero Hunger Strategy of 2018 also 
includes the school feeding system.
WFP implemented two programmes during the past four years. One centred on nutrition 
support to treat moderate acute malnutrition, to prevent stunting and to assist people living 
with HIV, and the other was dedicated to school feeding. In 2016, five local NGOs were 
contracted by WFP to support SF activities in the more distant regions of Cacheu, Tombali 
and Bolama. They supported the creation of FMC’s, built and maintained stoves and kitchens, 
improved school infrastructure, and sensitized communities to participate in the SF
programme.
According to the World Bank22, primary enrolment rates in GB increased from 45% in 
2000 to 67% in 2010, but only 64% of children complete primary education. While there is 
relative gender parity in primary education, the gap increases in secondary education, mostly
due to early pregnancy and marriage. The male-female gap widens where health is concerned, 
due to one of the highest maternal mortality rates (900 deaths per 100,000 births in the 
world, a high prevalence of HIV (58.6% of adults with HIV are women), the adolescent 
pregnancy rate estimated at 28%, and the practice of genital mutilation affecting 44.9% of 
women. Finally, poverty and extreme poverty rates increased between 2002 and 2010, from
3.7% to 11.5%, respectively. This put 69.4% of the population in poverty and 33% in extreme 
poverty. Both adults and children also face a malnutrition burden with a prevalence of 
national under-five stunting at 27.6% while 43.8% of women of reproductive health have
anaemia23. 
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations: 
The final evaluation followed the methodology as laid out in the inception report, but with 
a few minor differences. It consisted of two complementary parts, a quantitative survey in 
100 schools, 50 assisted by WFP and 50 not assisted, and a qualitative survey in 30 WFP￾assisted schools. Due to rainy an election seasons, the quantitative survey only took place 
between November and early December 2019. It was implemented by RESSAN (Rede de 
Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional da Guiné-Bissau). The conclusions of the 
survey should have been an input for the qualitative survey, but they became available only 
after the completion of the field work for the qualitative research. However, a mixed methods 
approach was used to triangulate the information. The analysis started with the review of the 
qualitative information from interviews and desk review, and it was complemented by the 
descriptive and inference statistics performed with data from the quantitative survey. 
Although the evaluation was not a quasi-experiment, the comparison between baseline, mid￾line and end-line surveys allowed for estimating statistical significance among some variables 
means. 
A quantitative survey similar to the baseline study and the mid-line evaluation was 
undertaken. It applied survey instruments designed to collect key project data from schools, 
19 Ministério da Economia e Finanças, Direcção Geral do Plano/Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE). 2014. Inquérito aos Indicadores 
Múltiplos (MICS5) 2014, Relatório Final.
Bissau, Guiné-Bissau: Ministério da Economia e Finanças e Direcção Geral do Plano/Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE).
20World Bank. 2016. Guinea-Bissau Turning challenges into opportunities for poverty reduction and inclusive growth: systematic country 
diagnostic (SCD).
21 FSNMS data from December 2016 
22 The World Bank. 2017, Guinea Bissau Country Partnership Framework.
23 Global Nutrition Report. 2018. Guinea Bissau Nutrition Profile
12 | P a g e
students and local households in the school community. The survey was administered 
according to the design stipulated during the baseline study. The analysis of the collected data 
is mainly statistical, to capture key trends (cross tables, simple frequencies, etc.). 
Quantitative techniques were used with data from project framework, baseline, mid-term 
and final surveys, including econometric analysis to compare the variation of several 
parameters between WFP and non-WFP beneficiary schools, and using econometric methods 
to assess the impact of the programme implementation (using the STATA software). 
For the quantitative sampling, the Evaluation and Planning Department of the Ministry of 
Education (DGPASE) and WFP first sampled 50 WFP schools using the probability￾proportional-to-size technique. DGPASE then selected a comparison group of 50 schools that 
shared similar education and socioeconomic indicators, but which were not supported by 
WFP. In most cases, the comparison schools sampled were from the same sector as the WFP 
schools and usually were its nearest neighbor. No other program was giving support to these 
comparison schools. From each school, enumerators randomly sampled ten students from 
the Grade 4 enrollment roster who were asked to answer the student-level questionnaire. 
Enumerators then travelled to these students’ homes to administer the household-level 
questionnaire. For consistency purposes, the end-line survey was conducted in the same 
regions of both the baseline and mid-term surveys where WFP was supporting the 
Government of Guinea-Bissau with SF operations in June 2016: Oio; Bafata; Cacheu; Biombo;
Quinara; and Gabu.
The qualitative evaluation was conducted between 21 October and 12 November 2019. It 
used the 15 evaluation questions and sub-questions and the five international evaluation 
criteria24 presented in the Evaluation Matrix as a reference (see Annex 3). The five evaluation 
criteria applied were relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability, selected 
with the aim to enable the determination of the merit, worth and significance of the project. 
It consisted of a qualitative non-experimental evaluation that used a mix of various methods: 
document analysis; semi-structured interviews; visits to schools with observation; and 
individual and focus group meetings with all actors and stakeholders. The qualitative 
information was revised using the research questions as a reference and, as explained before, 
the findings were complemented with the quantitative estimations from the survey. 
In total, about 60 interviews were held in Bissau and in the various regional capitals that 
were visited (Annex 4). Altogether, 32 schools were visited in 7 regions (Annex 5, Table 5.1). 
Bolama-Bijagós had to be left out for practical reasons, as travelling to the islands is somewhat 
complicated, it would have been too time-consuming25. In turn, the ET visited extra schools, 
to make up for the missed schools in Bolama-Bijagós. In the end, the number of schools 
visited exceeded the proposed number of 30. 
In each school, meetings were held with the directors or vice-directors, teachers, SMC, the 
PA members (if they could be reached), cooks, beneficiary pupils and girls in grades 4, 5 and 
6. Often, during morning visits, no girls between grades 4 to 6 were found because they only 
had lessons during the afternoon. The visited schools were generally chosen during meetings
with regional education directors and regional SF focal points. Practical considerations, like 
distance, were combined with a search for as wide a variety of school types and school feeding 
experiences as possible.
Gender analysis was done throughout the evaluation process. The factors that affect 
Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women (GEEW) were evaluated by cross checking 
primary and secondary information. Data disaggregated by gender and age were used. 
Specific questions addressing GEEW were included in the topic lists for the interviews with 
key stakeholders and focus groups (See Annex 3). During the interviews in particular, valuable 
information was collected on and from both men and women participants in WFP activities, 
24 For more detail see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm and 
http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha. 
25 Particularly in the situation where the ET could only use two cars, which forced it to work with two working teams only, instead of the 
three consultants working separately, as was initially foreseen in the IR.
13 | P a g e
applying mixed method approach. In each school, the ET ensured that all stakeholders (boys, 
girls, men and women) were met and interviewed. In most schools, group discussions were 
held separately with cooks, pupils, boys and girls, and girl pupils from grades 4 to 6. 
Information was systematically triangulated for analysis. For instance, the ET has checked 
whether the operation’s strategies were based on a sound gender analysis that considered the 
distinct needs and participation of boys and girls. It also measured whether the operation has 
made any difference to gender relations at any level and/or if any such change likely to be 
sustained after the programme is completed. 
The norms of the WFP Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) have 
been applied to this evaluation. Econometría Consultores was responsible for the internal 
quality control. The reliability and validity of data was ensured through the constant 
communication with the local firm responsible for the data collection, from which 
Econometria received periodical reports. Also, all information was digitalised by 
Econometría’s staff, which allowed for validating the information and running data quality 
exercises in Excel to identify duplicates, missing values, etc. 
1.4. Limitations: 
The delay of the quantitative survey by RESSAN (finalised in December 2019), in relation 
to the qualitative assessment carried out by the ET in October 2019 was an important
limitation to this evaluation. Survey-data and results were only incorporated into this report 
at the final stages.
For the visits to the schools only two vehicles were made available by the WFP CO instead 
of the planned three (since WFP had to use the third car for other purposes) and for a shorter 
period. The ET had to adapt its working plans (two teams instead of three) and reduced the 
distances between the visited schools, which limited the coverage of the supported regions 
during school visits. Consequently, it was also not possible to visit Bolama-Bijagos. one of the 
most vulnerable regions, given the resulting lack of fieldwork time. The ET met key 
stakeholders and NGOs from that region to address this gap.
Interviews were conducted with non-Portuguese speaking stakeholders. This barrier was 
overcome by using three NGO interpreters in Cacheu and Oio, and various ad-hoc interpreters 
in the regions of Gabú, Bafatá, Tombali and Quínara. 
1.5. Ethics: 
The ET adopted a careful and thorough approach to the ethics of the evaluation, complying 
with standard 3.2 of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards26.
Econometría recognizes direct and indirect beneficiaries as key stakeholders. Hence their 
participation in the evaluation was not only to answer questions but to receive their feedback 
during the implementation of the project at this phase. Equally-weighted participation of 
females and males, both children and adults was considered. Quantitative and qualitative data 
and survey results were reviewed and cleaned. Quality and reliance on primary data was
conducted; for example, during data collection, with parcial information, STATA was used for 
identifying outliers and each of them were clarified with RESSAN. Both data was triangulated 
by the ET team to evaluate data reliability and consistency, by comparing primary data with 
views of governments, civil society, beneficiaries, donors, girls vs boys, women vs men. The 
team systematically checked the accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and 
information and acknowledged any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the 
data. The evaluation team conducted consent and interviewing procedures with sensitivity to 
children’s specific needs because the data collection exercises included the direct 
participation of children. Children’s consent to participate, parental awareness of their 
children’s participation, and parent’s approval were ensured. Full confidentiality was 
respected so that any statement could not be attributed to a named individual or traced to its 
source. The field teams followed a standardized procedure in which the participants were 
26 (UNEG, 2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation
14 | P a g e
informed of the scope of the evaluation. They were asked for their approval to participate in 
the study and to be recorded.
2. Evaluation Findings
The evaluation findings and the evidence to substantiate them are presented below,
structured per evaluation criterion and as a response to each evaluation question in turn. The
evaluation applies international criteria and the corresponding evaluation questions from the 
evaluation matrix are presented in Table 2.1. below: 
Table 2.1 - Application of international criteria and the corresponding evaluation questions
Criterion Evaluation Questions
Relevance ▪ Is the project’s strategy relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs?
▪ Is the project aligned with the national government’s education and school feeding policies and 
strategies?
▪ Does the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives?
Effectiveness ▪ The extent of project implementation – Did the project carry out all activities as planned?
▪ To what degree have (or have not) the interventions resulted in the expected results and outcomes? In 
particular, to what extent did THR provide results in increased attendance and enrolment of girl 
students?
▪ Is short-term hunger reduced?
▪ Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries in the right quantity and quality at the right time?
Efficiency ▪ Has the programme been implemented in an efficient way? Was there efficient use of resources and 
efficient methods of work? 
Impact ▪ To what degree has the project achieved the results that were foreseen in the project-level framework?
▪ Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
▪ What internal and external factors affect the project’s achievement of intended results?
Sustainability ▪ Is the school meals programme sustainable, including a strategy for: sustainability; sound policy; stable 
funding; quality programme design; institutional arrangements; local production and sourcing; 
partnership and coordination; and community participation and ownership?
▪ What substantive progress has the government made toward developing a nationally owned school 
feeding programme?
▪ How are local communities involved in and contributing to school feeding?
▪ What needs remain in order to achieve a full handover and nationally-owned school feeding 
programme?
2.1. Evaluation Question 1.1: Is the project’s strategy relevant to the 
beneficiaries’ needs?
The beneficiaries of the WFP SF programme in GB are generally pupils from poor 
communities. The programme focused on rural schools, as rural poverty27 is on average 
higher than in urban areas. The overall nutritional status of boys and girls in the beneficiary 
schools is therefore, on average, fairly poor. A study conducted in 2016 in Cacheu and Oio 
revealed that 42% of all pupils had anaemia, 21.5% had vitamin A deficiency, and 61.1% of all 
children had one or more indicators of undernutrition28. At the time of the evaluation, 
interviewed stakeholders reported that, because of the “lean period”, most rural families 
consumed only one real meal per day, mostly in the late afternoon. Children therefore came 
hungry29 to school, which reduces their energy level and capacity to be attentive. Evidence 
shows that chronic hunger increases the chance of a student dropping out while poor nutrition 
impairs their learning capacity30.
Inclusion in the WFP SF programme depended on two other decisive elements that 
unfortunately resulted in the exclusion of the most vulnerable children living in the poorest 
communities. These were: (1) a sufficient capacity at the WFP level to supply food 
commodities to a larger number of schools; (2) infrastructure and organisation standards had 
27 Poverty rates, meaning living on less than 2 USD/day, stood at 75,6% in rural Guinea-Bissau and at 51,2% in the capital in 2010. Source: 
World Bank Systematic Country Diagnostic 2016, p. 16-17
28. Source: E. Saltzman et al. Nutrition status of primary school students in two rural regions of Guinea-Bissau, Food and Nutrition Journal 
2017.
29 Information from various school directors during visits to schools, specially in the regions of Cacheu, Oio and Gabu.
30 Bundy et al. Rethink School Feeding. Social Safety Nets, Child Development and Education Sector. The World Bank (2009) 
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-
1099080042112/DID_School_Feeding.pdf Access in November 22 2019
15 | P a g e
to be met in the schools that allowed for normal functionality at all school canteen linked 
operations. 
Because the WFP only had a few sources of food for its SF programme (mainly the 
McGovern-Dole and Japanese programmes) during the period 2016-2019, it could not 
expand much beyond the number of McGovern-Dole programme schools. WFP gave 
geographical preference to the sectors31 where food insecurity was highest when choosing the 
758 schools for its programme in 2016, based on a composite food insecurity index. 
Within the prioritized sectors, WFP set seven practical criteria for the admission of schools 
into its SF programme: 
• at least 50 pupils
• the existence of a storage place with acceptable conditions
• the existence of a secure source of potable water
• the existence of a real school building, not just a self-made shed (barraca) for 
shadow
• the existence of a kitchen, even if rudimentary
• community will/manifestation to accept and accommodate the SF Programme
• the existence of toilets or latrines
Over the past few years however, the rural population in GB has become increasingly aware 
of the importance of schools for the future of their children. Before, in many parts of the 
country, that was not the case. Instead of waiting for external initiatives, most villages have 
started their own local community schools, securing the most educated young people in the 
village as informal teachers, with each family contributing monthly to these teachers’ salaries. 
These community schools cannot comply with the WFP criteria for admission in the SF 
programme, despite high levels of food insecurity. Therefore, the WFP’s admission criteria 
create a certain exclusion32 bias. According to the WFP CO, there is a need to safeguard the 
children from unsafe meals by ensuring good storage, acceptable hygiene conditions of 
kitchens and acceptable school infrastructure for teaching and learning.
In order to address this, WFP has been handing out building materials to allow some 
community schools to build a kitchen that complies with the criteria. Also, the WFP has been
shifting from urban schools to rural ones with local food production in an effort to reach more 
of the poorest children. 
Other actors, like PLAN International, have been regularly constructing school buildings 
and toilet blocks for these new community schools, and UNICEF has been implementing a 
water programme for schools. Organizations have trained and upgraded the local 
community’s teachers so that they can qualify to be given a teaching contract by the MNEJCD. 
With external support, community schools can then be converted into public schools, and 
also, qualify for possible future admission to the WFP SF programme. 
Pupils in general were found to appreciate school meals, though some mentioned the 
monotony33 in the school meal diet, which is a combination of rice, beans, and oil, as these 
are the only commodities available for the programme. Over the past four years however, 
WFP has, first with financial support from the European Union (EU) and the GoGB, and then 
with funding from Japan, set up two pilot projects to try out different modalities of local food 
purchase for school canteens. These pilot projects are touching an increasing number of 
schools (respectively 100 and 214 in the 2018-2019 school year) and are providing a more 
diversified school meal, including tubers (e.g. cassava, sweet potatoes and yams), local beans, 
and occasionally vegetables. 
31 A sector is an administrative subdivision of a Region.
32 The baseline survey found that on average non-WFP assisted primary schools have more children from the poorest quintiles as pupils 
than the schools that receive WFP school feeding support: 48 % against 37% (Baseline report. 2016, p.19)
33 This was also one of the findings of the mid-term evaluation of the programme in 2018.
16 | P a g e
In order to encourage parents to keep their daughters in school, at least until the completion 
of the basic school and beyond, the McGovern-Dole FFE programme provided 4 kgs of rice 
per month of THRs
34 to every girl from 4th to 6th grade with an 80% attendance or higher,
from 2016 to 201935. According to interviewees, these very popular rations have achieved their 
objective, with girls staying proportionally longer in primary school. Although such
perceptions were stated by all stakeholders, it could not be proven by quantitative data given 
that no specific monitoring was done, as no indicators had been previously set. A slight 
increase in retention rate was noticed for girls (from 95.8% to 96%) but not for boys. However,
this figure is for all girl pupils, not just for those in grades 4 to 6 (See Section 2.6, p.21.). Table 
2.2 presents the percentage of boys and girls that received THRs by region and by quintile of 
income. A total of 82% of girls and 24% of boys benefited from these rations in 2019. Though 
the THRs were not specifically meant to be handed out to boys, this seems to have happened
more or less systematically in some regions (Gabu, Bafatá, Quinara). The degree of poverty of 
the beneficiary family does not seem to have been the main reason for this exception.
Table 2.2 - Take-home rations for boys and girls by region and income quintile (2019)
36
Source: Evaluation survey
Teachers, headmasters, cooks, inspectors and SMC members have been trained in large 
numbers, though the numbers of trained cooks and SMC members were significantly less37
than was anticipated, in the management and handling of school meals, including daily and 
monthly reporting. At the local level, people are satisfied with the SF programme. In several 
cases, the existing food stocks in the school warehouses have been used by the community as 
a successful argument to convince teachers not to join their unions’ appeals to strike so that 
children could continue to receive school meals, particularly during the 2016-17 and 2018-19 
school years.
The pilot projects have been purchasing food locally, from farmers, mostly women’s
groups, and the communities were very satisfied in general with this new opportunity to sell 
part of their harvest locally, as most rural areas suffer from a structural lack of access to 
markets. There are, however, complaints about the duration of the payment procedures in 
one pilot. Despite actions taken by WFP and local NGOs to reduce those delays, there were 
still complaints from local producers regarding this issue. 
The school meal programme is thus very relevant, and it is very appreciated by all local 
stakeholders, i.e., the children themselves, their parents, the local communities, the school 
staff and head masters. The strategy to evolve towards the local purchase of food for the school 
34 Locally known as «ração seca para levar à casa»
35 These THR had been recommended by the Baseline Study of 2016. These have however now been stopped during the current school year 
2019-20. The McGovern-Dole FFE programme came to an end in August 2019, and the remaining food stock in WFP’s warehouses is now 
being distributed to all 758 beneficiary schools, following an addendum to the contract between USDA and WFP. The stock is however 
insufficient to cover the whole school year 2019-20, therefore, in an effort to supply meals to pupils as long as possible, it was decided to 
stop the provision of the take-home rations as from October 2019 onwards.
36 Table 2.1 represents the percentage of WFP students receiving take home rations of rice at some point during the school year, according 
to gender, region, and wealth quintiles).
37 See also p.21, Activity 3
Region
Male THR Female THR
yes no Missing yes no Missing
Bafata 29.4% 58.8% 11.8% 85.3% 8.8% 5.9%
Biombo 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 0%
Bolama -Bijasos 0% 100% 0% 30% 70% 0%
Cacheu 2.2% 97.8% 0% 91.3% 6.5% 2.2%
Gabu 96.7% 0% 3.3% 100% 0% 0%
Oio 3.4% 96.6% 0% 93.3% 6.7% 0%
Quimara 28.6% 71.4% 0% 42.9% 57.1% 0%
Tombali 0% 100% 0% 20% 80% 0%
Total 23.2% 73.2% 3.6% 81% 17.1% 2%
Wealth
Male THR Female THR
yes no Missing yes no Missing
Poorest 2.4% 95.2% 2.4% 77.8% 17.8% 4.4%
Second 16.7% 81.3% 2.1% 75.5% 20.4% 4.1%
Middle 31.4% 60% 8.6% 81% 19% 0%
Fourth 50% 43.3% 6.7% 91.9% 8.1% 0%
Richest 27% 73% 0% 80.6% 19.4% 0%
Total 23.4% 72.9% 3.6% 81% 17.2% 2%
17 | P a g e
kitchen is a new element that considerably increases the relevance of the programme for the 
local communities. 
Key findings and conclusions – Sub-question 1.1.
• The SF programme is very relevant to the needs of pupils, their families, and local communities,
as it alleviates short-term hunger and supplements household food income.
• The THRs of rice distributed to girl pupils from 4th to 6th grade with an attendance of 80% or 
higher are considered by most stakeholders to have contributed to more parents sending their
daughters to school for longer, instead of keeping them at home for domestic work or for early 
marriage. Survey data show that 82% of girls reported to have received THRs in 2018-19. 
• The strategy, supported by both WFP and GoGB to gradually evolve towards an HGSF 
programme increases the relevance of the programme for the local communities. Over time, the 
change from imported food aid to locally produced foods will have a positive effect on the local 
economy, reducing the poverty which is partly at the root of the need for school meals. 
• The McGovern-Dole programme has been the core element of the WFP SF programme in GB 
during the period between 2016 and 2019. 
2.2. Evaluation Question 1.2: Is the project aligned with the national 
government’s education and school feeding policies and strategies?
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme has been a very valuable central component in the 
national SF programme, which is part of the GoGB’s strategy to improve the quality of its 
education system. However, the newly promulgated School Feeding Law, anticipates a 
different approach for the future. This law envisages a HGSF model based on local food. There 
is a discrepancy between the older model, based on the distribution of imported US food 
products, and the MoE’s new vision to offer a more balanced and more diversified school meal 
based on local food. Since 201538, the WFP together with the MNEJCD have been conducting 
several pilot projects in the poorer regions (Cacheu and Oio) that involved various modalities
of local purchases of food for the school canteens. Because various difficulties were
encountered over time, the operational models have been evolving, incorporating lessons 
learned. 
At present, two models exist side by side. One pilot project that is funded by the GoGB 
envisages the strengthening of farmers’ capacities to produce sufficient food supplies for the 
school canteens, and is based on payment to farmers through a mobile money39 system. The 
second, more recent pilot, originated from the change of part of the value of a Japanese 
donation of canned mackerel40 fish for school feeding. This turned into an experiment to 
purchase local food, mainly tubers (cassava, sweet potatoes, yam (Dioscorea spp) and beans 
(Vigna spp), in order to diversify and provide a more balanced school meal. Both models use 
local NGOs for various mediation functions, including advice and support to producers and
their emerging organizations, as well as assistance to communities in order to consolidate the 
link between schools and local communities. 
WFP-GB has made, on its own initiative, certain efforts to coordinate with actors from the 
education sector to improve the quality of the education system in GB. It participated in 
various coordination activities, including the Local Education Group and the framework of 
the Essential Learning Package approach created by UNICEF. 
Key findings and conclusions – Sub-question 1.2
38 The very first pilot project on local purchases was funded by both the EU and the Government of Guinea-Bissau.
39 The MTN mobile money system is used. 
40 Locally referred to as «sardinha», notwithstanding the clear labels on the tins.
18 | P a g e
• The McGovern-Dole FFE programme (2016-2019) was the most important component of the 
national SF programme in GB, which is a very important part of the national education policy. 
School canteens are an essential component of the national efforts to upgrade the quality of the 
national education system. 
• The vision of both the MENES and of the WFP is to evolve towards HGSF models that are based 
on locally produced foods. As such, there is a certain discrepancy between the older, import￾based model of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme, and the newer models that are pursued by 
the MENES and the WFP for the immediate future. 
2.3. Evaluation Question 1.3: Does the project complement other donor-funded 
and government initiatives?
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme foresees the supply and distribution of US rice and 
beans, complemented with vegetable oil and salt. Operational costs for the distribution and 
the management of the programme are foreseen, but remain limited. 
Since 2016, the McGovern-Dole FFE programme has been complemented with pilot 
projects that experiment with different modalities of local food purchase for school canteens. 
These projects were initially funded by the GoGB and the EU in the Bafatá region, and later,
solely by the GoGB in the regions of Cacheu and Oio. During the 2019-20 school year, this 
pilot project is to be extended from 60 to 100 schools and communities. In practice, schools 
participating in this pilot project remain part of the McGovern-Dole group of beneficiary 
schools, but now receive only half of the original quantity of US rice and beans, and the other 
half in the form of locally purchased tubers and beans. This allows for a much-appreciated
variation in the composition of the daily school meals. 
Over the past few years, the McGovern-Dole FFE’s contribution to the SF programme has 
also been complemented by a multi-annual donation of canned mackerel fish from Japan. 
This proved to be an appreciated extra food item in the otherwise monotonous rice and bean 
meals supplied by the US. 
WFP agreed with the Japanese Cooperation that part of this in-kind food support be 
converted into funds to buy local food, in order to strengthen the local economy and support
local communities with this new source of income. This second pilot project on local 
purchases has been benefiting 214 primary schools in six regions during the 2018-19 school 
year. These new developments are clearly complementary to the much more important 
McGovern-Dole programme activities. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 1.3
• There is a clear complementarity between the McGovern-Dole FFE programme component of the 
national SFP, and the in-kind donation of canned mackerel fish from Japan that covers part of 
the country’s sourcing needs. This canned fish has been used as an extra ingredient in the rice￾with-beans meals of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme. 
• Recent pilot projects that seek to test out modalities of local food purchases, one of which is 
funded by the GoGB and the other by Japan, have been «grafted» on the existing McGovern-Dole 
FFE programme component of the school meal programme. Beneficiary schools are part of the 
McGovern-Dole FFE programme (n=758), but in the pilot project they currently receive only half 
of their original consignments of US food. The other half is local food, mostly tubers and dry 
beans. They have thus two complementary supply lines. 
• The resulting variation in meal composition and taste, is generally very well appreciated by the 
pupils. The local communities are particularly happy with this new opportunity to sell part of their 
harvest locally, for the benefit of their children, and allowing them to earn additional income in a 
context where the difficulties of access to markets are a major problem for rural producers.
19 | P a g e
2.4. Evaluation Question 2.1. The extent of project implementation – Did the 
project carry out all activities as planned? (Effectiveness)
The project implementation focused predominantly on the: (1) management of the flow of 
imported US food products, from the Port of Bissau to the beneficiary schools; (2) preparation 
of the food into daily school meals, and their consumption by the beneficiary pupils; (3) 
provision of THRs of dry rice to girls from 4th to 6th grade with an attendance of 80% or higher;
(4) accompanying capacity building, training, provision of kitchens, fuel efficient stoves, 
storage capacity, kitchen equipment, eating utensils and deworming medicine; and (5) 
establishment of an efficient and functional monitoring and evaluation system for the SF
activities and their outputs. 
The performance of the WFP in these various interlinked areas is reflected in Table A7.141
(see Annex 7), which presents most indicators mentioned in the Project Agreement between 
the FAS/USDA and WFP. Target values refer to US fiscal years, while WFP achieved values 
for each of these indicators refer generally to school years42. However, this difference is not 
an obstacle to the interpretation of these figures. 
The analysis of these indicators shows that the activities linked to food reception, storage, 
distribution and its use (preparation, consumption, THR) were generally well performed. On 
the other hand, some accompanying activities were performed to a much lesser degree, at 
times even insufficiently. In the following analysis of activity performance, the sequence and 
numbering of the activities of Table A7.1 (Annex 7) are used.
Activity 1: Provide school meals
Number of school meals provided: Between 2016 and 2019, the WFP served a total 
of around 63,681,970 school meals to pupils in the beneficiary schools (See Annex 7). It is 
expected that the remaining stock will allow for a further 11,037,555 school meals, so that in 
total about 74,719,470 will have been served by the end of April 2020. This compares 
favourably to the total quantity of food received by WFP, which was 11,103.6943 MT. 
Calculated at 160 gr/meal and rounded off this corresponds to about 69,398,063 school 
meals. The total number of meals that will have been served is expected to be 7.67% more 
than the readjusted target. The reasons for this excess number are not directly clear, but this 
difference is probably acceptable.
Numbers of school-aged children (boys and girls) receiving daily school 
meals: The programme has reached more pupils every year, both boys and girls, than was
originally planned (119.4% in 2016-17; 108.5% in 2017-18; and 100.3% in 2018-19). This is 
essentially because the schools had more pupils enrolled each year. In the 2016-17 school year 
the numbers of boys and girls were equal. In the 2017-18 and 2018-19 school years there were 
about 12% more boys than girls that received school meals. 
Numbers of students (boys and girls) regularly attending (80%) USDA 
supported schools: These figures, always somewhat lower than the number of children 
that received a daily meal, remained stable during the first two school years. However, they
dropped by 12.6% in the third school year (2018-19). This reduction was less significant for 
girls (only 7%). No explanation could be found for this reduction during the last school year.
These figures are also being used to measure the attendance rate, see the discussion on page 
28, paragraph 103.
Activity 2: Provide take-home rations
Number of girls from 4th to 6th grade receiving THRs: The average target numbers
of beneficiary girls were reached every school year (Table 2.3). For the additional 2019-20 
41 This table is an updated and condensed version of three tables from Annex 7 of the mid-term evaluation report: table A7.1, (targets), A7.2 
(results 1st school year) and A7.3 (results 2nd school year). See pages 62-72 of the mid-term evaluation report. 
42 School years in Guinea-Bissau start in October (private schools already in September) and finish at the end of June. A school year is 165 
teaching days. 
43 Source: calculation by WFP’s supply chain staff, 11 Nov. 2019. 
20 | P a g e
school year however, the THRs have been cancelled44, because, at the end of the three-year 
project, WFP had an insufficient stock of food available to cover another whole school year. 
This stock will thus, in agreement with the USDA, be distributed to all 758 schools only for 
meal preparation. In order to be able to supply school meals to all schools for as long as 
possible, the portion of rice per meal has been reduced45 this school year (2019-20), and the 
THRs of rice had to be stopped altogether. Even then, the stock will run out in April 2020, 
leaving the last months of the school year without meals. 
Table 2.3 - Number of girls from 4th to 6th grade receiving THRs by year
Year 2016 2017 2018
Target numbers of beneficiaries 15,414 16,230 16,623
Numbers of beneficiaries reached 18,087 16,323 16,484
Rate of completion 108.8% 100.57% 99.16%
Source: own elaboration based on Table 7.1, Annex 7
Number of take-home rations provided: The ratio between WFP’s numbers of THRs
provided and the number of girls having received them every year is exactly 110, which is 
precisely 2/3 of 165, the official number of days with lessons in a school year (See Activity 2 
in Table 7.1, annex 7, p.68). This may suggest a calculated reconstruction of data was used 
here, rather than field monitoring. During its visits to schools, the ET came across a certain 
degree of variability in the amount of rice actually given to the girls to take home in some of 
the visited schools. Variation46 was between 2.5 kg/trimester and 14kg/month. This is
possibly because some schools calculated the ration47 in function of the days on which
effectively lessons were given, leaving out, e.g., strike days. In Gabu and, to a lesser extent,
also in Quinara and Bafatá, boys have also received regular THRs of dry rice (see Table 2.2. 
p.8). This finding from the 2019 survey is not reflected in any of the WFP reports. Most 
schools however have practised a regular distribution of the correct quantity of 4 kg of rice 
per girl pupil in grades 4, 5 and 6, per month. 
Activity 3: Number of SMC and PA members as well as cooks trained in food 
storage and preparation: The global number of individuals (both men and women) from 
these categories that have been trained during the three school years (2016-17, 2017-18 and 
2018-19) was below what was planned (4,802 real; 6,650 planned, see p.70). This is 
insufficient and may have indirectly been contributing to the failure of the firewood saving 
cooking stoves (Activity 5), as insufficient numbers of local SMC and PA members and cooks 
were trained in their use. 
Activity 4: Number of teachers, directors and inspectors trained on food 
management and storage practices: Over the past three years, WFP was able to to reach 
this target.
The number of trained male and female teachers, directors and inspectors over the whole 
period exceeded the initial targets (Male: 425 vs. 807, 189.8% of initial target; Female: 425 
vs. 603, 141,8% of initial target) 
Although targets were achieved and sometimes exceeded, the ET during school visits 
observed difficulties faced by headmasters when managing two different systems of food 
distribution at the same time. The portions that should be served per pupil with McGovern 
Dole food were generally very clear but this was not so for the quantities of local food per 
school meal that should be distributed. Making it even more complicated was the calculation 
when cassava, brought fresh to the school, had to be dried by the cooks and the teachers to 
44 School year 2019-2020 is beyond the end of the 3-yr project. Because of frequent strikes during the past school years, there was still an 
important leftover stock of food in July 2019. This leftover stock allows to ensure the continuation of the SF programme during this extra 
4th schoolyear 2019-2020, while the new USDA MGD contractee CRS prepares itself for the task. This continuation will however have to 
be with a reduced food supply to the schools: the rations of rice are reduced and the THRs are cancelled for this special transition year.
45 Reduction to 100 g of rice per meal instead of 120 gr before. The quantities of beans and oil remained unchanged. 
46 Some examples of the apparent variability of the size of the THR: EB Gambasse, Bafatá: 2,4 kg of rice/girl/last trimester of 2018-2019 
(source: headmaster), other information from one girl: «2kg of rice, then once 5kg, often 3kg/month»; EBU Algodão, Gabú: 4kg rice once
or twice a year per girl; EB Madina Sara: last year, the THR was 10-14 kg of rice/month.
47 At the foreseen rate of 208 gr of rice per day
21 | P a g e
avoid its rapid deterioration. This was seen as a limitation of the project in guaranteeing a 
more diversified meal, since there were various occasions in which the school meals 
distributed to children consisted of only local beans or of only rice. 
Activity 5: Number of kitchens and storerooms constructed and/or 
rehabilitated: The WFP has been providing cement, nails and galvanized corrugated iron 
roofing sheets to SMCs to allow them to construct the school kitchens themselves, based on a 
WFP design. In total, 450 school kitchens have been built this way, mostly in correct fashion.
There were only 400 planned for. In a few cases, however, the kitchen was rather low and 
smoky, due to insufficient ventilation.
Number of fuel-efficient stoves provided and restored: A local NGO contracted 
by the WFP, built the 400 fuel-efficient stoves48 that were foreseen, in 400 school kitchens. 
However, the ET noted that in the vast majority of school kitchens visited, these fuel saving 
stoves were not being used49. See more information under Efficiency (Section 2.8) for the full 
analysis on this finding. 
Activity 6: Provide storage and food preparation equipment, tools and eating 
utensils: The WFP equipped all of its 758 schools with the necessary quality storage capacity 
and provided the necessary kitchen equipment, tools and eating utensils for all schools.
However, in the course of the three years of project implementation, a certain number of items 
have either broken down or disappeared. In several kitchens visited, there was only one big 
cooking pot left of the initial two. Many pupils were not provided a plate and a spoon to eat 
their meal. They had to systematically bring a bowl and a spoon from home. Many were 
observed eating with their unwashed hands, mostly in their classrooms, but on some 
occasions on the ground in the school.
Activity 7: Distribute deworming medication 
Number of pupils having received deworming medication: The number of pupils 
that received mebendazole tablets was insufficient during the first and second school years, 
when UNICEF oversaw the medicine supply (only 63.6% and 62.3% of the target). The WFP’s 
role was limited to distributing the medication to the beneficiary schools. During the third 
school year, the Ministry of Health organized a general deworming campaign in several 
regions, administering mebendazole to all children in the villages, and not only via schools.
However, some areas as well as some of the visited schools were not touched by this 
«national» campaign, because the supply was insufficient to cover the whole country at once. 
Activity 8: Train government staff on the management of an SF programme
Numbers of government staff trained at national, regional and local levels on 
this type of management, and number of refresher courses organized at the
regional level to follow up on the implementation of the action plan: Over the past 
three school years, WFP trained more MENES staff at the national level than foreseen (25 
people instead of 19). However, it trained only 30% of the anticipated number of staff at the 
Regional Directorates of Education. This is a serious shortfall. According to the WFP CO, this 
activity should have been conducted by DGASCE. On the other hand, WFP organized 10 
refresher courses during the last school year, 2018-19, which is much more than the 3 courses 
that were planned. WFP also turned to training local inspectors in year three, for them to be 
able to train new incoming school directors. 
Activity 9: Establish a monitoring and evaluation system, and train Ministry of 
Education staff in its use 
48 Palmeirinha itself provided slightly different numbers: it said to have built 174 stoves the first year, instead of the required 150, 150 the 
second year, and only 87 the third year. For the remaining 13 stoves it still has to finish in Biombo the NGO complains of lack of collaboration 
by the local school management committees that show considerable resistance to gather the required building materials (termite hill clay, 
cow dung, and rice straw). 
49 The lack of budget for follow-up visits by NGO Palmeirinha after the dried stove had been fired for the first time, negatively impacted the 
use of the improved tool by the cooks. This has reduced the potential benefits related to these fuel saving stoves.
22 | P a g e
A monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system established and functioning: WFP 
used its own M&E system, and trained MoE staff at various levels (central, regional, sector,
school) in its use. Information from the schools was gathered, collected, verified and 
transmitted to the WFP by different MENES staff: headmasters; teachers; inspectors; school 
feeding focal points; and DGASCE-staff. It might have been better to have assisted the 
Ministry to develop its own M&E system, and to train its staff at the various levels in its use, 
in the perspective of a gradual handover of the management of the SFP to the MENES. Most 
probably, MoE's DGASCE was, in 2016, too weak in terms of staff and systems to be able to 
propose its own M&E system as an alternative to the fully fledged WFP M&E system. Ideally, 
the WFP’s system and the MoE’s system could coincide and overlap a great deal, so that 
duplication of efforts in monitoring and reporting is avoided. 
Number of government staff trained in M&E system operations: The WFP 
trained more government staff at the central level than was anticipated. Thirty-two people 
were trained against the nineteen forecasted to be trained, as well as directors and inspectors 
at regional levels. The WFP trained inspectors for them to be able to train new school 
directors, as these directors are frequently reappointed to other schools. Because inspectors 
are seen as technical staff, they are much more stable in politically volatile situations. Besides 
the formal training that is included in Table 7.1 (Annex 7, p.70), there is also the more 
informal, on the job training of regional education directorate staff during frequent 
monitoring visits conducted by the WFP field monitoring assistants to schools. These visits, 
carried out to correct mistakes in the monthly reports and explain how the reporting forms 
should be filled out, are always performed together with the local education inspectors as a 
learning experience.
Number of timely school feeding reports produced by the school directors: The 
WFP’s M&E data show that a consistent half or more of all reports were produced in a timely
fashion. This could be related, among other things, to the insufficient number of training (see 
Activity 4), the high turnover of the MoE’s staff, literacy levels of school directors and teachers 
responsible for filling out these reports, and a lack of vehicles for inspectors to collect the 
reports in schools. Another issue was related to the quality of these reports, which was not 
included as an indicator and therefore was not systematically measured.
Activity 10. Support government to develop a school feeding pilot project:
The WFP has supported the school canteen unit DGASCE of the MENES with the 
development of an HGSF pilot project. The GoGB has, on two occasions50, made important 
financial transfers to the WFP to conduct a pilot project in Cacheu and Oio to experiment with 
modalities for the local purchase of locally produced food products with payment to the 
producers via the mobile money system, MTN. This pilot was conducted entirely by the WFP, 
with DGASCE participation limited to the selection of schools and the monitoring of activities. 
Only during the 2019-2020 school year has the process made an important step forward. The 
DGASCE will start to actively manage a new extension of this pilot project in Biombo. This 
will involve the handling of funds and the control over the activities of the local intermediary 
NGO. Therefore, this activity corresponds fully to what was expected, though with some delay. 
The WFP also manages another HGSF pilot project, which is an extension of the Japanese 
donation of canned mackerel fish to the SF programme. Part of the value of this contract is 
now being used to experiment with the local purchase of food with local NGOs as 
intermediaries, without the use of mobile money technology. The school canteen unit of the 
MENES is much less involved in this second pilot project.
Numbers of schools covered by the GoGB pilot project: The target number of 
schools covered by the GoGB pilot was 14. In reality, this pilot project has reached 60 schools 
in the 2018-19 school year, and a 100 schools are predicited to be reached in the 2019-20 
school year. This number greatly exceeds the appropriate size of a pilot experience, as both 
50 200.000 USD in 2017 and 264.000 USD in 2018. This information was provided orally to the evaluation team by the WFP CO team during 
one of the meetings held on 22 October 2019.
23 | P a g e
the WFP and the MNEJCD seem to have limited capacity to ensure a close follow-up and 
monitoring of the pilot. 
The WFP also gave significant technical and analytic assistance to MENES and to the 
GoGB in the areas of policy formulation, development of a legal framework, and management 
of a national school meal programme. The WFP promoted the trilateral cooperation between 
the WFP, Brazil and GB through the WFP Centre of Excellence Against Hunger and the 
Brazilian Cooperation Agency (ABC). The former contributed significantly to the drafting of 
the new school feeding law. The WFP has been very active in explaining the proposed law to 
other line ministries, including the Council of Ministers, prior to its approval early in 2019.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2.1.
• All activities that are directly linked to the supply, storage and distribution of food to schools and 
its use (preparation, consumption, THRs) were generally well performed. As a result, throughout 
the whole project period, the planned number of pupils, both boys and girls, from grades 1 to 6, 
have been served the agreed upon number of daily hot and nutritious meals. Girls from 4th to 6th
grade with an attendance of 80% or higher, have been provided with the correct monthly THRs of 
rice for their families. 
• Delays in the delivery of food to schools have occurred, often at the beginning of the school year, 
affecting particularly private schools that tend to start their lessons earlier than the public schools. 
These delays were limited to some days or weeks. 
• Some of the accompanying activities have been performed to a lesser degree, which may have 
impacted the project’s results. Examples of this low performance include the training of MENES
staff at the regional level on the management of an SF programme, and the delayed distribution 
of deworming medication.
• The WFP has involved the MENES’ DGASCE in the monitoring and also increasingly in the 
management of the HGSF pilot project that it has been implementing on behalf of the GoGB for 
the last two years. The DGASCE will manage part of this pilot project in the region of Biombo 
during the 2019-20 school year. 
• The WFP has implemented a second pilot project on the local purchase of food, based on Japanese 
funding, in which the DGASCE is much less involved.
• The WFP gave significant technical assistance to MENES and to other line ministries, and 
mobilized south-south cooperation via its Centre of Excellence against Hunger in Brazil. This was 
to support processes like the drafting of the new school feeding law, its discussion and approval 
by the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers, and its ratification as a new law.
2.5. Evaluation Question 2.2: To what degree have the interventions resulted, or 
not, in the expected results and outcomes? In particular, to what extent did 
providing THRs result in increased attendance and enrolment of girl 
pupils? (Effectiveness)
This EQ entirely overlaps EQ 4.1. under the chapter of Impact. Therefore, in this section,
the discussion is limited to the second part of the EQ. The remaining results and outcomes 
are analysed in-depth under EQ 4.1. (p. 25-29).
The most important output indicators among those set for the targets that were in the 
Project Agreement FFE-657-2015/019-00 are the increased enrolment and attendance rates 
of pupils, both boys and girls, and the corresponding retention rates and drop-out rates, 
particularly for girls. Nevertheless, the specific drop-out rate of girls from 4th to 6th grade was 
not considered as an indicator, and no target value was set for it, in spite of being one of the 
priority activities (the handing out of THRs of rice). This indicator has not been monitored s
by either WFP’s M&E system or by the MoE’s monitoring system. However, many informants 
at various levels (MENES, regional, local schools) were convinced that THRs effectively 
encouraged parents to keep their daughters in school longer. In some cases, girls from 6th
24 | P a g e
grade stated that their mothers wished them to study, regardless, as they themselves had not 
had that opportunity when they were a child or a young teenager. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2.2.
• Both the WFP’s and the MoE’s M&E systems do not directly monitor the outcome indicators for 
the specific subgroup of girls in grades 4 to 6 separately. This was not an indicator. Hence, there 
is no specific data for this subgroup, and the second part of evaluation question 2.2. cannot be 
answered with support of quantitative data. However, data collected during key informant 
interviews, showed that generally people believe THRs resulted in increased enrolment and 
attendance rates of girls (4th to 6th grades), and also in an increased retention rate.
2.6. Evaluation Question 2.3. Is short term hunger reduced? (Effectiveness)
Short-term hunger is often experienced by most pupils in rural primary schools because
the main or only family meal is served mostly late in the afternoon. In the lean season, as was 
the case at the time of this evaluation, with food stocks depleted at home and the new harvest 
still growing and maturing in the fields, children often come to school hungry, both those 
attending the morning and afternoon lessons51
. 
Most kitchens in beneficiary schools have been cooking two meals per day in sufficient 
quantities to serve each shift of pupils with freshly prepared food. In this way, the morning 
shift pupils would generally eat a meal during their 10:30am recreation break, and the pupils 
who attend class in the afternoon ate a meal on average somewhere around 1 or 2pm, in 
principle, just before entering classes. According to interviews conducted with students, 
school directors, teachers, PAs, etc., the provision of these meals alleviated short term hunger 
among beneficiary pupils. 
Based on the interviews with girl pupils that were beneficiaries of THRs of rice between 
2016 and 2019, the ET tends to conclude that parents generally appreciated this welcome 
contribution to the household economy, where it is very difficult to make ends meet and to 
feed all family members sufficiently most of the time. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2.3.
• The daily school meals have been an appreciated short-term nutritional comfort for all pupils, 
because many of them used to come to school without having had breakfast or lunch at home. 
• The THRs have been an appreciated contribution to the household economies of the families 
of the beneficiary girl pupils, where being able to feed all family members is a constant 
challenge most of the time.
2.7. Evaluation Question 2.4. Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries in the 
right quantity and quality at the right time? (Effectiveness)
1. The right beneficiaries?
The WFP’s SF programme, through the McGovern-Dole FFE food commodities supply, 
has reached a great majority of poor primary school pupils in the country. Irregularities and 
diversions to unplanned beneficiaries remained low. The programme supported about 60% 
of all schools and focused on rural areas, where poverty is worse than in urban or peri-urban 
settings. Contrary to the previous McGovern-Dole operator in 2012-2015, the IPHD, the WFP 
left out all schools in the urban area of Bissau (86 schools), in an effort to prioritize the poorer 
groups of pupils. The 'right beneficiaries' have thus been receiving SF, but a whole cohort of 
poor primary school children were not reached, as their community schools did not meet 
WFP’s technical selection criteria.
51 Pupils have lessons only half of the day, either in the morning (mostly the younger children of the lower classes) or in the afternoon (4th
to 6th grade mainly).
25 | P a g e
2. In the right quantity and quality?
Between 2016 and 2019, all beneficiary schools regularly received the required quantities 
of rice, beans and vegetable oil for each trimester (See Table 8.1, Annex 8). The first supply 
of each new school year was often insufficient because it could only be calculated by the 
previous year’s number of pupils. That was then adjusted for the next deliveries. As a rule, 
there were three deliveries per year, one per trimester. During teacher strikes, the deliveries 
were delayed, the quantities reduced or both.
Only occasionally have school directors mentioned problems related to the quality of the 
food supply, such as insect infestation. Pupils generally liked the school meals a lot, and never 
mentioned any quality problem. They only regretted the absence of a tasty sauce, like their 
mothers make at home from local ingredients such as badjiqui
52, onions and other
ingredients. Because of this, there is a frequent use of Maggi cubes in the preparation of meals
by the cooks, or the cubes are directly crumbled by the students onto the food, despite these 
products containing excessive amounts of salt and monosodium glutamate.
Table 2.4 presents students’ perceptions of the quantity and quality of meals provided by 
the SF programme in 2019. Overall, 9% and 20% of girls vs. 14% and 21% of boys, found the 
quantity insufficient or acceptable, respectively. As for the quality, only 2% and 19% of girls
found it bad or reasonable vs. 3% and 17% of boys, respectively. These figures demonstrate 
that most students appreciated the quality of meals. 
Table 2.4 - Perceptions of students (boys and girls) at WFP-supported schools who reported 
on quantity and quality of the meals provided (2019)
Quantity of Meal Quality of Meal
Insufficient Acceptable Enough Very 
good A lot Bad Reasonable Good Very Good Excellent
Female 9% 20% 52% 19% 0% 2% 19% 58% 21% 1%
Male 14% 21% 44% 21% 1% 3% 17% 56% 24% 0%
Total 12% 20% 48% 20% 0% 3% 18% 57% 22% 0%
Source: Evaluation survey
3. At the right time?
Limited delays in the delivery of food commodities to the schools have been reported by 
some of the school directors, often during the first deliveries of each new school year. This 
was mostly the case in private schools that start lessons weeks earlier than government 
schools. 
Overall, beneficiary schools have received the required supplies of rice, beans and 
vegetable oil for each trimester on time. Also, the supplies from local food purchases have 
normally been delivered on time. 
4. Take-home rations
The THRs of rice have been given out regularly to girls from 4th to 6th grade, with some 
minor exceptions. The THRs have been cancelled during the 2019-20 school year because the 
WFP will be using the remaining stock of US food commodities at the end of the project for 
school meals only. The positive impact of three years of school meals and THRs on enrolment, 
attendance, retention and drop-out rates of girls from grades 4 to 6 could possibly disappear 
completely53 in a short period as a result of this decision. 
This situation offers an interesting opportunity for the WFP and the MNEJCD to start 
monitoring the effect of the absence of THRs during the present school year (2019-20), and 
thus in an indirect way, to measure the impact of the THRs. At the central, regional and local 
levels, all stakeholders were convinced of the positive contribution of THRs to girls from 4th
to 6th grade, some of whom are already adolescents as many join primary school not at the 
age of six, but when much older. However, no effort has been made so far to measure the 
52 Leaves of Hibiscus sabdariffa, the red flower bush known in Senegal as Bissap, that is also used a tea. 
53 Experience from other West-African countries, as related by Mamadou S. Bah, UNICEF Bissau
26 | P a g e
retention rates among this group, either in the presence or in the absence of THRs during a 
full school year. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2.4.
• The WFP SF programme reached most of the poorer, vulnerable pupils of the country, as 
the programme focused on rural areas, and covered about 60% of all existing schools.
However, the WFP’s criteria for the admission of schools into the SF programme excluded
most of the poorest children in the most vulnerable communities, as unequipped and 
makeshift community schools do not meet WFP selection criteria.
• Food supplies to the beneficiary schools were generally on time. Only private schools that 
start two weeks earlier than public schools complained of systematic delays in the first 
delivery of each school year. 
• School meals have generally been of sufficient size and of good quality. In those schools 
that participate in the local purchase pilot projects, variations in the diet were appreciated 
because it broke the earlier monotony of meals containing only rice and beans. 
• The monotony of rice-and-bean meals and the lack of a tasty sauce, i.e., badjiqui or others,
to accompany it, led to a high use of Maggi cubes in a number of schools, known as «gusto»,
crumbled directly onto the pupils’ food. This practice is strongly discouraged by the WFP 
CO, which constantly emphasises the need to avoid using this type of product during the 
training of cooks, school headmasters, SMCs and PAs.
2.8. Evaluation Question 3.1. Has the programme been implemented in an 
efficient way? Was there efficient use of resources and efficient methods of 
work? (Efficiency) 
Methods of work and systems have been functional and efficient. The flow of food products 
from the Port of Bissau to the school canteens has been well managed, monitored and 
supervised. Efficient management and monitoring systems were used that capitalised on
decades of experience the WFP had with this type of activity. Theft and misuse of food were 
kept to a minimal level. Overall, the implementation followed the predicted timing, though 
periods of school closures due to teacher strikes, particularly during the 2016-17 and 2018-19 
school years have resulted in an important delay, and in a significant remaining stock of food
(See Annex 8, table A8.1) at the end of the project’s implementation period. The WFP CO 
team proved sufficiently staffed and skilled and was able to use sufficient and appropriate 
means of work. 
The sum of the yearly distributed amounts of food and the remaining stock at the end of 
August 2019 corresponds to the total quantity of food commodities, rice, beans and oil, that
was actually received in the Port of Bissau over the three school years (See Table 8.1, Annex 
8). The total number of meals served in all schools corresponds also to this total quantity of 
food received. 
The toll-free anonymous complaint and denunciation telephone number (106) has been 
successfully publicised in all schools and is now «institutionalised» to a certain extent. Its 
existence, as well as its regular use by the local population, including pupils, has had a positive 
and dissuading effect. The WFP receives on average 20 relevant phone calls per year on this 
number. Based on the nature of the complaints, the WFP either channels the calls to the 
MNEJCD, scrupulously respecting the anonymity of the caller, or it handles the issue itself, if 
it concerns internal WFP issues. Control at the local level seems to be much more performant 
when there is a well-functioning SMC and PA, responsible for monitoring the food warehouse 
activities (food delivery, quantities taken out of the storeroom and given to the cooks, meals 
distributed to pupils, THRs given to the girls, etc.). 
The subcontracted local NGOs were sometimes contracted by the WFP with insufficient
budgets, which endangered the quality of their work and the sustainability of their results. 
27 | P a g e
This might be because the WFP normally chooses the proposal with the lowest cost. A typical 
example of an NGO which built 400 firewood saving stoves for an equal number of school 
canteen kitchens. Because of some inexperience within this NGO, it had submitted an 
insufficient budget, that was accepted as such by WFP. This is an aspect the WFP should have 
taken into account when evaluating the proposal. The insufficient budget for follow-up visits 
after the dried stove had been fired for the first time, negatively impacted the use of the 
improved tool by the cooks. School visits during the fieldwork revealed that most stoves fell 
into disrepair quickly54, and were in most cases not used any more. This activity was 
exceptionally inefficient, due mostly to the insufficient level of expenditure. 
In the framework of the HGSF pilot projects, the local NGOs that provide intermediary 
services purchasing food from the local producers and giving technical advice to farmers’
associations and communities, are being given yearly renewable short-term contracts, though 
the contract with the Japanese Cooperation runs to 2024. This makes their planning difficult 
and impedes certain investments in equipment, like means of transport that can only be 
included in budgets covering a longer period. According to the WFP CO, they were only 
allowed to set up short-term contracts under this project.
The use of the funds that accompanied the in-kind donation of US food is difficult to 
interpret without a comparison to the original budget55. The WFP’s successive yearly financial 
reports show expenditures, but not in relation to an initial budget. At the end of 2018, about 
USD 13.2 million had been used and reported, including the value of the in-kind food 
donation. The remaining balance will be reported in the 2019 and 2020 financial reports. The 
provisional figures at the end of 2018 suggest an insufficient level of expenditures for training 
costs (1.86% of the total), and probably too high of a level of indirect support costs 
(provisional figures from WFP reports until 2019 indicated a total of USD 1,983,400 for ISC. 
Projected against the total of USD 20,000,000, this would be 9.917% of the total). (See also 
table 9.1 in Annex 9)
Key findings and conclusions – Question 3.1. 
• The WFP has used very efficient methods, work procedures and monitoring systems to organise 
the regular, timely, and theft-free flow of food from the Port of Bissau to the beneficiary schools.
• At the school level, supervision and control over the food stock and its use are more present 
and more efficient when there is an active SMC and PA.
• The toll-free anonymous complaint and denunciation telephone number 106 has 
beenpublicized a lot over the past two to three years and is now well known and regularly used. 
The WFP has satisfactory systems to guarantee confidentiality from receiving the messages up 
to handling the issues as soon as possible, either by the WFP itself or handed over to the school 
canteen unit of the MoE. 
• The WFP seems to be economizing too much on its contracts with some subcontracted local 
NGOs. Insufficent budgets impede follow-up visits, which in one particular case could have 
prevented the firewood saving stoves from falling into disrepair in the school kitchens. At the 
same time, subcontracted local NGOs in the local purchase pilot projects are only being given 
short-term contracts, which makes planning difficult for them, also impeding the inclusion of 
means of transport into their budgets. 
54 Generally, the cooks, being volunteer mothers, are used to cook at home on open fires, with the cooking pot resting on three stones. 5 to 
10 pieces of firewood can be used in such a fire, as most of the heat escapes easily besides the cooking pots. It is difficult for these women to 
accept that the fuel saving stove has such a small opening on the front side, that can only accept about 3 pieces of firewood, which should 
indeed be sufficient. Impatient with such a small fire, the women tend to widen the front opening of the oven somewhat, so as to be able to 
insert more pieces of firewood. That makes the fire hotter, which causes the expansion of the building material of the oven to be much 
stronger than foreseen. Thus the oven starts developing deeper cracks than normal, and the decay process begins. If there would have been 
a budget for regular follow-up visits by Palmeirinha that would have allowed to re-explain the fuel wood saving function of the stoves to the 
cooks, to make the stove inlet again smaller, and to repair the deeper cracks timely, a much higher longevity of the wood saving stoves would 
have been ensured.
55 This paragraph is based on an analysis of the successive financial sections in the WFP year reports, and on discussions with WFP CO 
financial staff. It was not possible to obtain the original budget for the McGovern-Dole project. 
28 | P a g e
• The use of funds is overall regular, though the interpretation of the figures is somewhat 
difficult. Provisionally, funds for capacity building appear to have been underused, while those 
used for indirect support costs seem rather high.
2.9. Evaluation Question 4.1. To what degree has the project achieved the results 
that were foreseen in the project level framework? (Impact) 
In order to measure the impact achieved by the McGovern-Dole FFE programme in GB 
between 2016 and 2019, baseline indicators were compared with data collected during the 
Mid-Term (2018) and Final (2019) evaluation surveys, using the same instruments and 
methodologies. A sample composed of WFP-assisted (n=50) and non-assisted schools 
(n=50) were proportionally selected from eight regions. Quantitative data provided by WFP 
reports and qualitative data from fieldwork were used for triangulation. 
SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children (boys and girls):
Improved quality of literacy: An implicit assumption of the WFP-MGD FFE programme 
is that it can promote better literacy rates among school-age children through the delivery of 
school meals to boys and girls, and THRs to female pupils from 4th to 6th grade. Other activities 
related to “Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction (MDG 1.2)” were considered out of the 
scope of the WFP’s work and therefore were not planned. SO1 was thus not monitored. 
Table 2.5 shows that the retention rates of boys and girls were over 95% for the three
school years evaluated, although a slight decrease of 0.6% was observed in 2017-2018 and 
2018-2019 when compared to the baseline value. Additionally, drop-out rates remained below 
6% during the project’s timeline (2016-2019).
Table 2.5 - Main programme outcome values per year, against the baseline and the target 
values 
Indicator Baseline 
value 2016
Value 2017
(SPR/ACR)
Value 2018 
(ACR)
Target end 
of project
Attendance rate (total) 83 % 83% 84.55 % > 85%
Attendance rate (girls) 83 % 83 % 85 % > 85%
Attendance rate (boys) 83% 83% 84.1 % > 85%
Dropout rate (all) 6 % 6 % 6 % < 5 %
Dropout rate (girls all 
grades) 6 % 6% 6 % < 5 %
Retention rate (all) 96.40 % 95.9% 95.9 % 85 %
Retention rate (girls) 95.8% 96% 96 % 85%
Retention rate (boys) 97.9% 95.8% 95.8 % 85%
Retention rate girls 4th, 5th,
6th grades Not measured Not monitored Not monitored Not defined
Enrolment (all) 75 % 75% 75 % >75%
Enrolment rate change (all) 1.73 % 6 %
Enrolment (girls) 75% 75% 75% >75%
Enrolment rate of change 
(girls) 0.28 % 6 %
Enrolment (boys) 75% 75% 75% >75%
Note: at the time of the evaluation the data referring to the school year 2018-19 were not yet available. 
Improved attentiveness: Progress on the project result, MGD 1.2 Improved 
Attentiveness, was not directly measured. However, there is an assumption that the provision 
of daily school meals to students helps them to achieve their nutritional needs and, 
consequently, has the potential to improve attentiveness during classes. As mentioned under 
EQ 2.1. (page 15), the programme has reached more pupils every year, both boys and girls, 
29 | P a g e
than were originally planned for but in the last two school-years (2017-18 and 2018-19), 12% 
more boys than girls received school meals.
Improved student attendance: Figure 2.1 shows the attendance rates of school children 
in grade 4 from WFP-assisted and non-WFP schools, comparing the percentages reported in 
the baseline, midline and end-line surveys. Although the attendance rates between WFP and 
non-WFP schools were similar, they have increased during the last two school years. Also, the 
percentage of girls attending classes during the 2018-2019 school year was slightly higher 
than boys in WFP-schools during part of that school year. This was not observed in non￾beneficiary schools. Overall, the impact of school meals on student attendance appears to be 
limited over the evaluated period and shows a tendency of higher girl attendance.
Figure 2.1 - Attendance rates of grade 4 students in WFP and non-WFP Schools (baseline, 
mid-term and final evaluation)
Source: Evaluation surveys, and School Feeding Baseline Survey
Guinea-Bissau 2016
According to data from the qualitative survey, opinions obtained from several interviews 
with school headmasters, teachers, SMCs and Pas, the SF programme has positively impacted 
student attentiveness, retention of students, and enrolment and attendance rates of girls in 
WFP-assisted schools. Families now encourage their daughters to enrol and regularly attend 
classes, serving as examples to other girls. 
Enrolment rates for all applicable school levels have varied throughout the years and did
not differ significantly between WFP-assisted and non-WFP schools (Table 2.6). However, 
interviewed stakeholders, including school headmasters, teachers, SMC members and Pas,
reaffirmed their opinion that enrolment rates have been gnerally increasing over the years as 
a consequence of the SF programme. Quantitative data however do not confirm these 
opinions. In several schools visited by the ET, school headmasters and teachers reported the 
lack of infrastructure, e.g., tables and chairs and didactic materials associated with the 
increased numbers of students. Table 2.6 also demonstrates that enrolment rates tended to 
be higher for boys than girls. 
Table 2.6 - Median enrolment for all applicable school levels, according to school years (2015-
16, 2017-18 and 2018-19) and gender. 
WFP Assisted Schools Non-assisted Schools
30 | P a g e
Baseline
2016
Mid-term
2018
Final Report
2019
Baseline
2016
Mid-term
2018
Final Report
2019
Grade boys girls boys girls boys girls boys girls boys girls boys girls
1st 1.10 1.12 0.99 1 1.01 1.09 1.08 1.02 0.99 1.03 1 0.997
2nd 1.09 1.63 1 0.99 1 1 1.25 0.96 1 1.06 0.95 1
3rd 1.60 2.22 1 1 1 1 1.25 1.03 1 1.05 1.03 1
4th 1.45 1.02 1 1 0.99 0.95 0.81 1.02 1 1.01 1 0.99
5th 0.86 1.09 1 1 0.99 1.00 0.97 1.10 1 1 1 1
6th 0.96 1.39 0.97 1.01 0.94 0.99 1.16 1.04 0.97 1.00 1 1
Source: Evaluation surveys
SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices:
School meals are an important contribution to pupils’ nutrition and health, particularly 
those living in food insecure conditions. The main contributions of the McGovern-Dole’s 
project to children’s nutrition was through the daily delivery of school meals. Food baskets
comprised of 120g of rice, 20g of pulses, 10g of fortified vegetable oil, 20g of canned fish, and 
3g of salt provide key macro and micronutrients (580 Kcal, 12.6g of protein, and 2.3mg of 
iron, among other nutrients). The addition of canned fish to the school meal is the result of 
the contribution by the Japanese Government56 to the WFP SFP in GB and was really 
appreciated by school children, according to interviews. However, this activity was 
discontinued in 2018 (Annex 10, Table A10.1 and A10.2).
Figure 2.2 shows that the percentage of students who ate a meal before and after school have 
increased since 2016, particularly in WFP-supported schools. Only in 2018 was the % of those 
who ate a meal at home after school highest in non-WFP supported schools . In 2019, 77.4% 
of pupils from WFP-assisted schools ate a meal before going to school and 94.3% after coming 
back from school, compared to 71% and 86% in 2016, respectively. However, the percentage 
of boys having a meal before and after school was higher than that of girls for most of the 
evaluated years and are aligned with evidence demonstrating that girls are more at risk for
food insecurity
Figure 2.2. - Percentage of students who ate a meal before and after school (2016, 2018, 2019)
Source: Evaluation survey
Quality of household food consumption: The quality of household diets was evaluated 
during the SF baseline, mid-term and end-line surveys, using the Food Consumption Score
(FCS) as a reference57. Table 2.7 shows that the percentage of households with acceptable 
scores has increased from 91.6% in 2016 to 97.5% in 2019 in WFP-assisted schools and from 
89.4% to 94.3% over the same period in non-WFP schools. At the same time, Table 2.8 shows 
that the percentage of families classified as poor or borderline poor seem to be higher in 
56 The in-kind contribution of canned fish from the Government of Japan has complemented school meals since 2016, benefiting over 
173,000 school children in 2017. Source: WFP/ Semi-annual Report for April to September 2017 Guinea-Bissau
57 The food consumption score (FCS) combines food diversity, food frequency (the number of days each food group is consumed) and the relative nutritional 
importance of each food group. For each food group the frequency represents the number of days an item was consumed, with a range from 0 (never) to 7 
(every day). A weight is assigned to each food group, representing its relative nutritional importance.
31 | P a g e
schools without WFP assistance. The fact that families assisted by the SF programme tend to 
have better quality of diets suggests that parents whose children receive meals in schools can 
spend the corresponding money to acquire more diverse foods to be consumed at home. 
Table 2.7- Profile of WFP assisted households according to the Food Consumption Score by 
year (2016, 2018, 2019) 
Profiles of household according to the Food Consumption Score
Year
2016 2018 2019 2016 2018 2019 2016 2018 2019
Poor Borderline Acceptable
WFP 
school 1.7% 1.5% 60.0% 6.7% 7.3% 1.9% 91.6% 91.2% 97.5%
Non-WFP 
school 2.1% 1.3% 0.9% 8.5% 3.8% 4.8% 89.4% 95.0% 94.3%
Note: The Food Consumption Groups (FCG) uses standardised thresholds that typically divide households into three groups. The 
thresholds that define the three groups are: Poor Consumption: < 21 FCS; Borderline Consumption: >= 21 FCS & < 35 FCS; Adequate 
Consumption: >= 35 FCS.
Source: Evaluation survey
Table 2.8- Profile of non-WFP assisted households included according to wealth quintiles by 
year (2016, 2018, 2019)
Profiles of household according to the Food Consumption Score
Wealth Quintile
2016 2018 2019 2016 2018 2019 2016 2018 2019
Poor Borderline Acceptable
Poorest 3.4% 5.3% 0.5% 9.2% 13.0% 6.7% 87.4% 81.7% 92.8%
Second 3.1% 0.8% 0.5% 12.9% 5.3% 6.1% 84.0% 93.9% 93.4%
Third 1.7% 0.0% 1.5% 8.2% 5.0% 2.0% 90.1% 95.0% 96.5%
Fourth 1.2% 1.0% 0.5% 3.6% 3.1% 1.5% 95.2% 95.9% 98.0%
Richest 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.3% 0.8% 0.5% 96.7% 99.2% 99.5%
Total 1.7% 1.4% 0.6% 6.7% 5.5% 3.4% 91.6% 93.1% 96.0%
Source: Evaluation survey
Improved access to clean water and sanitation services: For this outcome of the MGD 
project framework, no corresponding activity was planned. Table 2.9 shows that, according 
to the quantitative surveys, the percentage of schools with improved sources of water and 
toilet facilities, as well as handwashing practices increased over time. Qualitative data 
however tend to contradict such results. Part of the schools visited by the ET did not have 
regular access to clean water nor hand washing facilities, even when pupils had to eat with 
their hands. This adds a great burden to cooks (mostly women) and students and poses 
challenges to food safety and hygiene conditions. 
Table 2.9 also demonstrates that the percentage of schools with separate toilets for boys 
and girls decreased from 74% in 2016 and 87% in 2018, to 64% in 2019. This was also 
confirmed by the ET during school visits. Safe and sufficient toilet facilities for girls are an 
important element in the family’s decision on whether to keep theirgirls in school longer. 
Table 2.9- Percentage of schools with improved source of water and toilet facilities, 
handwashing practices and separate toilets (2016, 2018, 2019)
Year Baseline Mid-term End-line
Improved source of water 70% 100% 100%
Improved toilet facilities 74% 93% 100%
Handwashing 68% 87% 100%
Separate toilets for boys and 
girls 74% 87% 64%
Source: Evaluation survey
32 | P a g e
Increased knowledge of health and hygiene practices/safe food preparation and storage 
practices: No targets were set to measure how knowledge of stakeholders in health and 
hygiene practices have evolved as a result of the different training activities.
Table 2.10- Percentage of SMC members who received training from WFP (2016, 2018, 2019)
Baseline Mid￾term End-line
SMC members who received 
training from WFP 42% 63.3% 83.7%
Source: Evaluation survey
Increased knowledge of nutrition to stimulate healthier eating behaviours among 
students and local communities is also an expected result without a planned corresponding 
activity (Annex 1). Nonetheless, the WFP GB has worked in partnership with the National 
Institute for Educational Development (Instituto Nacional de Desenvolvimento da 
Educação, INDE) to integrate the teaching of food, nutrition and healthy eating in several
learning areas in the new primary school curriculum. The WFP training of SMC members and 
cooks also helped to increase awareness about the benefits of diet diversification. During 
school visits conducted by the ET, many cooks and SMC members emphasised the importance 
of including locally produced food products in school meals given their role in stimulating 
dietary diversity and improving pupils’ nutritional status. 
Nutritional contribution of school meals and THRs: The food basket supplied by the 
MGD grant (approximately 580 kcal and 12.6g of protein) covers on average, 22.8% to 46.0% 
of the recommended daily caloric intake for boys from 3 to 13 years old, respectively. Due to 
different nutritional requirements, the caloric contribution supplied by the MGD FFE 
programme ends up being higher for girls from 2 to 13 years (580 kcal covers 25.5% to 50.2% 
of the recommended calories needed). The combination of rice and beans in the food basket 
is a particularly relevant source of protein (12.6g) and covers around 37.1% to 66.3% of the 
recommended daily amount of protein for both girls and boys from 4 to 13 years old. The 
addition of 20g of mackerel fish per meal into school canteens increased the amount of high￾quality protein.
For both the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years, the WFP attained targets for THRs, 
reaching 16,232 (105,3%) and 16,323 (100%) girls in 4th to 6th grade, respectively. These 
rations supplied 745 kcal, 15g of protein, and 1mg of iron along with other nutrients on 
average and, according to qualitative data, had a significant impact on the nutritional status 
of girls and their family members. However, during the 2018-2019 school year the expected 
number of rations of rice given out to girls (4th to 6th grades) was not achieved (99.2%), mainly 
due to recurring teacher strikes. Additionally, qualitative data collected in the final evaluation 
revealed that the amount of rice distributed to girls occasionally varied widely among schools, 
and even within the same school.
Increased access to preventative health interventions: See the information related to
deworming medication, activity 7 under EQ 2.1. page 18.
Increased access to requisites for food preparation and storage tools and equipment:
Although WFP has equipped all schools covered by the MGD FFE programme during the 
three evaluated school years, observations in schools demonstrated that there was no conjoint
plan for monitoring the number and quality of equipment and storage tools. Many pupils had 
to bring bowls and spoons from home or eat with their hands. Interviewed cooks also reported 
they needed to bring their own equipment in order to cover the lack of adequate utensils to 
cook. The fact that the WFP did not develop follow up actions to tackle these issues posed 
additional health risks to students and cooks, mostly volunteer women working under poor 
conditions, and reduced potential benefits that could be achieved during the period covered 
33 | P a g e
by the MGD grant. This is especially true in relation to the increased risks of food-borne
diseases among students and other work-related diseases among cooks. 
Differences between WFP assisted and Non-WFP assisted schools: The analysis of mean 
differences presented in Table 2.11 shows that the percentage of public schools was 
significantly higher in the WFP assisted schools than in non-WFP assisted schools. 
Furthermore, a higher percentage of WFP assisted schools offering 5th and 6th grade, had a 
higher number of both boys and girls enrolled and better school infrastructure as compared 
to non-WFP supported schools. There were no statistically significant differences in the 
number of students who had meals before or after school nor in the availability of a library 
and SMC at the school. The teacher’s gender also demonstrated no statsitcal difference. 
Table 2.11- Analysis of Results of SF End-line Survey (2019): Mean values in percentage and 
significant differences between WFP assisted and non-WFP assisted schools
Variable WFP Non-WFP Test p￾value
School category
Public 87.5 65
0.0280
Statistically 
significant
Community initiative 8.2 30
Other 3 2.5
School grade Grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 32.7 62.5
0.0064 Grades 5 and 6 67.3 37.5
Mean number of boys 205.9 110.7 0.0005
Mean number of girls 185.2 109.2 0.0062
School has kitchen 81.6 50 0.0080
School has storage room 79.6 47.5 0.0058
Ate meal at school 95.3 4.7 0.000
Meal provided at school 97.9 2.1 0.000
School has library 28.6 25 0.5169
Non￾statistically 
significant
School has CGE 93.9 82.5 0.2022
Female Teacher 24.6 30.9 0.293
Ate meal before going to school 77.1 71.3 0.161
Ate meal after going to school 92.8 90.8 0.556
Source: Evaluation survey
Foundational Result: Strengthening the capacity of the Government of GB on 
developing and implementing a nationally owned and sustainable school 
feeding programme:
Improved policy and regulatory framework: The central MGD outcome (MGD 2.7.2) has
no specific activity corresponding to it. After the 2015 SABER (Systems Approach for Better 
Education Results) exercise however, the WFP CO played an important role, together with 
the Centre of Excellence Against Hunger and the ABC, in assisting the MoE to formulate the 
new National School Feeding Law, and to have it promulgated in June 2019. 
Increased Government Support: The main activity related to this outcome is “Support 
Government to Develop School Feeding Pilot Project”. HGSF projects that WFP set up in 
partnership with the GoGB have exceeded the initial target of supplying locally produced 
foods to 14 WFP-assisted schools. See main achievements and challenges under EQ 2.1. (p.18)
for further information. 
Building the capacity of the Ministry of Agriculture is an activity that has been planned as 
part of the future South-South cooperation with the Brazilian Government and the WFP 
Centre of Excellence Against Hunger. 
Increased Capacity of Government Institutions: See the discussion on Activity 8, 
Effectiveness, EQ 2.1. page 18.
34 | P a g e
Establish and Train Government Staff on Monitoring and Evaluation System: See the 
discussion on Activities 9 and 10, pages 18-19, under EQ 2.1. Effectiveness 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4.1. 
• Although the McGovern-Dole framework includes “Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction 
(MDG 1.2)” as one of its main outcomes, this activity was considered out of the scope of this 
project. 
• The SF programme has positively impacted student attendance, retention and enrolment 
rates of girls (4th to 6th grade) in WFP-assisted schools.
• A higher percentage of WFP schools offered 5th and 6th grade, and had a higher number of 
both boys and girls enrolled and better school infrastructure when compared to non-WFP 
schools.
• Despite the close association between inadequate access to clean water and sanitation 
services and malnutrition among children, no activity was specifically designed by WFP to 
further improve infrastructure related to those services in beneficiary schools.
• Most of the targets to promote increased knowledge of health and hygiene practices, 
particularly safe food preparation and storage practices were not reached, especially for 
females over the 2018-2019 school year. However, the number of SMC members who 
received training from the WFP increased from 42% in 2016 to 83.7% in 2019. 
• Targets related to the distribution of deworming medication to children were only achieved 
at the end of the 2018-2019 school year. Furthermore, at the time of the evaluation, many
schools did not have enough utensils and equipment for cooking and eating. 
• The WFP CO played a key role in assisting the MoE to formulate and promulgate the new 
National School Feeding Law. The implementation of HGSF projects in partnership with the 
GoGB has also exceeded initial targets.
• The target, “number of government staff trained at the regional and local levels on the 
management of a school feeding programme” was not reached in any of the three school￾years. 
2.10. Evaluation Question 4.2. Have there been any unintended outcomes, 
either positive or negative? (Impact)
Intended and unintended long-term effects on institutional capacities: 
An unintended effect observed during the Mid-Term evaluation report and confirmed by 
the Final evaluation survey was the migration of pupils from non-beneficiary schools to those 
assisted by the WFP SF programme. Interviews with key stakeholders indicated that the 
number of students had been increasing every year and, many times, schools do not have the 
capacity to accommodate them in a short period of time. This was mainly reported in the 
regions where locally produced foods have been included in school menus, e.g., Cacheu and 
Oio, with pupils walking 7 km per day on their way to and from schools. 
The existence of a nutritious meal in school supplied by school canteens has certainly 
been a positive contribution to pupils’ immediate well-being, increasing their motivation to 
come to school and follow the lessons. Consequently, beneficiary schools tend to attract more 
new pupils each year than non-beneficiary schools, as presented in Table 2.12. For instance, 
schools where the SF programme is implemented have on average 114 boys and 91 girls in 
grades 1 to 4, whereas in non-beneficiary schools the average is 50 for both boys and girls for 
the same classes. This flow to WFP supported schools is particularly strong for the highest 
grades (5 and 6), which are not offered by most smaller schools.
Table 2.12- Median number of students in WFP and Non-WFP schools (2019)
Grades
WFP NOT WFP
Median of Boys Median of Girls Median of Boys Median of Girls
Grades 1, 2, 3 and 4 114 91 50 50
Grades 5 and 6 232 211 162 155
Source: Evaluation survey
35 | P a g e
Unintended positive or negative effects for recipients and non-recipients of assistance, 
specifically for women and girls:
Negative effects:
The number of girls benefiting from school meals was overall lower than the number of 
boys, and capacity building though training mostly reached male staff in the MoE. Cooks 
generally do volunteer work, often in rather difficult conditions. They usually do not have a 
health screening done. Such facts demonstrate that gender inequality continues to be real 
challenge in GB and further actions should be carefully considered in order to address this.
Another unintended outcome was the fact that a certain proportion of children that took 
a school meal were given a smaller portion than normal at the family evening meal that same 
day. 
Positive effects: The SF programme encouraged school stakeholders to improve school 
infrastructures, e.g., improving access to clean water and adequate latrines separated by sex 
and to build stronger relationships with local communities through PAs.
School meals also served as a protective factor that helped convince teachers not to 
adhere to recurrent teacher strikes. Parents decided to contribute to teachers’ salaries because 
they did not want classes to be stopped and food items to deteriorate and be lost because of 
the strikes. 
Finally, the programme has helped to make policymakers and the population itself more 
accountable in regards to the provision of school meals, especially after the promulgation of 
the National School Feeding Law. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4.2. 
• The main unintended effect observed was the migration of pupils from non-beneficiary 
schools to those assisted by the WFP SF programme, leading to all kinds of capacity 
problems.
• One of the main weakness was that part of the intended results presented in the project 
framework were not accompanied by planned activities that would have helped WFP and 
its partners to achieve these results. 
• The SF programme encouraged school stakeholders to improve schools’ infrastructures and 
the engagement of local communities through PAs.
• The programme has helped making policymakers and the population itself more 
accountable in regard to the provision of school meals
2.11.Evaluation Question 4.3. What internal and external factors affected the 
project’s achievement of intended results? (Impact)
The project was implemented according to the plan. However, as discussed in previous 
sections, the ET found that the implementation of training was delayed during the first year, 
and less than planned in the two latter years, particularly for cooks and SMC members. Some 
school staff members reported difficulties in running the SF programme and said they had
not been sufficiently trained. According to the WFP CO, training activities were conducted
every year, but due to the high turnover of staff at the MoE, the impact is lower than foreseen. 
To mitigate this, the WFP began training more inspectors for them to be able to function as
local trainers because inspectors are a more stable category than school directors. 
The recurring teacher strikes, and the reported migration of students to assisted schools 
negatively impacted planning and the implementation of the school feeding activities. The 
increased number of students was not planned for or considered during the WFP’s first food 
delivery each school year, causing unexpected adjustments such as a reduction in the portion 
size of the school meals and the THRs.
36 | P a g e
Frequent delays and poor quality of many monitoring reports issued by schools caused 
delays and problems in the reports sent by the MoE to the WFP. As a response, in 2018, the 
WFP took ownership of monitoring the project by directly collecting and processing the school 
feeding reports sent by schools58. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4.3.
• Some school directors and teachers reported difficulties in running the SF programme and 
felt they had not been sufficiently trained.
• The systematic delays and insufficient quality of monitoring reports led to the adjustment of 
the process in 2018 with WFP assuming increased responsibility.
• The recurring teacher strikes, and the reported migration of students to assisted schools 
negatively impacted planning and the implementation of the school feeding activities.
2.12. Evaluation Question 5.1: Is the school meal programme sustainable, 
including a strategy for: sustainability; sound policy; stable funding; quality 
programme design; institutional arrangements; local production and 
sourcing; partnership and coordination; and community participation and 
ownership? (Sustainability)
A sustainable SF programme requires multiple elements including a strategy for 
sustainability, a sound policy, regular funding, institutional arrangements, partnerships, 
coordination, and community participation and ownership59. There is clear evidence of a 
growing interest from the GoGB and from MENES in establishing a sustainable national SF 
programme in the country. However, the WFP CO is still the main entity responsible for 
implementing and managing the programme. The lack of financial resources and of internal 
capacity from MENES to manage and monitor the SF programme is seen by several 
stakeholders as the main challenge for a full handover. 
At the institutional level, MENES is increasingly committed to taking up a leading role in 
the management and implementation of the SFP as its relevance is increasingly recognized. 
During the implementation of the McGovern-Dole programme between 2016 and 2019, the 
degree of ownership of the SF programme by the GoGB, through MENES has increased 
significantly. A School Feeding Law60 has been approved and published, and the Government 
has started making important financial contributions61 to the WFP-managed local purchase 
pilot projects. The school canteen unit of MENES taking part in the planning and monitoring 
stages is now also taking full responsibility formanaging the programme in the region of 
Biombo from the 2019-20 school year onwards, including the monitoring of the intermediary 
local NGOs and the handling of the cash flow to producers supplying 20 schools. These new 
developments follow a dynamic that is based on a vision, shared between the WFP and the 
MoE, that the SF programme should gradually evolve towards a nationally owned and 
managed programme, based as much as possible on the provision of locally purchased foods. 
In 2015, a SABER exercise62 was conducted in the country with different stakeholders 
(See findings in Table 11.1 and Status 2015, Annex 11). Since then, SF school meals have been
explicitly included in prominent education policy papers, such as the Decennial Education 
58 Source: Interviews with headmasters, and WFP staff responsible for monitoring activities 
59 Sources: Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector. World Bank (2009) 
https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-7974-5. Access in 8/12/2018; Terms of Reference, Mid-term and Final 
Evaluations of McGovern-Dole funded School Feeding project in Guinea-Bissau (2016-2018)
60 Lei das Cantinas Escolares, published in June 2019.
61 Government contributions to the WFP managed local purchase pilot project amounted to 200.000 USD in 2017 and 264.000 USD in 
2018. Additional funding by the government is foreseen for the current school year 2019-20.
62 Source: Report of SABER 2015. World Food Programme /Partnership for Child Development /World Bank: Workshop for Assessing 
National Capacities in School Feeding in Guinea-Bissau (23-24 July 2015) 
37 | P a g e
Plan for 2015-202563, and the WFP has been supporting the DGASCE on a growth path 
towards increased capacity and involvement, by creating and improving, to a certain extent,
conditions for future sustainability. Both actors collaborate in pilot HGSF experiments in the 
Cacheu, Oio and Biombo regions. This latter part will now be managed and monitored 
exclusively by the DGASCE, with support from the WFP. However, USDA’s decision to award 
the new three-year McGovern Dole contract to a totally new operator, CRS, can pose new 
challenges for coordination among partners and for the hand-over process. 
Although the SABER exercise has not been officially repeated in the country since 2015, 
the ET identified the following situation in 2019: (1) Policy Framework (Established); (2)
Financial Capacity (Latent); (3) Institutional Capacity and Coordination (Emerging); (4)
Programme Design and Implementation (Emerging); and (5) Community Participation and 
Ownership (Emerging). This overview takes into account the improvements made between 
2015 and 2019 in terms of establishing and promulgating a National SF Policy (Lei das 
Cantinas Escolares) which outlines the objectives, rationale, scope, design, funding and 
sustainability of the programme, and sets out a strategy for MENES to design and implement 
the pilot project in the Biombo region (Table A11.1, Annex 11, See Status 2019).
Local communities’ views on the SF programme: In general, headmasters, cooks, 
SMCs, PAs, pupils and local communities perceive the provision of school meals as an 
essential social and safety net policy that helps not only improve learning capacities and 
nutritional status of students, but also reduces gender disparities. Observations in the field 
have elucidated the huge impact of local food purchases on the diversification of school meals 
while providing local farmers and producers access to a new market for their produce. 
However, there is still room for improvement. 
Interviewed cooks were very satisfied with the programme, though there were several
complaints about lacking equipment and poor working conditions. They all acknowledged the
importance of school canteens in the lives of their children and grandchildren. Most cooks 
work as volunteers, which seems to create irregularities in their attendance at the schools. 
The hours spent daily in the school kitchen compete with economic activities that could help 
their families to improve their living conditions. Rotating shifts of volunteers managed by the 
schools was an observed good practice.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 5.1. 
• The WFP is still the main organization responsible for implementing and managing the 
programme. 
• The WFP has been supporting the DGASCE on a growth path towards increased capacity and 
involvement by creating and improving conditions for future sustainability to a certain extent. 
However, the fact that USDA has chosen to award the new 3-year McGovern Dole contract to a 
new operator, CRS, can pose new challenges to coordination among partners and to the hand￾over process
• Improvements were made between 2016 and 2019 towards establishing a national SF Policy and 
setting out a strategy for the MoE to design and implement a part of the local purchase pilot in 
the Biombo region.
• Local communities perceive the SF programme as an essential social and safety net policy that 
helps improve learning capacities and the nutritional status of pupils, as well as reduces gender 
disparities. 
2.13. Evaluation Question 5.2 What substantive progress has the Government 
made toward developing a nationally owned school feeding programme? 
(Sustainability)
63 A pilot on local purchase for supplying school meals was previously funded and run by WFP. Source: WFP SPR 2017; Semiannual Report Narrative, 
October 1st 2016 to March 31st 2017.
38 | P a g e
An important step taken since the Mid-term Evaluation was the promulgation of the 
National Law on School Canteens (Lei das Cantinas Escolares) in June 2019. This law 
recognizes the right to being fed at school for all pupils enrolled in public schools from grades
1 to 6, and clearly opts for the local procurement of food as the chosen approach for the 
national SF programme. 
Regrettably, this final evaluation found a clear lack of monitoring, reporting and 
evaluation activities related to both pilot projects. Those are the one with funding from the 
GoGB, conducted in Cacheu and Oio, as well as the Japanese funded pilot project in Gabú, 
Bafatá, Quinara and Tombali. This absence of close monitoring and critical reporting, as 
would be expected with pilot projects, not only made it very difficult to document good 
practices, but makes it difficult to evaluate the experience and thus to allow policy makers to 
make justified choices about the future model and modalities that should be chosen for rolling 
out when expanding the approach as a national model. 
Local producers who benefited from the project financed by the GoGB were said to be 
strongly complaining about the delays in payment for their produce because of the nature of 
the payment procedure. Though there has been a significant improvement since the first pilot 
project, this important issue is still causing some mistrust and dissatisfaction among 
suppliers. They would prefer faster or even immediate payment. This was reported specifically 
by SMC members and regional directors during the school visits in the regions of Cacheu and 
Oio. It was also emphasised by local NGOs who are in charge of organising local food 
purchases from farmers to school canteens.
Due to the multisectoral nature of SF programmes, various sectors of government and 
civil society should be involved in developing capacity for a sustainable model. The DGASCE 
is making efforts to gather key stakeholders and to revitalise the CIMCE64. This has proved 
challenging, mainly in relation to finding representatives from other ministries willing to 
participate and to invest in the SF programme. Additionally, a lack of coordination between 
the MoE and other development agencies in the country (WHO, UNICEF, PLAN 
International, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), among 
others) has been impeding efforts to improving educational indicators, particularly in regards 
with improving literacy rates and quality of teaching. 
Technical capacity at the national and regional levels to implement SF 
programme: WFP has trained teachers, school directors and inspectors in food 
management and storage while SMCs, PAs, school directors and cooks received training on 
food preparation and storage, though not in sufficient numbers. However, the results related 
to this target were further undermined by the numerous changes in MNEJCD’s central staff
and by the frequent turnover of previously trained personnel, mainly headmasters, but also 
regional directors. The WFP CO has adopted a “training of trainers” approach directed to
school inspectors in order to build capacity of local school canteens focal points, given that 
they are rarely replaced. The WFP also seems to continuously make use of its own technical 
and administrative procedures during capacity development. It thus capacitates trainees to 
work with WFP systems only. This may have been impeding65 progress on the creation of a 
common approach with other actors, mainly the DGASCE. 
Up to 2015, the McGovern Dole FFE programme was managed and administered by the 
International Programme for Human Development (IPHD), independently from the WFP. 
The former applied its own technical and administrative procedures. For the coming 3-year 
period, 2019-22, a new operator, CRS will likely introduce other, slightly different technical 
and administrative procedures. This constant shift of technical and administrative procedures 
is not contributing to sustainability in terms of management and reporting capacities at the 
various levels (schools, regions, and ministries). There is need for the DGASCE to develop its 
64 Comissão Interministerial para as Cantinas Escolares (CIMCE)
65 Before WFP, the IPHD did the same, and from next school year onwards, CRS will do the same, each McGovern-Dole implementer with 
its own systems. In the meantime, the DGASCE has its own monitoring system. This profusion of systems and procedures it not propitious 
to the emergence of a common management system. 
39 | P a g e
own technical and administrative procedures and formats, to which each new McGovern-Dole 
operator should then strictly adhere. That would contribute to organizational sustainability 
and to strengthen the capacity of school feeding players at the central and decentralized levels. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 5.2. 
• The promulgation of the National Law on School Canteens (Lei das Cantinas Escolares) in June 
2019 was one of the main steps taken since the Mid-Term evaluation.
• The HGSF pilot project, tested out in partnership with the GoGB, has exceeded the initial target 
of beneficiary schools and is well perceived by school and local communities. Swift payment to 
the producers continues to be a challenge.
• DGASCE is currently making efforts to gather key stakeholders to revitalize the (CIMCE which 
has proved challenging.
• The lack of coordination between MENES and other development agencies in the country has 
been lagging behind efforts to improve educational and nutritional indicators.
• The WFP has developed activities for strengthening technical capacity at the national and 
regional levels to implement the SFP but the numbers of trainings and trainees remained under 
the targets.
2.14. Evaluation Question 5.3. How are local communities involved in and 
contributing to school feeding? (Sustainability)
Community participation and local ownership is one of the pillars of any school feeding 
programme. In the case of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme, community participation 
was mostly performed through SMC and PA and had an operational nature only (work, supply 
of vegetables, dried fish, salt, firewood, etc.). 
Female community members generally support school canteens by volunteering as cooks 
or donating food items like salt, moringa) and utensils for cooking. Men, on the other hand,
mostly occupy leadership roles. The provision of food produced by smallholder women’s 
associations to school canteens seems to reduce this gender imbalance somewhat, stimulating 
women to play a more explicit participatory role in schools while at the same time increasing 
their income. 
Fieldwork interviews showed that SMCs are generally composed of five members, a 
president, a teacher (school canteen), two members of the PA (one of each gender) and one 
cook (always a women). This committee is responsible for unloading the food delivered to the 
school, storing it, controlling the inventory and movement from the storage place, controlling 
the attendance of the students in the classrooms, and sometimes supervising the cooks and 
attending to the distribution of meals. 
According to findings from both the mid-term and end-line evaluations, SMCs
collaborate with the SF programme mostly because they see this activity as a unique 
opportunity for controlling the quantity and quality of food delivered to schools and 
guaranteeing that their own children will benefit from them. SMC members meet regularly, 
at least once a month in most of the schools visited. However, findings from the end-line 
evaluation show that there is room for creating a more participatory platform so that the 
community can become more involved in programme design, monitoring and evaluation 
processes (See recommendation 6, 2nd part, p.39).
Local NGOs that work directly with smallholder farmers emphasised the importance of 
local food purchases as a means to ensure access to markets for producers, especially to 
smallholder women’s associations.
Finally, Table 2.13 shows an increase in the percentage of schools that have PAs, growing
from 80% in 2016 to 96% in 2019. In contrast, the percentage of schools with SMCs decreased 
from 100% in 2018 to 94% in 2019. According to the WFP CO, this decline is mostly explained 
40 | P a g e
by low performance of SMCs in a few assisted schools and not necessarily by the absence of 
an SMC. 
Table 2.13- Local communities’ participation (2016, 2018, 2019)
Baseline Mid-term End-line
School has an SMC 94% 100% 94%
School has a PA 80% 97% 96%
Source: Evaluation survey
Key findings and conclusions – Question 5.3. 
• Community participation is mostly performed through SMCs and PAs and has an operational 
and supportive function.
• SMC members saw their participation as key for controlling the quantity and quality of foods 
delivered to schools and guaranteeing that their own children and grandchildren will benefit
from them.
• The purchase of locally produced food creates local income. It means access to a new market for 
agricultural production and stimulates the local farming economy. As such, it contributes to 
reducing poverty, which is the root need for school feeding. 
• The provision of foods produced by smallholder women’s associations to school canteens helps 
to reduce gender imbalances, stimulating women to play a more participative role in schools, i.e.,
being part of local purchase committee while increasing their income.
2.15. Evaluation Question 5.4. What needs remain in order to achieve a full 
handover and nationally owned school feeding programme?
(Sustainability)
Despite the promulgation of the National Law on School Canteens in June 2019, there is 
currently no sustainable funding within the MNEJCD and other Ministries that would allow 
for the implementation of the SF programme with only national resources.
The DGASCE did not manage to implement its own M&E system, quality-control or
modus operandi procedures. The WFP has the responsibility to improve support and capacity 
building, as envisioned in the McGovern Dole framework, in order to achieve a full handover.
This will require increased investments from the GoGB and its partners to invest in more
qualified human resources, improved management and communication tools, well-defined 
work procedures, and an efficient and well-functioning M&E system. 
This final evaluation came to the conclusion that the necessary conditions for the 
government to be more in charge of the programme in the short and mid-term are not in place 
yet, despite the progress already achieved between 2015 and 2019. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 5.4. 
• There is currently no sustainable funding within the MoE and other Ministries to implement 
the SF programme with national resources only.
• The lack of a specific SF budget line and political instability are handicaps for progress towards 
increased government ownership.
• So far, the DGASCE has not managed to create and implement its own M&E system, quality￾control or modus operandi procedures for the SF programme.
• The necessary conditions for the government to be in charge of the programme in the short and 
mid-term are not yet in place.
2.16. Baseline study and Mid-term evaluation recommendations and how these
were implemented: See also Annex 12 
41 | P a g e
WFP’s response to recommendations from the baseline study 
Short term SR1: The MoE and WFP should consider appropriate strategies for addressing 
the “leakage” found in the THR component in most regions. The WFP has not implemented 
this short-term recommendation, and a significant degree of liberty and variation continues 
to exist in the way schools handle the THR component. The promotion of the tollfree 
denunciation phone number 106 is an important positive element against “leakage”, i.e., theft. 
SR2: The WFP and MoE should consider reviewing and standardizing the role of CGEs and 
the community in the SFP and incorporating these into official training packages, as the 
current lack of clarity and support on these issues raises the likelihood of corruption and 
reduces accountability throughout the system. The WFP’s training of SMC members has 
most likely responded to a great deal of this recommendation. Also, a Terms of Reference was 
created and distributed to schools. 
SR3: The WFP should consider partnering with current initiatives in GB aimed at 
improving the types and quality of data collected through the national education system.
This will ensure that SFP indicators, and the administrative data upon which they are built,
are given appropriate value in such processes and begin putting standardized indicators in 
place for SFP monitoring in the event of a handover. 
WFP response: It is not clear which initiatives of that period this recommendation was 
referring. Correct and timely data collection is still a challenge to both the WFP and MENES, 
but there has been improvements since, especially for the 2018-2019 school-year. Training 
by the WFP of school staff and MENES personnel has been less performant than planned. 
MENES’s DGASCE has not yet developed its own monitoring and evaluation system. A pilot 
project in the region of Biombo will be implemented in 2020 so MENES can gain experience 
with this system and improve ownership. 
Medium term MR1: The WFP and MoE should consider commissioning a more detailed 
investigation into the factors which predict student attendance in GB to better understand 
whether the current incentives are appropriately designed and targeted. This would ideally 
be with a research institute or university with experience in such exercises (particularly in 
the education sector). The baseline survey findings suggest that other factors beyond gender 
may play a strong role in determining attendance. The outcomes of such an investigation 
could facilitate an updated school feeding policy so that the process of allocating resources is 
standardized and guided by more comprehensive data on student vulnerability. 
WFP response: WFP has not taken the initiative to launch such a study into the factors which 
influence student attendance in GB. It has kept to its standard formulas, namely the provision 
of school meals and take home rations for girls from 4th to 6th grade.
MR2: The MoE and WFP are encouraged to explore the feasibility and implications of 
implementing a cost-sharing system, i.e., between Government and parents and 
communities for the school feeding programme in light of its future commitments under the 
handover scenario. Cost-sharing might take any number of forms, including increased 
dependence on local production. The benefits of the SFP are quite visible from the baseline 
survey findings yet donor funding will never match what is needed by GoGB to scale SFP to 
all primary-aged students.
WFP response: The WFP and MENES have not explored the implementation of a cost-sharing 
system between the Government and parents and their communities. On the contrary, the 
HGSF approach seeks to support the communities, which are generally considered as 
vulnerable. 
In community schools there seems to be a high degree of local ownership and community 
contribution. In more established public primary schools increasing contributions from 
parents might be more difficult and politically sensitive. 
Mid-term evaluation recommendations: 
42 | P a g e
1. Diversify school meals, and promote nutrition and health education. WFP 
response: The two pilot projects on the local purchase of food are a clear response to this 
recommendation. Nutrition was also integrated into the new primary school curriculum 
developed by INDE in partnership with the WFP.
2. Improve kitchen infrastructures and working standards of school cooks. Only 
84% of all WFP supported schools have kitchens in good conditions according to the end-line
survey. The corresponding values in previous surveys were 82% in baseline and 93% in 
midline. The working standards of school cooks have not been substantially improved since 
the mid-term evaluation and survey. 
3. Expand school meals to kindergartens. This does not fit into the MoE’s policy, and 
has not been implemented. 
4. Provide health workers trained in nutrition to assist schools. As far as we are 
aware, this recommendation has not been implemented by the WFP nor by the MoE or the 
Ministry of Health. 
5. Rethink the system for delivering monthly monitoring reports. Efforts are 
underway to try out digital reporting using smart phones during the 2019-2020 school year. 
The training effort of MoE personnel on reporting has been insufficient. 
6. Map the development partners and other organisations working in 
partnership with the education system of GB for better coordination. There are 
only a few organisations working on the improvement of the education system in GB. The 
WFP is in contact with them, but there has not been active coordination. 
7. Expand the involvement of civil society in the project to other regions. Local 
NGOs are now active in all regions in support of the regular food distribution and of local 
purchase experiments. 
8. Clearly state the role of the project on promoting the quality of teaching. This 
recommendation has not been implemented by WFP. 
9. Create multi-staffed school feeding units in the regions. This recommendation 
has not been implemented by WFP. 
10. Closely follow-up on the numbers of students enrolled in schools for better 
planned food distribution. The WFP continued to use old numbers for the first food 
delivery of each year, but then adapted the quantities for the second and third delivery.
The WFP has not responded positively towards most of the recommendations made by the 
mid-term evaluation mission of 2018. In a very similar way, practically all of the 
recommendations made by the baseline survey team in 2016 have not been effectively 
implemented. The ET of the final evaluation had no access to the WFP management response 
to these evaluations and recommendations. This finding suggests that the WFP in GB has had 
limited capacity to take evaluation missions’ recommendations to heart. 
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
Overall assessment
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme was well implemented between 2016 and 2019, 
particularly in relation to the management of the flow of US food commodities from the Port 
of Bissau to the pupils in the 758 assisted primary schools in GB. Other aspects of the 
programme that need further improvements include the training of cooks, and of SMC and 
PA leaders in the management and monitoring of the food at the school level, the construction 
of fuel wood saving cooking stoves, and the training of school directors and inspectors in the 
reporting procedures about the use of the food in school kitchens. 
43 | P a g e
The McGovern-Dole FFE programme had an important positive impact on the immediate 
well-being of pupils and their families, alleviating short term hunger of children and their 
families. It also contributed to slight increases of enrolment and attendance, and to the 
stabilisation of the dropout rates, for both boys and girls. The retention rate for girls increased 
by 2% but stagnated for boys. As the SO1 «Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction» (see 
Annex 1) was not an objective of the project, its outcomes related to this objective could not 
be evaluated. The second strategic objective SO2 «Improved health and dietary practices»
and the foundational result «Capacity building in the Ministry of Education» were both
partialiy achieved (See recommendation 2). 
Conclusion 1 (Relevance): The SFP is very relevant to the needs of pupils, families 
and communities because it reduces short term hunger and supplements household food 
income. Key stakeholders, including at the school level, perceive the THRs of rice for the girls 
from 4th to 6th grade with an 80% attendance or more as having encouraged parents to send 
their daughters to school for longer periods of time. The strategy to evolve towards a HGSF 
approach further enhances its relevance for the local communities as it increases local 
producer incomes. 
Conclusion 2 (Relevance): Certain relevant indicators are absent from the list of 
performance and result indicators in the Financing Agreement, and consequently from the 
WFP M&E system. These are: (1) retention rates, or alternatively the dropout rates of girls
from grades 4 to 6 with an attendance rate of 80% or more who receive THRs of 4 kg of dry 
rice at the end of each month; (2) the frequency of school meals, expressed as a percentage of 
the school days with lessons, which could show the relative importance of delays in WFP’s 
deliveries to schools or of organizational problems at the school level (See recommendation 
1). 
Conclusion 3 (Relevance): The WFP SF programme reached most of the poorer, 
vulnerable pupils of the country, as the programme focused on rural areas, and covered about 
60% of all existing schools. However, the WFP’s criteria for admission of primary schools into 
the SF programme actually exclude most of the poorest children in the most vulnerable 
communities, as their unequipped and makeshift community schools do not meet WFP 
selection criteria which include a minimum level of infrastructure. 
Conclusion 4 (Effectiveness): Two different pilot projects are currently being 
conducted by the WFP. Both pilots have reached a size that exceeds what is needed for an 
experiment. In the meantime, no clear trajectory has been defined that would lead to some 
kind of a decision-making process. With its Japanese funded pilot, the WFP is increasingly 
rolling out a model that has not explicitly been chosen by the main actors, particularly not by 
the MoE. This is becoming an untenable situation (See recommendation 4). 
Conclusion 5 (Effectiveness): The WFP has been offering contracts with insufficient 
budgets to some of its subcontracted local NGOs. This implies the risk of insufficient 
provisions, putting their work on risk and consequently, their project deliverables. The 
support NGOs in the local purchase pilot projects are only offered the perspective to be hired 
for their services for a series of consecutive shorter periods, instead of for the full duration of 
the pilot project. This makes planning and the management of staff, resources, and means of 
transport much more complicated (See recommendation 7). 
Conclusion 6 (Effectiveness and Sustainability): The WFP has been the dominant 
actor in the SF programme in GB over the past three to four years, partly thanks to the 
McGovern-Dole FFE programme. MENES and its DGASCE have slowly developed a certain 
level of capacity via their collaboration with the WFP and their monitoring of operations at 
the school level. Notwithstanding a formal discourse that reaffirms the ownership of the 
DGASCE over the SF programme, the WFP has been responsible for putting operating 
systems, norms and procedures, as well as its monitoring and evaluation system in place. 
Efforts to develop and strengthen capacity in DGASCE have been limited for various reasons
so far (See recommendations 9 and 10). 
44 | P a g e
Conclusion 7 (Effectiveness): School meals have generally been regular and timely, 
of sufficient size and quality. In schools that participate in the local purchase pilot projects, 
variations in the diet have been appreciated because they broke the monotony of rice-and￾beans meals. This monotony, and the lack of a tasty sauce, like the very popular badjiqui to 
accompany it, leads many schools to the excessive use of Maggi cubes by pupils. 
Conclusion 8 (Gender): The recommendation from the baseline survey (2016) for the 
WFP to conduct a more in-depth study of parents’ motivations for keeping their daughters at 
home, rather than attending school classes, has not been implemented. The end-line 
evaluation demonstrated that other factors beyond a food shortage are also intervening in this 
much more delicate and complicated issue, and that THRs should probably not be the sole 
activity to promote a change in parents’ minds (See recommendation 5)
Conclusion 9 (Gender): The poor infrastructure of school toilets was pointed out by 
school directors, teachers and PAs as one of the reasons for pre-adolescent and adolescent 
girls to abandon school. Another possible reason is the walking distance to school, as this 
increases the risks for girls being harassed (See recommendation 6).
Recommendations 
Recommendations to the WFP CO
Recommendation 1: Directed to the WFP (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): The 
WFP should, throughout the course of the current school year (2019-20), start monitoring
the output indicators that refer specifically to girl pupils in grades 4, 5 and 6 separately, even 
if its contract with USDA for the McGovern-Dole FFE programme will come to an end in April 
2020. The cancellation of the monthly THRs of dried rice for the girls’ families offers an 
opportunity to measure the impact of this practice in GB by measuring the impact of its 
sudden absence on the rate of presence in school, on their retention rate and on their dropout 
rate). 
Recommendation 2: Directed to WFP (Priority 2, within 6 months – 1 year): The WFP 
should try to further integrate its SF programme with local efforts, (e.g., UNICEF and INDE 
to improve teachers’ skills and provide didactic materials, and for more efficient access to
deworming medication for school children. Active partnerships with actors and initiatives 
that work on improved teaching pilots would add value to achieving this target, as well as 
appropriate indicators to be closely tracked over the years. 
Recommendation 3: Directed to WFP-GB (Priority 2, within 1 year): the WFP GB CO
should continue to adopt a more developmentalist66 profile regarding the SF programme, in 
relation to the SF programme, with a perspective of sustainability, particularly in relation to 
the following two evolutions: 
(a) the shift to a HGSF programme, in which food is purchased from local producers, because
it requires a lot of developmental and organisational work on the production side, and to 
consolidate the link between school and community. This requires specific new skills. 
(b) the preparation and step by step implementation of the hand-over process of the 
management of the SF programme to MENES and its DGASCE, as it requires a specific set of 
new skills and attitudes, quite different from those required for the effective management of 
food supply. The pilot project in the Biombo region is a good opportunity for improvements 
in relation to this.
(c) The management of the WFP CO should take the initiative for such a shift in attitudes and 
skills which may imply a retraining of staff. 
Recommendation 4: Directed to WFP (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): The WFP 
should assist the DGASCE of the MoE in its reflection about the future HGSF model and 
modalities, and the process to make a fundamental choice on the basis of the various pilot 
66 Development work pursues sustainable post-intervention goals. From the very beginning the end of the assistance is envisaged and 
planned, even if at medium or long term. 
45 | P a g e
projects that have been or are being conducted now. The WFP could seek funding and offer 
organisational assistance for: (1) a jointly commissioned external evaluation by qualified 
consultants to assist in the participatory analysis of the accumulated experience by both the 
WFP and the MoE; (2) an externally facilitated workshop with representation by all categories 
of stakeholders to determine which model or which modalities are best suited to be rolled out 
in the local context. 
Such an evaluation would be an opportunity to consult the communities, and to explore 
ways to set up a structure in which a more permanent dialogue or consultation between the 
WFP and the DGASCE, along with the the various SMCs and PAs can take place. The latter 
could potentially participate in self-evaluations, and a channel could be created for an upward 
flow of complaints, suggestions, opinions, etc. 
Recommendation 5: directed at WFP CO: (Priority 2, within 1 year): The WFP should 
organize a more in-depth study into the motivations of parents to keep their daughters at 
home, and to stop their school education with the DGASCE,. All factors that are playing a role 
in girls’ education should be identified and analysed, so as to allow for a more balanced and 
complementary set of actions. 
Recommendation 6: directed at WFP CO: (Priority 1, within the next 6 months): The 
WFP CO should endeavour to urgently implement improvements in the presence and 
conditions of the toilet facilities for pupils in the primary schools it assists with SF, in order 
to avoid the possible drop-out of pre-adolescent/adolescent girls. The WFP should proactively 
seek forms of collaboration and partners that are active in the field of water and sanitation. 
Recommendation 7: directed at WFP CO (Priority 2, for the next round of contracts). 
The WFP should review the action and budget proposals of the local NGOs it wishes to 
subcontract for specific support activities much more critically and add a sustainability 
criterion to their analysis of the proposals. The NGOs should have enough means and funds 
to implement their tasks in optimal circumstances, and the sustainability of their outputs and 
outcomes should not be jeopardized by insufficient budgets. Being too economical can lead to 
a loss of efficiency in the long run. 
Recommendations to the DGASCE of the MoE:
Recommendation 8: Directed to DGASCE (Urgent, to be started immediately): In the 
interest of better SF results for the children, the DGASCE should work with the WFP to 
generously share its experience and know-how with the CRS, the new McGovern-Dole 
operator for the next 3 years. 
The WFP and the DGASCE should negotiate the modalities for the continued existence 
and use of the toll-free complaint and denunciation phone number 106 with CRS so that it 
can continue to be used by both WFP and CRS beneficiaries and later by the MoE and its 
partners. 
Recommendation 9: Directed to the Ministry of Education (Priority 1, within the next 
3-6 months): The DGASCE should be more proactive in the process of determining inclusion 
and exclusion criteria for schools and community selection in future SF programmes, like the 
one CRS is establishing now. This process should take into account criteria that cover the 
areas of nutrition status, food security, and education, respectively managed by the WFP 
(VAM and SISSAN) and by the MoE. The decision about the inclusion or exclusion of schools 
and communities is a political decision that belongs to the Ministry of Education, based on
criteria that reflect the minimally required physical conditions. The MoE should ensure the 
application of the National Quality Standards, together with its partners and the 
communities. 
Recommendation 10: Directed at DGASCE (Priority 2, within 1 year): The DGASCE 
should start to develop and define its own management,M&E systems for the SF programme, 
probably in a gradual process, and in close dialogue with the WFP, integrating all the good 
elements from WFP’s experience and from earlier (International Programme for Human 
46 | P a g e
Development, IPHD) and future McGovern-Dole operators as much as possible. As the 
Ministry’s own management and M&E systems take shape and are being used regularly, the 
Ministry of Education should ask every successive McGovern-Dole operator to adopt and 
follow these national management and M&E systems in the future. 
Lessons learned
• One of the main factors that impeded the McGovern-Dole FFE programme in 
achieving its SO1, “Improved Literacy”, was the absence of planned activities that 
would have helped the WFP and its partners to reach this intended objective. For 
example, improving the quality of teaching, and learning about health and diet should 
have been considered as a direct result of specific project activities. The Financing 
Agreement between the FAS/USDA and the WFP did not explicitly recognize the need 
for collaboration with other actors in the domain of pedagogical improvement. As such, 
the McGovern-Dole programme seemed somewhat out of rhythm with the national 
efforts to improve the quality of primary education that is slowly taking shape. As its 
attention was limited to the distribution of imported US food commodities, it pursued 
only the outcomes67 of improved attendance rates, (assuming these results in improved 
attentiveness and learning), leaving the other outcomes and strategic objectives of its 
own logical framework unattended; firstly, the improved literacy rates of school-aged 
children.
• The SF programme in GB played an unexpected role in several schools’ decisions to 
not adhere to the frequent teacher strikes, especially during the 2018-2019school￾year. The role of the local SMCs was determinant in convincing their teachers. 
• The WFP worked very close with national NGOs to scale up local food purchases, 
exceeding the number of schools that was foreseen between 2016-2019. This may help 
the WFP to address its selection criteria bias and to expand the programme to more 
deprived rural areas and communities.
67 See also the McGovern-Dole FFE Framework, that is reproduced in Annex 1. E.g. with regard to SO1: Improved literacy, only the outcomes 
MGD 1.2 (improved attentiveness) and MGD 1.3 (improved student attendance) are pursued by various activities, while for outcome MGD 
1.1 (improved quality of literacy instruction) no activities have been foreseen.
47 | P a g e
Annexes
Annex 1 - McGovern-Dole FFE Framework
48 | P a g e
49 | P a g e
Annex 2 - Revised version of the reconstructed Logical framework of the 
WFP/McGovern Dole FFE Programme in Guinea Bissau (2016-19)
Incorporating68 the relevant elements of the McGovern-Dole FFE Framework 
and the terms of the Project Financing Agreement 
FFE-657-2015/019-00
Outcome 1: School age children in Guinea-Bissau have adequate access to safe and 
nutritious food all year-round
Output 1 - Primary school children in targeted schools receive timely, sufficient and nutritionally 
adequate food transfers to meet their basic food and nutrition requirements
Activity 1 - Provide school meals to primary school children, 
Indicator 1 - Number of daily school meals provided to school-age children;
Indicator 2 - Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (male)
Indicator 3 - Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (women)
Indicator 4 - Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (2+3)
Indicator 5 - Number of school students enrolled in schools receiving assistance (women)
Indicator 6 - Number of school students enrolled in schools receiving assistance (male)
Indicator 7 - Number of school students enrolled in schools receiving assistance (5+6)
Indicator 8 - Number of individuals receiving directly from funded intervention (new)
Indicator 9 - Number of individuals receiving directly from funded intervention (continuing)
Indicator 10 - Number of students regularly (80%) attending supported classrooms/school 
(women)
Indicator 11 - Number of students regularly (80%) attending supported classrooms/school (male)
Indicator 12 - Number of students regularly (80%) attending supported classrooms/school (total)
Activity 2 - Provide take-home-rations for girls from 4th to 6th grade.
Indicator 13 - Number of take-home ration provided as a result of the assistance
indicator 14 - Number of students receiving take-home rations as a result of the assistance 
(women)
Indicator 15 - Number of students receiving take-home rations as a result of the assistance (total)
Outcome 2: Pupils in assisted schools benefit from increased use of health and dietary 
practices.
Output 2: Better health and dietary practices are increasingly used in the school 
canteens by the local actors.
Activity 3 - Provide training to school management committees (SMC), parent 
associations, Headmasters and inspectors on food preparation and storage.
Indicator 16 -Number of SMC members and cooks trained in food preparation and storage (total)
Activity 4 - Provide training to teachers, directors and inspectors in food management 
and storage
Indicator 17 - Number of teachers, directors and inspectors trained in food management and 
storage (women)
Indicator 18 - Number of teachers, directors and inspectors trained in food management and 
storage (male)
Indicator 19 - Number of teachers, directors and inspectors trained in food management and 
storage (total)
Activity 5 - Building/rehabilitation of kitchens and storerooms
Indicator 20 - Number of kitchens constructed/rehabilitated
Indicator 21 - Number of fuel-efficient stoves provided/rehabilitated
Activity 6 - Provide storage and Food Preparation Equipment, Tools and eating 
utensils
68 Created by the Mid-term evaluation team in 2018, revised and amended by the End-line evaluation team in November 2019. 
50 | P a g e
Indicator 22 - Number of schools with improved storage equipment, Food Preparation 
Equipment, Tools and eating utensils as a result of the assistance
Activity 7 - Distribute deworming medication and training
Indicator 23 - Number of students receiving deworming medication 
Outcome 3: National institutions have enhanced capacity to efficiently plan and 
implement programmes in the areas of food security and nutrition and disaster 
mitigation.
Output 3 - Food-insecure people in targeted areas benefit from improved institutionalization of 
monitoring capacity in Government ministries of Agriculture and Finance to increase and protect 
their access to food 
Activity 8 - Capacity building at local, regional and National level
Indicator 24- Number of government staff trained at national level on management of schools 
feeding programme
Indicator 25- Number of government staff trained at regional level on management of schools 
feeding programme
Indicator 26- Number of Government staff trained on M&E system 
Indicator 29- Number of timely schools feeding reports produced
Activity 9 – Support Government to develop school feeding pilot project
Indicator 27- Number of school feeding government pilot projects conducted
Indicator 28- Number of schools covered by the government pilot projects 
Activity 10 - Support monitoring and evaluation systems
Indicator 30 - Monitoring and evaluation system established and functional 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 51 | Page
Annex 3 – Evaluation Matrix
1 Relevance
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / 
information
Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
Question 1.1. Is the project’s strategy relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs?
To what extent did the 
project respond to the needs 
of the students (boys and 
girls), especially girls from 4th
to 6th grade?
Degree of correspondence of 
the project with the needs, as 
expressed by all stakeholders 
including students, especially 
by the girls, as well as by
external soci0-economic 
assess-ments and analysis
Primary data collected from 
students (specifically girls from 
the 4th to 6th grade) in the 
sample of schools of the 8 
regions, and their parents 
(women and men)
Secondary data: programme 
monitoring database, survey, 
programme reports
Group interview (mixed 
groups of boys and girls).
Girls (4th to 6 th grade) semi 
direct interviews
Group interview with parents 
of students
Database and document 
analysis
Content analysis of interviews 
(specific attention to gender 
aspects)
Systematization of information 
with excel, cross-checking 
between information from 
interviews and data primary 
data collected in the interviews
Expected shyness of the children 
may interfere with the collection 
process
Illiterate interviewees may not 
speak Portuguese, requiring 
interpreter during interviews
To what extent did the 
project respond to the needs 
of teachers, cooks, 
inspectors, School 
Management Committees 
(SMC) and communities 
(women and men)
Degree of correspondence of 
the project with needs as 
expressed by teachers, cooks, 
inspectors, SMC, and com￾munity leaders.
Analysis of primary data 
collected from the SMC, 
teachers, cooks (women, 
men)during on-site visits
Secondary data: programme 
monitoring database (women 
and men)
Focus groups
Document analysis
In-depth observation 
Photo collection
Content analysis of interviews 
(specific attention to gender 
aspects)
Systematization of information 
with excel, cross-checking 
between information from 
interviews, observation and 
secondary data collected in the 
documents
Labour discontentment and tense 
work relations may dominate the 
interviews. 
Question 1.2. Is the project aligned with national government’s education and school feeding policies and strategies?
To what extent is the 
intervention aligned with the 
education policies and 
strategies of the 
government?
Degree of correspondence of 
the programme with the 
government education 
policies and the national 
school feeding law.
Primary data collected from 
Ministry of Education officials
Secondary data collected from 
Government Edu-cation policy 
documents, the national school 
fee-ding law (aligned with 
policies on education, food 
security and nutrition and 
gender, including gender
elements of sector
policies).
Interview with Ministry of 
Education officials
Government Documents 
analysis
Interviews
Content analysis of interviews
Systematization of infor-mation 
using excel, cross-checking 
between information from 
interviews and secondary data 
collected in the documents
Public services in reorganization 
due to recent appointment of 
government
Question 1.3. Does the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives?
To what extent are other 
donor-funded initiatives 
complementary? 
Degree of complementary of 
the programme with other 
donor-funded initiatives.
Primary data collected from 
other stakeholders/ donors
Primary data collected during In￾site visiting 
Focus group with other 
stakeholders/ donors
Analysis of documents and 
web resources 
Content analysis of interviews 
and of existing documents/web 
resources.
Systematization of information 
using excel, cross-checking 
Reliable information exists
Public services in reorganization 
due to recent appointment of 
government
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 52 | Page
1 Relevance
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / 
information
Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
To what extent is there 
complementarity with the 
initiatives of the MED ? 
Degree of complementary of 
the programme with 
government initiatives.
Secondary data existing in 
project literature and web 
resources
In-depth observation, photo 
collection
Interview with Ministry of 
Education officials
between information from 
interviews and secondary data 
collected in the documents
2.Effectiveness 
Question 2.1. Extent of project implementation – did the project carry out all activities as planned?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of progress Main source of data / 
information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
To what extent were school 
meals provided regularly to 
primary school children, 
including take-home-rations 
to girls from 4th to 6th grade 
(Activity 1+2)?
Number of children (girls vs. boys)
receiving daily school meals (breakfast, 
snack, lunch) as a result of USDA 
assistance;
Number of days when school meals were 
delivered to the students, in relation to 
the number of school days.
Number (and %) of girls from 4th to 6th
grade receiving THR
Number of schools reached (and % of 
total number of schools in the different 
regions and globally)
WFP monitoring database
WFP Guinea-Bissau Interim 
country strategic Plan (ICSP)
WFP Reports
Survey by RESSAN Database 
analysis
Document analysis
Systematization of 
information using Excel Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and information collected in 
the documents
Survey report analysis
Reliable information exists 
To what extent did primary 
school children in targeted 
schools receive sufficient and 
nutritionally adequate food 
transfers in a timely and 
regular way (Output 1.1)?
Number of meals delivered to pupils in 
relation to the number of school days 
(percentage of coverage) as a result of 
USDA assistance
Planned food in relation to delivered 
food (quantities of each food item of the 
school menu) as a result of USDA 
assistance
Percentage of students who ate meal at 
school the previous day and source of 
the meal in WFP and Not-WFP assisted 
schools(percentage)
Nutritional contents of the school meal 
and daily take home ration (energy, 
protein, vitamin A, Iron) 
WFP reports and database Survey by RESSAN Database 
analysis
Document analysis 
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports 
Survey report analysis. 
Reliable information exists 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 53 | Page
2.Effectiveness 
Question 2.1. Extent of project implementation – did the project carry out all activities as planned?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of progress Main source of data / 
information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
To what extent have kitchens 
and store-rooms been built/ 
rehabilitated? And were 
storage and food preparation 
equipment, tools and eating 
utensils provided?
Number of kitchens 
constructed/rehabilitated
Number of schools where food is 
prepared in the kitchen
Number of schools with improved 
storage equipment (store-rooms, pallets)
and food preparation tools (plates, pots, 
etc.)
Number of fuel-efficient stoves 
provided/ rehabilitated
WFP monitoring database
Observation
Survey by RESSAN Database 
analysis
Observation in the schools
Systematization of 
information using Excel Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and information collected by 
observation
Reliable information exists 
To what extent was training 
provided to school 
management committees 
(SMC), teachers, and 
inspectors on management 
of school meals and 
complementary activities ?
Number of School Management 
Committee members and cooks (male vs. 
female) trained in food preparation and 
storage
Number of teachers, directors, and 
inspectors (male vs. female) trained in 
food management and storage
WFP monitoring databases
WFP’s Guinea-Bissau Interim 
country strategic Plan (ICSP)
WFP Reports
Database analysis
Document analysis
Systematization of 
information using Excel Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and information collected in 
the documents. Specific 
attention to gender aspects.
Labour discontentment and 
tense work relations may 
dominate the interviews. 
To what extent has 
deworming medication been 
distributed?
Number of students (girls vs. boys)
receiving deworming medication 
WFP monitoring database
Observation
Teachers
Database analysis
Observation in the schools
Interviews
Content analysis
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and information collected by 
observation
Labour discontentment and 
tense work relations may 
dominate the interviews. 
To what extent was capacity 
building delivered at local, 
regional and national level? 
And has technical and 
analytical assistance been 
provided to the Government 
in policy formulation, legal 
frame-work and 
management of a national 
school meals programme?
Number of government staff (m/f) 
trained at national level on management 
of schools feeding program
Number of government staff (m/f) 
trained at regional level on management 
of schools feeding program
Number of Government staff (m/f)
trained on M&E system
Number (and %) of school feeding 
reports that were produced timely and 
accurately
Implementation/progress on five SABER 
policy goals 
WFP monitoring database
Interviews with Ministry of 
Education Officials at 
National and Regional level
Reports of Agência de 
Cooperação Brasileira (ABC)
Reports of other stake￾holders and donors
Database analysis 
Interview content analysis; 
Interviews with ABC Officials
Focus group with Educa-tion 
sector actors, NGOs, local 
communities, ABC, African 
Union, WFP, and other UN 
agencies Analysis of reports
Content analysis of 
interviews
Systematization of infor￾mation using Excel, cross￾checking between infor￾mation from database and 
interviews
Reliable information exists
Some of the Stakeholders 
may not be currently present 
in Guinea-Bissau 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 54 | Page
2.Effectiveness 
Question 2.1. Extent of project implementation – did the project carry out all activities as planned?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of progress Main source of data / 
information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
Implementation of local institutional 
purchase component of school feed 
programme
To what extent was technical 
and analytical assistance 
provided to the Ministry of 
Education to institutionalize 
Monitoring and Evaluation 
the System (M&E) for the 
school feeding with 
appropriate budget ?
Number of national assessments
Number of workshops and trainings 
Number of M&E tools developed
MEN and District Education, 
field monitors
WFP and UNICEF reports
Interview
Report analysis
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports with information 
collected in interview.
Reliable information exists 
2.2. To what degree have (and have not) the interventions resulted in the expected results and outcomes? In particular, to what extent did providing THR result in increased 
attendance and enrolment of girl students?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / 
information
Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
To what extent do school 
age children in Guinea￾Bissau have adequate 
access to safe and nutritious 
food all year-round? 
Percentage of students 
(boys and girls) who ate a 
daily school meal provided 
by the WFP, as result of 
USDA assistance
Degree of satisfaction: 
opinion of pupils (boys vs. 
girls) and teachers in the 
quality and quantity of food 
delivered by the school 
meals
WFP reports
Mid-term survey
On site data collection 
(survey and ET school 
visits) 
Girls from 4th to 6th grade
Interviews with stake￾holders
Database analysis
Document analysis
Content analysis
Survey 
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from database and reports 
with information collected in 
interview. Specific attention to gender 
aspects.
Expected shyness of the 
girls may interfere with the 
collection process 
To what extent did 
providing take-home￾rations (THR) result in 
Increase in attendance and 
enrolment of girl pupils, as 
compared to non THR 
assisted schools.
Database
Survey results
Database analysis
Interviews with all stake￾holders, and particularly 
female pupils of grades 4-6 
Comparison of data on enrolment and 
attendance between comparable 
assisted and non assisted schools
Reliable data exist. 
Interviews with parents 
may need assistance for 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 55 | Page
increased attendance and 
enrolment of girl students? 
Interviews in schools (focus 
groups with girl pupils)
and (in some cases) with 
their parents,
Verification of hypotheses with 
teachers, girl pupils and their parents. 
Specific attention to gender aspects. 
translation and for 
intercultural mediation. 
To what extent have 
national institutions 
enhanced capacity to 
efficiently plan and 
implement programmes in 
the areas of food security 
and nutrition and disaster 
mitigation? 
Number of government staff 
trained at national level on 
management of schools 
feeding program
Number of government staff 
trained at regional level on 
management of schools 
feeding program
Number of Government 
staff trained on M&E system
For all trained government 
staff: numbers disaggre￾gated by sex if possible.
Number of timely schools 
feeding reports produced
WFP Reports
WFP database
Interview with Ministry of 
education Officials
Document analysis
Database analysis
Content interview
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from database and reports
Reliable information exists 
2.3. Is short term hunger reduced?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
To what extent has hunger 
been reduced within the 
assisted families (THR’s) and 
in the local communi-ties?
Level of vulnerability of local 
households (as measured by
the RESSAN survey using the 
Food Insecurity Experience 
Scale (FIES), as a proxy.)
Level of vulnerability of 
women and girls within the 
household, compared to men 
and boys
Interviews with local community 
representatives, parent association 
leaders, local MoA and MinSA staff
Baseline and Mid-term Survey
School visits
Interviews, also with SMC 
and PA members, pupils, 
cooks, girl pupils.
Database analysis
Interview content analysis
Specific attention to gender 
aspects.
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from interviews, 
reports and databases. 
Reliable information exists 
2.4. Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries in the right quantity and quality at the right time?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 56 | Page
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
Is the food perceived as 
sufficient in terms of quantity 
and quality? Is the food 
reaching the right 
beneficiaries? 
Local evaluation of Food 
quantity and quality
Students
Parent Associations
SMC, Teachers, Local communities 
representative
Interviews with boys and 
girls, men and women
Interview content analysis
(including specific atten-tion 
to gender aspects)
Expected shyness of the 
children may interfere with 
the collection process
Parents may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpretation during 
interviews
Which improvements can be 
envisaged to increase the 
effectiveness and the 
efficiency of the school 
feeding programme ?
No targets set WFP and Education Ministry officials
SMC members (men and women)
Local community representatives (men 
and women)
Head masters and teachers, cooks, pupils
Essentially open inter-views, 
both individually and in focus 
groups. 
Interview content analysis Interviewees may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpretation during 
interviews
3.Efficiency 
3.1. Has the programme been implemented in an efficient way? 
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of progress or 
success
Main source of data / 
information
Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
Was there efficient use of 
resources and efficient 
methods of work ? 
Degree to which resources have been 
used in an efficient and cost-effective 
way, as compared to realistic 
alternative ways to implement the 
project.
Degree to which work set up and 
methods were efficient, as compared to 
possible alternatives. 
WFP reports
Mid-term survey
Interviews with all 
stakeholders and with WFP 
staff
On site data collection 
(survey and ET school 
visits) 
Interviews with stake￾holders
Database analysis
Document analysis
Content analysis
Survey 
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
analysis of the financial 
reports, cross-checking 
between information from 
database and reports with 
information collected in 
interview.
Information of reliable 
quality exists, but might be 
difficult to obtain. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 57 | Page
4. Impact 
4.1. To what degree has the project achieved the results that were foreseen in the project-level framework?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / information Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
What were the results 
(outcomes) of the project on 
improving the quality of 
education and literacy of 
school children (boys and 
girls)? 
Measurement of project 
achievements against its 
targets (enrollment, 
attendance, completion and 
dropout rates) and of its 
impact on the promotion of 
literacy
Project agreement: FFE-657-2015/019-
00
Monitoring database
Secondary data on Education that is 
used by the WFP to evaluate outcomes 
on education
SPRs
Semiannual Report Narratives
Baseline, mid-term and final surveys
Project partners reports
On-site data collection (school visits)
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP, their partners 
(including GoGB officers), 
headmasters, teachers, 
school committees, school 
cooks, parents and students 
(boys and girls): open 
questions on results of the 
project
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database, 
reports and interviews. 
Specifc attention to gender 
aspects.
Reliable information exists in 
part of the collected 
information. 
Expected shyness of the 
children may interfere with 
the collection process. 
Parents and SMC members 
may not speak Portu-guese, 
requiring interpretation 
during interview.
What were the results of the 
project on promoting health 
and nutrition of school 
children (boys and girls) and 
local communities?
Measurement of project 
achievements against its 
targets: planned outputs and 
outcomes of the project on 
health and nutrition.
Project agreement: FFE-657-2015/019-
00
Monitoring database
SPRs
Semiannual Report Narratives
Baseline, mid-term and final surveys
Project partners’ reports
On-site data col-lection (school visits)
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP, their partners 
(including GoGB officers), 
headmasters, teachers, 
school committees, school 
cooks, parents and students 
(boys and girls) also using 
open questions.
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports and interviews. 
Specifc attention to gender 
aspects.
Reliable information exists. 
Expected shyness of the 
children may interfere with 
the collection process. 
Parents may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpreter during interview.
What were the progresses of 
the project on strengthening 
capacity of the GoGB on 
developing and 
implementing a nationally 
owned and sustainable 
school feeding?
Progress on NCI: National 
School Feeding Capacity 
Index (estimated by the WFP 
using SABER Exercise results)
SABER assessments
Standard Project Reports
In-site data collection
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP, Government 
officers (national, regional 
and local levels), teachers 
and school committees, using 
also open questions.
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports and interviews
Reliable information exists
4.2. Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positives or negatives?
What were the intended and 
unintended long-term effects 
on institutional capacities? 
No targets set, no indicators 
available.
Project agreement: FFE-657-2015/019-
00
SPR
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP and their project 
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
Reliable information exists. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 58 | Page
Semiannual Report Narratives
In-site data collection (fieldwork)
partners (UNICEF, FAO, WHO, 
NGOs, GoGB) school 
members (headmasters, 
teachers), school 
committees, school cooks, 
parents and pupils (boys and 
girls), also using open 
questions.
information from database 
and reports and interviews
Expected shyness of the 
children may interfere with 
the collection process. 
Parents may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpretation during 
interviews.
Were there unintended 
(positive and negative) 
effects for recipients and 
non-recipients of assistance, 
also for women and girls? 
Open issue, no targets or 
indicators set. 
SPR
Semiannual Report Narratives
In-site data collection (fieldwork)
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP, GoGB, school 
members, school 
committees, Parents 
Associations, pupils, using 
open questions. 
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports and interviews. 
Specifc attention to gender 
aspects.
Reliable information exists. 
Parents may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpretation during 
interview.
4.3. What internal and external factors affected the project's achievement of intended results?
Was the project 
implemented according to 
the plan? If not, how this 
affected the implement￾tation of the project and in 
what manner?
Open issue, no targets or 
indicators set. 
WFP officials
SPR
Semiannual Report Narratives
Project partners reports
On-site data collection (fieldwork)
Regional structures of Minister of 
Education 
Documental review
Interviews and focus group 
with WFP and their project 
partners (UNI-CEF, FAO, 
WHO, NGOs, GoGB), school 
members (headmasters, 
teachers), school commit￾tees, school cooks, parents 
and pupils, (boys and girls) 
using open questions.
Systematization of 
information using Excel, 
cross-checking between 
information from database 
and reports and interviews
Reliable information exists
5. Sustainability
5.1. Is the school meals program sustainable, including a strategy for sustainability; sound policy; stable funding; quality program design; institutional arrangements; local 
production and sourcing; partnership and coordination; community participation and ownership?
Sub-question Measure / Indicator of 
progress
Main source of data / 
information
Methods of data collection Methods of Analysis Quality of Information
How is the school feeding 
system perceived by local 
communities (man and 
Level of appreciation of the 
SFP (by men and women)
Local community 
representatives, Parent 
Association
Focus groups including men 
and women
Interview content analysis.
Specifc attention to gender aspects.
Reliable information exists
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 59 | Page
women)? What is not good? 
What could be improved?
Are schools exploring the 
full potential in terms of 
local institutional purchase 
of food?
Level of coverage of the 
school food needs by local 
products
Project database, NGO, 
Local community 
representatives, FAO
Reports on the pilot 
projects with local 
purchases
Project database, Reports, 
interviews, Focus groups 
including men and women
Visits to some of the pilot 
project schools
Interview Content analysis
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from the reports and 
interviews. Specifc attention to 
gender aspects.
Reliable information exists 
5.2. What substantive progress has the government made toward developing a nationally owned school feeding program?
Is there a plan for nationally 
owned SFP?
Laws, policies, pilot 
projects, plans
Ministry of Education 
Officials
Reports, legal documents, 
Plans
Interviews
Document and report 
analysis
Interview Content analysis
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from the reports and 
legal documents and interviews
Reliable information exists
What progress has been 
made towards local 
purchase of food for school
feeding ? 
Pilot experimentation of 
methods and systems
Pilot projet reports, inter￾nal evaluation reports, 
visits to these schools
Document analysis, inter￾views with stakeholders 
and actors, including local 
NGOs that participated in 
the pilot projects
Systematization of information, 
cross-checking between infor-mation 
from the reports and the interviews
Reliable information exists
5.3. How are local communities involved in and contributing toward school feeding?
To what extent local 
communities participate in 
the school feeding systems 
(men and women)? To what 
extent communities 
contribute to local SFS?
Number of women and men 
participating in the school 
committees
Number of women in 
decision making positions 
in the school committees 
(chair and deputy)
WFP reports
School Management 
Committees, Parent 
Associations, teachers and 
headmasters
Community leaders
Document analysis
Individual interviews and 
focus group interview
Open questions on type and 
level of involvement of the 
community in process of 
decision taking in aspects 
related to the local school 
feeding system.
Systematization of information using 
Excel, 
Interview content analysis, including 
specific attention to gender aspects.
Parents may not speak 
Portuguese, requiring 
interpreter during 
interview.
5.4. What needs remain in order to achieve a full handover and nationally-owned school feeding program?
Is the legal and political 
environment favourable to 
the handover of the school 
feeding systems to the 
government? If not, what is 
missing?
Existing legal frameworks
Policies
Interviews with Ministry of 
Education official
Reports, laws, national 
policies
Interview 
Document review
Interview content analysis
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from database and 
interviews
Reliable information exists
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 60 | Page
Is there technical capacity 
at national and regional 
level to implement school 
feeding programs? And at 
school level? If not, what 
kind of training is needed?
Number of government staff 
(men and women) trained 
at national level on 
management of schools 
feeding program
Number of government staff 
(men and women) trained 
at regional level on 
management of schools 
feeding program
Number of Government 
staff trained on M&E system
Interviews with Ministry of 
Agriculture and other 
Government Officials (men 
and women) 
WFP database
Interview
Data analysis
Contents analysis, including specific 
attention to gender aspects. 
Systematization of information using 
Excel, cross-checking between 
information from database and 
interviews
Reliable information exists
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 61 | P a g e
Annex 4 - Interviewed Stakeholders
Institutions Stakeholders
COAJOQ 1 representative from management 
DGASCE 3 representatives, including management, 
school feeding and statistics
Evangelical Church 1 representative
ECAS-D (Estrutura Comunitária de 
Animação e Sensibilização para o 
Desenvolvimento)
2 representatives, including management
INED 6 representatives, including management
NGO KAFO 5 representatives, including management, 
finance, and local purchases 
RESSAN 11 representatives, including management and 
data collectors
Regional Directors 7 representatives
Regional SF focal points 7 representatives 
Tininguena 3 representatives from local purchases 
UNICEF 2 representatives, including management 
WFP Center of Excellence Against 
Hunger (Brasil)
1 representative from South-South 
Cooperation
WFP Guinea-Bissau 12 representatives, including programme 
management, school feeding, nutrition, 
finance, VAM and M&E, supply chain and IT
WFP Regional Bureau Dakar 1 representative from programme
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 62 | P a g e
Annex 5 - Number of schools assisted by the McGovern-Dole FFE programme and visited during the baseline, Mid￾Term and Final evaluations
Table A5.1. Number of schools assisted by the WFP programme in 2019 and the size of the samples for the End-line survey (July￾October 2019) and the End-line Evaluation fieldwork (October-November 2019)
Number of
Schools
Number of
Schools in Baseline
Number of schools in the Mid￾term
Number of Schools surveyed/visited during the End-line
evaluation
Region (2019) Baseline Survey Sample Mid-term survey sample End-line Quantitative Survey 
Sample
ET School Visit Sample
Biombo 46 2 2 2 2
Oio 150 8 7 8 6
Gabu 109 10 5 8 4
Bafata 179 14 8 12 8
Quinara 60 3 3 3 3
Cacheu 117 13 5 12 7
Bolama-Bijagós 63 0 0 2 0
Tombali 34 0 0 3 2
Total 758 50 30 50 32
Source: own elaboration
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 63 | P a g e
Annex 7 - Project Performance Indicators
Table A7.1 Project Results by Activity and Target for school year 2016-2017/2017-2018/2018-2019
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Over the whole period
Activity Indicator Target
2016 Result %
Target
2017
Result %
Target
2018 Result %
Sum of 
targets
Sum of 
achieved 
results
Total %
1.Provide 
School Meals
Number of daily 
school meals 
provided as a result 
of USDA assistance
23,986,380 19,095,230 79.6%
26,400,00
0
19,095,340 72.3% 28,610,175 23.489.32569
89.1% 78.996.555 61.679.895 78.80 %
Number of school￾aged children 
receiving daily school 
meals as a result of 
USDA assistance
145,372
173,593 119.4% 160,000
173,593 108,5% 173,395
173,995 100.3%
Number of school￾age children (male) 
receiving daily school 
meals/Number of 
students (male) 
enrolled in schools 
receiving USDA 
assistance
75,572 92,278 122% 81,600 91,978 127,2%
83,230
92,202 110.8%
Number of school￾age children (female) 
receiving daily school 
meals/ /Number of 
students (female) 
enrolled in schools 
receiving USDA 
assistance
69,800 92,279 132% 78,400 81,616 104,1%
90,165
81,793 90.7%
Number of students 
(male) regularly 
(80%) attending 
USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
60,458 87,379 144.5% 65,720 85,540 130.2% 66,584 73,854 110.9%
69 Source: ACR 2018, output indicators (p.21). Calculation mode: average number of schooldays/month on which foods or at least 4 food groups were provided x N. of project participants (male + 
female) = 15 dias/mês (15 x 9) x (92.202 + 81793) = 135 x 173.995 = 23.489.325
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 64 | P a g e
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Over the whole period
Activity Indicator Target
2016 Result %
Target
2017
Result %
Target
2018 Result %
Sum of 
targets
Sum of 
achieved 
results
Total %
Number of students 
(female) regularly 
(80%) attending 
USDA supported 
classrooms/schools
55,840 75,902 135.9% 62,720 75,086 119.7% 72,132 69,524 96.5%
Number of students 
regularly (80%) 
attending USDA 
supported 
classrooms/schools70
116,298 163,177 140.3% 128,000 164,913 128,8% 138,716 143,378 103.4%
2.Provide 
Take-Home 
Rations
Number of 
individuals receiving 
take-home rations as 
a result of USDA 
assistance 
15,414 16,232 105.3% 16,320 16,323 100% 16,623 16,484 99.2% 48,357 49,039 101.41%
Number of take￾home rations 
provided as a result 
of USDA assistance
2,543,310 1,785,520 70.2% 2,692,800 1,795,530 66.7% 2,742,795 1,813,240 66.1%
3 Train School 
Management 
Committees 
and Cooks on 
Food Prep and 
Storage
Number of School 
Management 
Committee members 
and cooks trained in 
food preparation and 
storage
4,466 1710 38.2%
4466+784
=
5,250
1710+2,420
=4,130
78.9% 5,250+1,400 =
6,650
1710+2420
+672=4,802
72.2% 6,650
4,802 72.2%
4. Train 
Teachers, 
Directors and 
Inspectors on 
Food Manage￾ment and 
Storage 
Practices
Number of teachers, 
directors, and 
inspectors (male) 
trained in food 
management and 
storage
350 141 40.2%
350+25=
375
141+61271=
753
200.8% 375+ 50 =
425
141+612+54 = 
807
189.8
%
425 807 189.8%
Number of teachers, 
directors, and 
inspectors (female) 
352 370 105.1%
352+23=
375
370+205= 
575
153.3% 375+50=
425
370+205+28
= 603
141.8% 425 603 141.8%
70 This output indicator is also used to assess 1.3: Improved Student Attendance
71 According to PAM, more men than planned because there are less women in rural areas working as teachers. The number exceeded the 2017 target to fill the gap observed in 2016
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 65 | P a g e
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Over the whole period
Activity Indicator Target
2016 Result %
Target
2017
Result %
Target
2018 Result %
Sum of 
targets
Sum of 
achieved 
results
Total %
trained in food 
management and 
storage
Number of teachers, 
directors, and 
inspectors trained in 
food management 
and storage
702 511 72.7% 702+48=
750
511+ 
817=1328
177.0% 750+200=
950
511+817+
82 =1410
148.2 950
511+817+
82=1410
148.4%
5. Build/Reha￾bilitate 
Kitchens and 
Storerooms
Number of kitchens 
constructed / 
rehabilitated
150 150 100 % 150 150 100% 100 150 150% 400 450 112.5 %
Number of fuel￾efficient stoves 
provided and 
rehabilitated
150 150 100 % 150
150 100% 100 100 100%
6 Provide 
Storage and 
Food Prep 
Equipment, 
Tools and 
Eating 
Utensils
Number of schools 
with improved 
storage equipment, 
food preparation 
tools and eating 
utensils as a result of 
USDA assistance
638 758 118.8
%
750 758 101.1 950 150 15.8%
7. Distribute 
Deworming 
Medication
Number of students 
receiving deworming 
medication(s)
145,372 92,523 63.6% 160,000 99,657 62.3% 173,395 173,995
100.3
%
173,395 173,995 100.3%
8 Train 
Government 
Staff on 
Management 
of a School 
Feeding 
Programme
Number of 
Government staff 
trained at national 
level on management 
of a school feeding 
programme
19 0 0 % 0 25 131.6%72 0 0 0% 19 25 131.6 %
Number of 
Government staff 224 0 0 % 224 0 0% 0
136 (82 Male; 
54 Female)
30.4%
73 448 136 30.36 %
72 In relation to 2016 target (n=19)
73 In relation to 2016/17 targets (n=224+224=448)
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 66 | P a g e
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 Over the whole period
Activity Indicator Target
2016 Result %
Target
2017
Result %
Target
2018 Result %
Sum of 
targets
Sum of 
achieved 
results
Total %
trained at regional 
and local level on 
management of a 
school feeding 
programme
Number of refresher 
trainings organized 
at the regional level 
as a follow up to the 
implementation of 
the action plan
0 0 0% 3 0 0% 3 10
166.6%
74
9 Establish 
and Train 
Government 
Staff on 
Monitoring 
and 
Evaluation 
System
Number of 
monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) 
systems established 
and functional
1 0 0% 0 1 100% N/A N/A N/A
Number of 
Government staff 
trained on M&E 
system
19 0 0 % 19 32 168,4% 0 0 0%75
Number of timely 
school feeding 
reports produced
5,742 3,138 54.6% 6,750 3,790 56.1% 8,550 4,548 53.2% 21.042 11.476 54.45 %
10 Support 
Government 
to Develop 
School 
Feeding Pilot 
Project
Number of school 
feeding Government 
pilot projects 
conducted
0 0 0% 1 1 100% 0 1 100%
Number of schools 
covered by the 
Government pilot
Project
0 0 0% 14 0 0% 14 60 428% 14 60 428.0%
Note: FE: Final Evaluation/ (o): original/ (r): revised
Source: Own elaboration based on MGD Project Results Framework (SO2) and Agreement FFE-657-2015/2015/019-00/ Attachment F: Performance Monitoring Plan and 
Project Results 2016 and 2017
74 In relation to 2017/18 targets (n=3+3=6)
75 Target (n= 19) achieved in 2018
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 67 | P a g e
* the result only includes part of planned school days
Annex 8 – Total amount of food distributed to schools, meals prepared and served
Table A8.1 Amount of food distributed to schools and number of meals served. 
Year Tonnage distributed to schools 
(MT)
# of meals served in schools Sources and observations
Planned Distr’d Planned Served
2016 5,805 1,650 23,986,380 19,095,230 SPR 2016
2017 3,260 4,716 26,400,000 19,095,230 SPR 2017
2018 5,508 3,323 28,610,175 25,491,510 ACR 2018 p4
Subtotals 14,573 9,689 78,996,555 63,681,970
2019 1,437(stock of Aug 
201)
1,437 
(foreseen)
11,037,500 11,037.500 WFP CO Supply Chain + projection + own 
calculation 
Grand totals 16,010 11,126 90,034,055 74,719,470
Actually received 
quantity: 11,103,69 T
 11,126 Readjusted target*
69,398,063
74,719,470 x 160 gr/meal 
= 11,955.11 T
Own calculation
Difference: 22.31 T or 2‰ in 
excess
5,321,407 meals too much or 7,67 % Acceptable differences
* 11,103.69 T / 160 gr (one meal) = 69,398,062.5 meals (Source of the data on quantity received: calculation by WFP’s supply chain staff, 11 Nov. 2019)
Table A8. 2. Calculation of the estimated number of meals to be prepared from the existing stock of August 2019:
Item and quantity (T) Required quantity for 1 meal Possible # of meals
Rice: 1,103.75 T 100 gr (reduced ration) 11,037,500
Beans: 222.35 T 20 gr (reduced ration) 11,117,500
Oil: 110.86 Tons 10 gr 11,086,000
Total: 1,436.96 Tons of food
Conclusion: the then existing quantity of rice allows for 11,037,500 meals only. 
Source: calculation by WFP’s supply chain staff, 11 Nov. 2019.
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 68 | P a g e
Annex 9 – Approximate estimates of financial reporting
Table 9.1: Approximate summary of the financial reporting. 
Considered :
USA-C-01203-01
USA-C-01203-02
USA-C-01203-03
Approved 
budget 
US$
2015
US$ SPR 2016 
US$ SPR 2017 US$* ACR 2018 US$ Total expenditures
US$ %
Confirmed 
contributions
In kind 2,246,950 4,343,820
In cash 3,635,000 14,097,139
Subtotals: 5,881,950 18,440,959
Expenditures
Food and related costs 6,780,368 3,165,098 9,945,466 75%
Cash/vouchers and related 
Capacity strengthening 196,458 113,921 310,379 2.3%
Implementation costs 246,360 246,360 1.86%
Direct support costs 67,441 553,110 620,551 4.68%
Adjusted support costs 130,367 130,367 0.985%
Indirect support costs ICS 384,800 1,232,276 366,324 1,983,400 ** 14.98%
Total expenditures 452,241 0 8,762,212 4,022,070 13,236,523 99.80%
* This column for 2017 reflects the totals of expenditures under 3 contracts, with references: USA-C-01203-01 (10026275), USA-C-01203-03 (10027343), and USA-C-01203-02 (1002765). 
**The current total of ICS spread over the total value of the project is: 1,983,400 / 20,000,000 = 9,17%
Sources: own elaboration based on the SPR’s for 2015, 2016, 2017 and on ACR 2018. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 69 | P a g e
Annex 10 - Nutritional content of one school meal
The nutritional contents of the school meal and daily take home ration in Energy, Protein, Vitamin 
A and Iron, were estimated using the Tabela Brasileira de Composicão de Alimentos/ TACO - 4th 
edition, 2011.
Table A 10.1 - Nutritional content of one school meal only considering food items acquired 
by the MGD funded school feeding project
Food type Amount g Energy
Kcal
Protein
g
Iron
mg
Vegetable oil 10 90 0 0
Beans 20 66 4 1.6
Rice 120 424 8.6 0.7
Salt 3g 0 0 0
Total 150 580 12.6 2.3
Table A10.2 - Nutritional content of one school meal including all WFP SF food items 
distributed at schools 
Food type Amount g Energy
Kcal
Protein
g
Iron
mg
Vegetable oil 10 90 0 0
Beans 20 66 4 1.6
Rice 120 424 8.6 0.7
Sardine 20 57 3.2 0.7
Total 170 637 15.8 3.0
Nutritional content in 30 g beans 
● Energy: 98.7 Kcal
● Protein: 6 g
● Iron: 2.4 mg
Nutritional content of take home ration - Rice 208 g/ day
● Energy: 745 Kcal
● Protein: 15 g
● Iron: 1.2 mg
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 70 | P a g e
Annex 11 – Results of the SABER exercise 
Table A11.1 - Results of SABER Guinea-Bissau 2015 and main improvements identified during the End-line Evaluation (2019)
Policy Goal Status 2015 (SABER exercise) Status 2019 (final evaluation)*
Policy Framework Latent
A School Feeding law was approved by the National Assembly 
approved in 2010 but it wasn’t promulgated by the President of the 
Republic.
The National Strategy Paper on Poverty Reduction (DENARP II) does 
not specifically address SF
SF is not included in the National Agricultural Investment Programme 
(NAIP) as a food safety net.
Established 
A School Feeding law was approved by the National Assembly 
approved in 2010 and promulgated in June 2019
SF is included in the Sectorial Education Plan (2017-2025) as 
strategy for improving learning capacity and nutritional status of 
pupils
Financial Capacity Latent
There is not a national budget line nor regular funds allocated for 
school feeding
Latent
There is not a national budget line nor regular funds allocated for 
school feeding
Institutional Capacity 
and Coordination
Emerging
Multisectoral Committee emerging, not yet formalized its intervention
There are structures, but no coordination between the central 
structures of the MEN with the deconcentrated structures to plan, 
implement and monitor the annual programme.
At the regional level, a staff member appointed by WFP (Focal Point) is 
responsible for canteens managed by the Management Committee at 
the school level.
Also, there are no formal bodies including the Community and 
representatives of Ministries at regional level involved in school 
feeding.
Canteen management committees are in place in schools but there are 
insufficient human resources and materials; they do not manage 
resources or the supply of food.
Emerging
In process of officializing a Multisectoral Committee 
Coordination between the central structures of the MEN with the 
deconcentrated structures to plan, implement and monitor the 
annual programme is still weak
No formal bodies including the Community and representatives of 
Ministries at regional level involved in school feeding.
School management committees are in place in schools but they 
mostly manage food supply. In the regions where the GoGB finance 
local food purchases, the SMC helps to manage resources.
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 71 | P a g e
Programme Design and 
Implementation
Latent
The importance of monitoring and evaluation is recognized by the 
government, but there is no national policy on school feeding; as a 
result, there is no monitoring plan and tools.
The reliability of the data collected by the partners and the quality of 
the reports are problematic
There is potential for development through focal groups that are 
recognized by regional and sectoral education authorities, and by local 
groups in areas where WFP and IPHD operate. But there is no policy or 
programme.
As there is no policy, no programme plan and no action plan, there can 
be no distribution modality.
No mention of National Standards defined for the food basket
Emerging
School feeding policy supported by national laws, although 
definition of different actors and responsibilities are still unclear
Institutionalization of the foreseen fiscal hurdles and definitions of 
the responsibilities of each structure
Testing mechanisms for M&E led by the ME in the Biombo region 
with the assistance of WFP
Piloting HGSF projects to diversity school menus based on the local 
availability recipients' needs and habits
Support to small producers for the provision of school canteens 
based on the surplus production of certain crops that may be part of 
the school system (mostly coordinated by local NGOs)
Community 
Participation and 
Ownership
Emerging
The community through the School Canteen Management Committee 
has a rather operational contribution (labor, supply of vegetables, dried 
fish, salt, etc.)
It participates in the management of the stocks allocated to the school 
but not in the design of the Programme (targeting, food basket) or 
monitoring and evaluation 
Emerging
Training of school feeding management committee 
Progressive sensitization and awareness of communities at the 
local, regional and national levels
* The ET applied the same tool to evaluate achievements since the last SABER exercise in 2015
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 72 | P a g e
Annex 12 - To what extent have the recommendations of the baseline survey 
and of the mid-term evaluation been implemented by WFP. 
1. Baseline survey (2016) recommendations.
Recommendation (short and medium 
term)
How WFP has dealt with it
SR1: MEN and WFP should consider appropriate 
strategies for addressing the “leakage” found in 
the THR component in most regions. E.g., the 
introduction of a short random, student- or 
parent-level questionnaire into the existing 
monthly monitoring system which tracks leakage 
and operation breaks. 
WFP has not implemented this short term 
recommendation, and a significant degree of 
liberty and variation continues to exist in the way 
schools handle the THR component.
The promotion of the toll-free denunciation phone 
number 106 is however an important positive 
element against «leakage» in general. 
SR2: WFP and MEN should consider reviewing 
and standardizing the role of CGEs and the 
community in the SFP and incorporating these 
into official training packages. Currently the lack 
of clarity and support on these issues raises the 
likelihood of corruption and reduces 
accountability throughout the system 
WFP’s training of SMC members has probably 
responded to a great deal of this recommendation. 
The ET could not verify this in detail.
SR3: WFP should consider partnering with 
current initiatives in Guinea-Bissau aimed at 
improving the types and quality of data collected 
through the national education system. This will 
ensure that SFP indicators (and the 
administrative data upon which they are built) 
are given appropriate value in such processes and 
begin putting in place standardized indicators for 
SFP monitoring in the event of a handover. 
It is not clear to which activities of that period this 
recommendation was referring. Correct and 
timely data collection is still a challenge to both 
WFP and MNEJCD. Training by WFP of school 
staff and MNEJCD personnel has been less 
performant than planned. The MNEJCD’s 
DGASCE has not yet developed its own 
monitoring and evaluation system.
MR1: WFP and MEN should consider 
commissioning a more detailed investigation into 
the factors which predict student attendance in 
Guinea-Bissau to better understand whether the 
current incentives are appropriately designed and 
targeted. This would ideally be with a research 
institute or university with experience in such 
exercises (particularly in the education sector). 
The baseline survey findings suggest that other 
factors beyond gender may play strong roles in 
determining attendance. The outcomes of such 
an investigation could then feed into an updated 
school feeding policy so that the process of 
allocating resources is standardized and guided 
by more comprehensive data on student 
vulnerability. 
WFP has not taken the initiative to launch such a 
study into the factors which influence student 
attendance in Guinea Bissau. 
It has kept to its standard formulas, namely the 
provision of school meals and take home rations 
for girls from 4th to 6th grade. 
MR2: MEN and WFP are encouraged to explore
the feasibility and implications of implementing a 
cost-sharing system (i.e. between Government 
and parents/communities) for the school feeding 
programme in light of its future commitments 
under the handover scenario. Cost-sharing might 
take any number of forms, including increased 
dependence on local production. The benefits of 
the SFP are quite visible from the baseline survey 
findings yet donor funding will never match that 
needed by GoGB to scale SFP to all primary-aged 
students.
WFP and the MNEJCD have not explored the 
implementation of a cost-sharing system between 
Government and parents and their communities. 
On the contrary, the HGSF approach seeks to 
support the communities, which are generally 
considered as vulnerable. 
In community schools there seems to be a high 
degree of local ownership and community 
contribution. In more established public primary 
schools increasing contributions from parents 
might be more difficult and politically sensitive. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 73 | P a g e
2. Mid-term evaluation (2018) recommendations. 
Recommendation How WFP has implemented it
1. Diversify school meals, and promote nutrition 
and health education. 
The two pilot projects on local purchase of food are 
a clear response to this recommendation. 
Nutrition was also integrated into the new primary 
school curriculum developed by INDE. 
2. Improve kitchen infrastructures and working 
standards of school cooks.
Only 84% of all supported schools have kitchens 
in good conditions, according to the end-line
survey. The corresponding values in previous 
surveys were 82 and 93%. The working stan-dards 
of school cooks have not been substan-tially 
improved since the mid-term evaluation and 
survey. 
3. Expand school meals to kindergartens This does not fit into the policy of the MNEJCD, 
and has thus not been implemented.
4. Provide health workers trained in nutrition for 
assisting schools
As far as we are aware, this recommendation has 
not been implemented by WFP nor by MNEJCD 
or the Ministry of Health. 
5. Rethink the system for delivering monthly 
monitoring reports
Efforts are under way to try out digital reporting 
using smart phones during the school year 2019-
2020. The training effort of MNEJCD personnel 
on reporting has been insufficient.
6. Map the development partners and other 
organisations working in partnership with the 
education system of GB for better coordination. 
There are only a few organisations working on the 
improvement of the education system in GB. WFP 
has not a very active coordination or collaboration 
with them.
7. Expand the involvement of civil society in the 
project to other regions
Local NGOs are now active in all regions, in 
support of the regular food distribution and of 
local purchase experiments. 
8. Clearly state the role of the project on 
promoting the quality of teaching
This recommendation has not been implemented 
by WFP.
9. Create multi-staffed school feeding units This recommendation has not been implemented 
by WFP
10. Closely follow-up the numbers of students 
enrolled in schools for better planned food 
distribution. 
WFP continued to use old numbers for the first 
food delivery of each year, but then adapted the 
quantities for the second and third delivery. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 74 | P a g e
Annex 13 - Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference
Mid-term and Final Evaluations of the McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program project in Guinea￾Bissau
(2016 - 2018)
WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Office
Fighting Hunger Worldwide 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 75 | P a g e
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Reasons for the Evaluation 3
2.1. Rationale 3
2.2. Objectives 4
2.3. Stakeholders and Users 4
3. Context and subject of the Evaluation 7
3.1. Context 7
3.2. Subject of the evaluation 8
4. Evaluation Approach 9
4.1. Scope 9
4.2. Evaluation Criteria and Questions 9
4.3. Data Availability 10
4.4. Methodology 11
4.5. Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment 13
5. Phases and Deliverables 14
6. Organization of the Evaluation 18
6.1. Evaluation Conduct 18
6.2. Team composition and competencies 18
6.3. Security Considerations 19
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders 19
8. Communication and budget 21
8.1. Communication 21
8.2. Budget 21
Annex 1 Map
Annex 2 Evaluation Schedule .
Annex 3 Membership of the Evaluation Committee .
Annex 4 Membership of the Evaluation Reference Group
Annex 5 Acronyms ¡.
Annex 6 Communication Plan .
Annex 7 Project results framework
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 76 | P a g e
1. Introduction
1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are for the mid-term and final evaluations of the McGovern-Dole project 
in Guinea-Bissau. This evaluation is commissioned by WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Office and will cover 
the period from August 2017 (preparation phase) to July 2019 (final evaluation report). 
2. These TOR were prepared by the Monitoring and Evaluation unit of WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Office 
based upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard 
template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation team 
and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key information to 
stakeholders about the proposed evaluation. Thirdly, since the McGovern-Dole agreement (USD $20 
million) covers the period from March 2016 to July 2019, the mid-term evaluation results will allow 
comparison with baseline survey results to mesure the progress/ achievement in the proposed 
indicators.
3. The mid-term and final evaluation will meet the criteria in the project’s Evaluation Plan and USDA’s 
Monitoring and Evaluation Policy76
. 
4. Currently, 758 schools receive school meals and a total of 173,593 children are fed every school day. The 
evaluation will be based on a reperesentative sample of schools selected from 8 regions of WFP 
intervention (Oio, Bafata, Gabu, Cacheu, Quinara , Bolama, Tombali and Biombo). 
2. Reasons for the Evaluation
3. The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below.
2.1. Rationale
4. The evaluations are being commissioned for the following reasons: Since 2016, WFP and the 
Government of Guinea-Bissau have been implementing a three-year McGovern-DoleMcGovern-Dole 
project in Guinea-Bissau. A baseline study conducted before the start of the project provided a 
situational analysis and allowed WFP to establish indicator baseline information and to verify the 
targets established in the Project Agreement. These evaluations will allow WFP to monitor the progress 
of the indicators established based on the results of the baseline study. 
5. WFP and its project partners will use the mid-term evaluation results to adjust course as necessary for 
the remainder of the project term.
6. WFP will also use the evaluations findings as a platform for an evidence-based policy dialogue and to 
inform engagement with the Government of Guinea-Bissau on the development of the national school 
feeding program and Monitoring and Evaluation system. Following SABER undertaken in 2015, WFP 
and MoE effort has been oriented to creation of a National School Feeding Programme adopted with 
an approved School Feeding Law, national budget line, institutional and conceptional capacity from 
Ministry of Education staff to design and implement the School Feeding Programme with comuinity 
participation. The evaluations will look into this aspect to come up with information on progress 
achieved and underline new strategies adapted to political context to proceed with creation of 
National School Feeding programme. 
7. Furthermore, WFP will use the mid-term and final evaluations’ findings to create awareness among 
key school feeding stakeholders about project activities that could be incorporated into Guinea￾Bissau’s national school meals program for nationwide implementation. 
76 https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/evalpol.pdf
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 77 | P a g e
8. Findings and recommendations from the mid-term evaluation would inform and feed into the 
implementation of the WFP Guinea-Bissau transitional interim Country Strategic Plan (TI-CSP) (January 
2018 - June 2019) and the design of the fully fledged Country Strategic Plan (CSP), which is planned to 
start in July 2019; subsequently, findings and recommendations from the final evaluation would inform 
the implementation of the CSP during its first years.
2.2. Objectives 
9. Evaluations in WFP 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 
McGovern-Dole school feeding project.
● Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw 
lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to 
inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and lessons 
will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
2.3. Stakeholders and Users
10. A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the evaluation 
and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below provides a 
preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team as part of the 
Inception phase. The Stakeholders organized around the “Essential Learning Package”, to improve 
learning condition: ensure potable water, latrines, training of teachers, improved school infrastructure, 
didactic materials and curricula revision, will be informed on the progress achieved through present 
evaluation.
11. 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 (GEEW) in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation 
by women, men, boys and girls from different groups. Gender equity and women’s empowerment 
envisaged sinse the beginning/elaboration of present the project, will be confirmed in the present 
study namely: the increase of girls enroment in assisted schools, participation of women in food 
management committees, the impact of training for cooks in the use of local food and diet 
diversifitation, organization of local food purchase through women’s associations for provision to 
schools and their empowerment in literacy and income generation. 
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO) [Guinea-Bissau] 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. The Stakeholders organized around the 
“Essential Learning Pakage”, to improve learning condition: ensure potable water, latrines, training of teachers, 
improved schools infrastructures, didactic materials and curricula revision, will be informed on the progress achieved 
through present evaluation. 
Regional Bureau (RB) [Dakar] Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, the RB management has an interest in an 
independent/impartial account of the operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation findings to 
apply this learning to other country offices. The Regional Evaluation Officers supports CO/RB management to ensure 
quality, credible and useful decentralized evaluations.
WFP HQ 
[technical units]
WFP HQ technical units are responsible for issuing and overseeing the rollout of normative guidance on corporate 
programme themes, activities and modalities, as well as of overarching corporate policies and strategies. They also 
have an interest in the lessons that emerge from evaluations, as many may have relevance beyond the geographical 
area of focus. Relevant HQ units should be consulted from the planning phase to ensure that key policy, strategic and 
programmatic considerations are understood from the onset of the evaluation.
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 78 | P a g e
Office of Evaluation (OEV) OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, credible and useful evaluations respecting 
provisions for impartiality as well as roles and accountabilities of various decentralised evaluation stakeholders as 
identified in the evaluation policy.
WFP Executive Board (EB) The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations. This 
evaluation will not be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning 
processes.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is 
appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the evaluation of women, men, boys and girls from 
different groups will be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. The information will be collected 
from direct and indirect beneficiaries of project: girls and boys, women, men, teachers, Food Management Committees 
and cooks through individual and focus groups interview aiming to get their point of view for better decision making in 
the project implementation. 
Government The Government has 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. Issues related to capacity development, 
handover and sustainability will be of particular interest. Various Ministries are partners in the design and 
implementation of WFP activities, including, for this specific project, the Ministry of National Education. 
UN Country team The UNCT’s harmonized action should contribute to the realisation of the government developmental objectives. It has 
therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP operation is effective in contributing to the UN concerted efforts. Various 
agencies are also direct partners of WFP at policy and activity leve, including UNICEF and FAO.
NGOs NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at the same time having their own 
interventions. The results of the evaluation might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations and 
partnerships.
Donors: USDA WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. They have an interest in knowing whether their funds 
have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective and contributed to their own strategies and 
programmes
For this evaluation, the main stakeholder is USDA. USDA is the funder of the evaluation. Its role is to review and 
comment on TORs, participate in a key informant interview with the selected evaluator prior to field data collection, and 
to review and approve evaluation reports.
Civil society Community leaders, School Management Committees, Parent Association members, teachers, and cooks are all 
active stakeholders and will have a direct interest in the results of this evaluation.
12. The primary users of this evaluation will be:
● The WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to 
programme implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships. The evaluation 
should provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the school feeding 
project so that WFP and its project partners can adjust course as necessary for the remainder of the 
project term.
● Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use the evaluation 
findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight.
● WFP HQ may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability. 
● OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as for 
annual reporting to the Executive Board.
● USDA will use evaluation findings to inform planning and implementation of other McGovern-Dole 
projects.
3. Context and subject of the Evaluation
3.1. Context77
13. Guinea-Bissau is a low-income country with a population of 1.8 million people (50.3 percent of women 
and 49.7 percent of men) and national territory of 36,125 square kilometres, located on the West 
African coast. Three-fifths of Bissau-Guineans are under 25 and the annual population growth rate is 
2.4 percent.1 Due to persistent political instablity, no elected president has successfully served a full 
77 Source: WFP Guinea-Bissau transitional interim Country Strategic Plan (January 2018 – June 2019)
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 79 | P a g e
five-year term since independence from Portugal in 1973. It is ranked 178 out of 188 countries in the 
2016 Human Development Index.2 
14. Despite significant potential in agriculture and fisheries, gross domestic product (GDP) grew only 0.4 
percent between 2000 and 2014, underperforming the 1.9 percent average of Sub-Saharan African 
countries during the same period.3 Forty years of political instability have deeply constrained socio￾economic and human development. Since democratic elections in 2014, five Prime Ministers have been 
nominated, four formed new governments, and three were subsequently dismissed. Each government 
has brought new ministerial appointments and changes in the cadre of technical policy makers, 
necessitating reestablishment of working relationships.
15. Women are more likely to be unemployed and have more difficulty in accessing social services than 
men. In some ethnic groups, customary laws deny women access to land or other resources. Women’s 
access to bank loans and property other than land is restricted because men have authority over most 
family decision-making. More than two-thirds of the population live below the poverty line.4 Half the 
population age 15 and above are illiterate, with large disparities between men (45 percent) and women 
(71 percent). Illiteracy among women is associated with lack of parental interest in education, poverty, 
distance to schools, forced marriage and early pregnancy. Due to the gender bias in access to 
resources, poverty impacts women more than men. Women are also vulnerable to forced marriage, 
early pregnancy, and maternal mortality
16. The primary school completion rate is 62 percent,6 reflecting delayed enrolment, a 20 percent 
repetition rate, and high numbers of drop-outs between years 4 and 5, especially among rural girls. 
This leads to gender disparity from 1.0 in primary schools – with regional variations – to 0.81 in 
secondary schools. Among children of school age, 45 percent are out of school (27 percent boys and 
51 percent girls). Oio, Bafata and Gabu regions have the lowest education indicators. Net attendance 
in urban areas is 76 percent in primary schools and 74 percent in secondary schools, in contrast to rural 
areas where net attendance is 54 percent in primary and secondary schools. Disparities in attendance 
are also incomerelated. According to UNESCO, despite progress made in increasing access and reducing 
gender disparity in primary schools, poor retention rates contribute to completion rates reaching only 
62 percent countrywide and even lower in the most vulnerable regions targeted by WFP operations.
3.2. Subject of the evaluation
17. The McGovern-Dole project in Guinea-Bissau (January 2016-December 2018) is using USDA 
commodities and cash funding, in the total amount of USD 20,000,000. WFP used this contribution to 
carry out the following activities: provide school meals; provide take home rations; train school 
management committees, parent associations, Headmasters, and Inspectors; Training: food 
preparation and storage practices; build/rehabiltate kitchens and storerooms; provide storage and 
food preparation equipment, tools & eating utensils; distribute deworming medication(s); capacity 
building: local, regional, and national level; and support monitoring and evaluation system.
18. WFP aimed to incorporate a strong focus on capacity building and long-term sustainability by targeting 
two of McGovern-Dole’s four Foundational Results: Increased Capacity of Government Institutions and 
Increased Government Support. Activities that aim to contribute to these Foundational Results include: 
Train Government Staff on Management of a School Feeding Programme in particular women school 
directors; Establish and Train Government Staff on Monitoring and Evaluation System; and Support 
Government to Develop School Feeding Pilot Project. The full project results framework in provided in 
Annex 7.
19. WFP has developed a nutritionally-balanced school meals program. For 2016, daily hot school meals 
consisted of 120g of rice, 20g of pulses, 10g of fortified vegetable oil, 20g of canned fish and 3g of salt. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 80 | P a g e
The ration provided about 35 percent of the daily nutritional food requirements to school children.78
In all targeted schools, take-home rations of rice (4kg/month) had been provided to girls in grades 4-6 
who maintained 80% attendance. Studies conducted in Guinea-Bissau showed that 70% of girls and 
women are illiterate and the drop out level among girls is higher than among boys. Simultaneously, 
WFP worked to build the capacity of the Government of Guinea-Bissau and local communities to 
manage and operate a nationally-owned school feeding program. WFP leveraged its close partnership 
with the Government of Guinea-Bissau and local communities to ensure successful project 
implementation. WFP anticipated assisting approximately 145,000 student beneficiaries in FY16, 
160,000 in FY17, and 173,000 in FY18. The project is operating in eight regions of the country: Cacheu, 
Biombo, Oio, Bafata, Gabu, Tombali, Quinara, and Boloma-Bijagos.
20.Currently, the McGovern-Dole funded School feeding project is embedded in the WFP Guinea-Bissau 
Country Programme 2016-2018 and T-ICSP January 2018 – June 2019. Additional activities covered by 
the Country Programme are stunting prevention, treatment of moderate acute malnutrition (MAM), 
HIV/TB care&treatment and Food Assistance for Assets (FFA). Original project document, resource 
situation updates and the 2016 standard project report (SPR) of the Country Programme can be 
consulted here.
21. As of January 2018, the project will be transitioned to the WFP Gunea-Bissau Transitional Interim 
Counry Strategic Plan (TI-CSP) (January 2018-June 2019). The approved TI-CSP document can be 
consulted here.
4. Evaluation Approach
4.1. Scope and Purpose
22.The scope of the mid-term and final evaluations is the entirety of activities covered by the McGovern￾Dole project in Guinea-Bissau (2016-2018). The evaluations will be carried out with sample from all 
eight targeted geographic regions. 
23. Specifically, the mid-term evaluation will (1) review the project’s relevance, effectiveness and 
efficiency, impact and sustainability; (2) collect performance indicator data; (3) assess whether the 
project is on track to meet results and targets; (4) review the results frameworks and theory of change; 
and (5) identify any necessary mid-course corrections. 
24.The final evaluation will, in line with the mid-term evaluation, (1) review the project’s relevance, 
effectiveness and efficiency, impact and sustainability and (2) collect performance indicator data. More 
specifically it will (3) assess whether or not the project achieved its expected results; (4) identify lessons 
learned; (5) assess project replicability; and (6) assess whether or not mid-term evaluation 
recommendations were implemented. 
25. The evaluations will rely on the Baseline Study for baseline data and situational analysis necessary to 
evaluate the project at interim and at the final stage. WFP envisions that the mid-term evaluation will 
be conducted approximately halfway through project implementation, from January to June 2018, 
whereas the final evaluation will be conducted during the first half of 2019.
78 WFP has mobilized sufficient canned fish from Japan to ensure its inclusion in the daily ration throughout 2016. While WFP will 
continue to appeal for the provision of fish for 2017 and 2018, at this time it is not guaranteed. Therefore, starting from 2017 the ration 
will include a higher quantity of pulses (30g) instead of fish.
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 81 | P a g e
4.2. Evaluation Criteria and Questions
26.Evaluation Criteria The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of relevance, 
effectiveness and efficiency, impact and sustainability.79 Gender Equality and empowerment of women 
should be mainstreamed throughout.
27. Evaluation Questions Allied to the evaluation criteria, the evaluation will address the following key 
questions, which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. 
Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the McGovern-Dole 
funded school feeding project, which could inform future strategic and operational decisions.
28.Gender equality and women’s empowerment will be mainstreamed throughout the evaluation 
questions and sub-questions with consideration of how the perspectives of men, women, boys and 
girls will be sought in the evaluation process. Data collected will require disaggregation by gender as 
relevant.
29.Key criteria and questions are outlined in Table 2 below. Key evaluation questions may need to be re￾visited for the final evaluation.
Table 2: Criteria and evaluation questions
Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance ▪ Is the project’s strategy relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs?
▪ Is the project aligned with national government’s education and school feeding policies and strategies?
▪ Does the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives?
Effectiveness and 
Efficiency
▪ What is the progress of project implementation – is the project on track to carry out all and activities as planned?
▪ To what degree have (and have not) the interventions resulted in the expected results and outcomes? In particular, to what 
extent did providing THR result in increased attendance and enrollment of girl students?
▪ Is hunger reduced?
▪ How can the theory of change be altered to increase efficiency and effectiveness?Did assistance reach the right beneficiaries 
in the right quantity and quality at the right time?
Impact ▪ To what degree has the project made progress toward the results in the project-level framework?
▪ Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
▪ What internal and external factors affect the project’s achievement of intended results?
Sustainability ▪ Is the school meals program sustainable, including a strategy for sustainability; sound policy; stable funding; quality program 
design; institutional arrangements; local production and sourcing; partnership and coordination; community participation and 
ownership?
▪ What substantive progress has the government made toward developing a nationally owned school feeding program?
▪ How are local communities involved in and contributing toward school feeding?
▪ What needs remain in order to achieve a full handover and nationally-owned school feeding program?
4.3. Data Availability 
30.During the process, the evaluation team may rely on the following specific sources of information 
about the project:
✓ semiannual project reports;
✓ Baseline survey;
✓ Project databases inserted monthly into the COMET and ANDS systems;
✓ The project baseline survey; WFP annual Standard Project Reports (SPR) and other data collected 
periodically by the project team, including partners.
31. These documents contain quantitative and qualitative information that will assist the evaluators in the 
analysis of the evolution of the project during this half-period of implementation. Some data and/or 
information can also be obtained through the decentralized services (Regional Directors) of the 
Ministry of Education, which contains data on schools that are not assisted by the WFP and which can 
be used for the comparison of some indicators.
79 For more detail see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm and 
http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 82 | P a g e
32. The project was initially developed with its corporate indicators from WFP results framework, but with 
McGovern-Dole funding, other specific indicators were incorporated. So at this time, we have two sets 
of indicators (corporate and specific, developed after McGovern-Dole funding). Most of these 
indicators are being collected periodically, except for one or two (corporate) ones, but can be easily 
raised in an evaluation process, by designing questionnaires with this objective.
33.During the inception phase of the md-term and final evaluations, the evaluation team will determine 
whether gaps exist in data availability.
34.Despite frequent rotation of the M&E staff, most of the data is collected by the specific Project team 
in English, except for some in Portuguese.
35. All of this would involve a combination of skills and experience on the part of the assessment team, 
which could provide solutions to these adjacent situations.
36. The school feeding baseline survey design was based on a quasi-experimental approach to measuring 
programme impact. This design was necessary as the current school feeding programme is not 
randomly assigned to schools and students throughout Guinea-Bissau. Such a design identifies an 
intervention group (in this case, schools in which WFP supports a school feeding programme) and a 
comparison group which theoretically serves to demonstrate the outcomes where the school feeding 
programme is not implemented.
37. The baseline survey was a representative, two-stage cluster survey (with structured questionnaires). 
The quantitative survey collected key data from schools, students, and local households in the school 
community. Questions developed for the baseline survey will be used at the end of program 
implementation as a follow up to provide evidence of change from program inception to program 
conclusion.
38.Sampling: DGIPASE and WFP first sampled 50 WFP schools using the probability-proportional-to-size 
technique (see Annex II). DGIPASE then selected a comparison group of 50 schools that shared similar 
education and socioeconomic indicators but which were not supported by WFP. In most cases, the 
comparison schools sampled were from the same sector as the WFP school (and usually were its 
nearest neighbor). From each school, enumerators also randomly sampled ten students from the 
Grade 4 enrollment roster; these children were administered the student-level questionnaire. The 
enumerators then travelled to these students’ home to administer the household-level questionnaire. 
For consistency purposes, the baseline survey was conducted in the six regions where WFP was 
supporting the Government of Guinea-Bissau with school feeding operations in June 2016: Oio, Bafata, 
Cacheu, Biombo, Quinara, and Gabu.
39.Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should:
a. assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the information 
provided in section 4.3. This assessment will inform the data collection.
b. systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and 
acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
4.4. Methodology
40.The methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. It should: 
● Employ the relevant evaluation criteria listed in section 4.2.
● Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information sources 
(stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to 
demonstrate impartiality.
● Using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) to ensure triangulation of 
information through a variety of means. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 83 | P a g e
● Contain a sampling strategy, including the sampling method, sample size calculations, and power 
calculations. 
● Ensure comparability to the baseline evaluation
● Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions taking into 
account the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints;
● Ensure through the use of mixed methods that women, girls, men and boys from different 
stakeholders groups participate and that their different voices are heard and used;
● Mainstream gender equality and women’s empowerment, as above;
41. The evaluation team must assess the quality of the baseline data and design during inception, to see 
whether it can be used to design and implement a high quality impact evaluation for the final 
evaluation. This would include ensuring that the midline is (i) not conducted during Ramadan, carnival, 
or cashew harvest seasons, and (ii) ensuring that questionnaires on take home rations make it clear as 
to what take home rations are, so respondents can answer accurately.80
42. For the mid-line evaluation, all the evaluation criteria must be used to answer the key evaluation 
questions, but a full impact evaluation design will not be needed. If an impact evaluation design for the 
final evaluation is not feasible, another high-quality evaluation design must be proposed by the 
evaluation team.
43.In particular, the mid-term evaluation will draw on the existing body of documented data, including 
the McGovern-Dole baseline and, as much as possible, regular program implementation assessments. 
A quantitative survey similar to the baseline study will be conducted. It will utilize survey instruments 
designed to collect key project data from schools, students, and local households in the school 
community. Ideally, the survey will be administered according to the design stipulated during the 
baseline study. The analysis of the collected data will be mainly descriptive, to capture key trends (cross 
tables, simple frequencies, etc.). In addition – at a minimum – t-tests will be performed to compare the 
treatment and comparison groups based on the criteria provided for selecting controls.
44.The qualitative data collection methods will include key informant interviews with relevant 
stakeholders, including: USDA (both the regional Agricultural Attaché, the Washington-based program 
analyst, and the Washington-based Monitoring and Evaluation staff), Representatives, Regional 
Directors and inspectors of the Ministry of National Education (MEN), General Direction for 
Information, Planification and Assessment of the Education System (DGIPASE), UNICEF, and FAO. 
Additionally, community leaders, School Management Committees, Parent Association members, 
teachers, and cooks will be targeted for focus group discussions.
45. The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality will be employed: an external service 
provider will be hired to conduct the evaluation; WFP has appointed a dedicated evaluation manager 
to manage the evaluation process internally; an internal WFP Evaluation Committee (EC), led by CO 
management, will make key decisions on the evaluation; an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) 
(including WFP and external stakeholders) will be set up to steer the evaluation process and further 
strengthen the independence of the evaluation. All feedback generated by these groups will be shared 
with the service provider. The service provider will be required to critically review the submissions and 
provide feedback on actions taken/or not taken as well as the associated rationale. The compositions 
of the EC and the ERG are provided in the Annexes section.
46.One of the risks associated to the methodology includes a potential difference in the methodological 
approach used by the service provider for the mid-term evaluation and the one used for the baseline 
exercise. To mitigate this risk, an in-depth review of the methodological approach for the baseline 
study will be needed during the inception phase. The inception report will be carefully reviewed by 
WFP and stakeholders to ensure methodology and approach are sound.
80 Lessons learned from the conduct of the baseline study.
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 84 | P a g e
4.5. Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment
47. 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. 
48.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 Process Guide and for 
conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization. 
49.In particular, the DEQAS is also consistent with the principles and criteria outlined in the USDA’s Food 
Assistance Division’s Monitoring & Evaluation Policy. The evaluation team will make arrangements to 
ensure data used in the evaluation report is checked for accuracy and reliability, and the report will 
clearly indicate limitations to the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence.
50.WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklistsfor its decentralized evaluations. This includes 
Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant Checklist will be 
applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
51. To enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an outsourced quality support (QS)
service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarters provides review of the draft 
inception and evaluation report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and provide:
a. systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft inception and 
evaluation report; 
b. recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/evaluation report.
52. The evaluation manager will review the feedback and recommendations from QS and share with the 
team leader, who is expected to use them to finalise the inception/ evaluation report. To ensure 
transparency and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards81[1], a rationale 
should be provided for any recommendations that the team does not consider when finalising the 
report.
53. This quality assurance process as outline above 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.
54. 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.
55. All final evaluation reports will be subjected to a post hoc quality assessment by an independent entity 
through a process that is managed by OEV. The overall rating category of the reports will be made 
public alongside the evaluation reports.
5. Phases and Deliverables
56. The evaluation will proceed through the following phases. The deliverables and deadlines for each 
phase are as follows: 
Figure 1: Summary Process Map
81[1] UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, enhances stakeholder 
ownership and increases public accountability”
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 85 | P a g e
57. The evaluation process (combined for mid-term and final evaluations) will proceed through nine 
phases. Annex 2 provides details of the activities and the related timeline of activities and deliverables. 
The timeline for fieldwork and reporting will be confirmed during inception phases.
58. Preparation phase (August-January 2017): The CO 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. 
59. Mid-term evaluation Inception phase (January-March 2018): 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.
Deliverable: Inception Report (IR). The Inception Report details how the team intends to conduct the 
evaluation with an emphasis on methodological and planning aspects. It will present an analysis of 
the context and of the operation, the evaluation methodology articulated around a deepened 
evaluability and gender-sensitive stakeholders’ analysis; an evaluation matrix; and the sampling 
technique and data collection tools. It will also present the division of tasks amongst team members 
as well as a detailed schedule for stakeholders’ consultation.
The draft IR will be submitted to the QS service for comments; a revised version will then be shared 
with the Evaluation Reference Group for comments before being submitted to the Evaluation 
Committee for approval. Stakeholders’ comments will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation 
manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before finalisation of the IR. For 
more details, refer to the content guide for the IR.
60. Mid-term Evaluation Data Collection phase (April-May 2018): The fieldwork will span over one 
month and will include visits to schools and primary and secondary data collection from local 
stakeholders. Two debriefing sessions will be held upon completion of the field work. The first one will 
involve the Country Office (relevant RB and HQ colleagues will be invited to participate through a 
teleconference) and the second one will be held with external stakeholders. Data collection needs to 
be completed before Ramadan starts (May 15, 2018).
Deliverable: Exit debriefing presentation. An exit debriefing presentation of preliminary findings and 
conclusions (PowerPoint presentation) will be prepared to support the de-briefings.
61. Mid-term Evaluation Reporting phase (May-July 2018): 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. It will be submitted to the evaluation 
manager for quality assurance.
Deliverable: Evaluation report (ER). The evaluation report will present the findings, conclusions and 
recommendations of the evaluation in a concise report of 40 pages maximum, not including annexes. 
Findings should be evidence-based and relevant to the evaluation questions. Data will be 
disaggregated by sex and the evaluation findings and conclusions will highlight differences in 
performance and results of the operation for different beneficiary groups as appropriate. There 
should be a logical flow from findings to conclusions and from conclusions to recommendations. 
1. Prepare 2. Inception
Inception Report
3.Collect data
Aide memoire / 
debriefing PPT
4. Analyze 
data and 
Report
Evaluation Report
5.Disseminate 
and follow-up
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 86 | P a g e
Recommendations will be limited in number, actionable and targeted to the relevant users. These 
will form the basis of the WFP management response to the evaluation.
The draft ER will be submitted to the QS service for comments; a revised version will then be shared 
with the Evaluation Reference Group for comments before being submitted to the Evaluation 
Committee for approval. Stakeholders’ comments will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation 
manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before finalisation of the ER. 
The draft ER must be submitted to USDA within 60 days of fieldwork completion. For more details, 
refer to the content guide for the ER.
62. Mid-term Evaluation Follow-up and dissemination phase (from August 2018): The CO management 
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 RB will support WFP’s 
management response to the evaluation as appropriate, including following up with country offices on 
status of implementation of the actions. OEV will also subject the evaluation report to an external post￾hoc quality assessment 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.
63. Final evaluation Inception phase (January-March, 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.
Deliverable: Inception Report (IR). The Inception Report details how the team intends to conduct the 
evaluation with an emphasis on methodological and planning aspects. It will present an analysis of 
the context and of the operation, the evaluation methodology articulated around a deepened 
evaluability and gender-sensitive stakeholders’ analysis; an evaluation matrix; and the sampling
technique and data collection tools. It will also present the division of tasks amongst team members 
as well as a detailed schedule for stakeholders’ consultation.
The draft IR will be submitted to the QS service for comments; a revised version will then be shared 
with the Evaluation Reference Group for comments before being submitted to the Evaluation 
Committee for approval. Stakeholders’ comments will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation 
manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before finalisation of the IR. For 
more details, refer to the content guide for the IR.
64.Final Evaluation Data Collection phase (March-April 2019): The fieldwork will span over one month 
and will include visits to project sites (schools) and primary and secondary data collection from local 
stakeholders. Two debriefing sessions will be held upon completion of the field work. The first one will 
involve the Country Office (relevant RB and HQ colleagues will be invited to participate through a 
teleconference) and the second one will be held with external stakeholders. Data collection needs to 
be completed before Ramadan starts (May 5, 2019). 
Deliverable: Exit debriefing presentation. An exit debriefing presentation of preliminary findings and 
conclusions (PowerPoint presentation) will be prepared to support the de-briefings.
65. Final Evaluation Reporting phase (May-July 2019): 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. It will be submitted to the evaluation manager for quality 
assurance.
Deliverable: Evaluation report (ER). The evaluation report will present the findings, conclusions and 
recommendations of the evaluation in a concise report of 40 pages maximum. Findings should be 
evidence-based and relevant to the evaluation questions. Data will be disaggregated by sex and the 
evaluation findings and conclusions will highlight differences in performance and results of the 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 87 | P a g e
operation for different beneficiary groups as appropriate. There should be a logical flow from findings 
to conclusions and from conclusions to recommendations. Recommendations will be limited in 
number, actionable and targeted to the relevant users. These will form the basis of the WFP 
management response to the evaluation.
The draft ER will be submitted to the QS service for comments; a revised version will then be shared 
with the Evaluation Reference Group for comments before being submitted to the Evaluation 
Committee for approval. Stakeholders’ comments will be recorded in a matrix by the evaluation 
manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before finalisation of the ER. 
For more details, refer to the content guide for the ER.
66. Final Evaluation Follow-up and dissemination phase (from August 2019): The CO management 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 RB will support WFP’s 
management response to the evaluation as appropriate, including following up with country offices on 
status of implementation of the actions. OEV will also subject the evaluation report to an external post￾hoc quality assessment 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.
Notes on deliverables (mid-term and final evaluations):
67. A full list of expected deliverables is provided below:
a. Inception, draft, and final evaluation reports (mid-term and final)
b. Quality Assurance Plan
c. Raw and clean data sets
d. Suggested table of contents for evaluation reports:
o Executive Summary
o Introduction
o Background (Program description and purpose of evaluation)
o Methodology and Implementation
o Results and Findings
o Conclusions
o Recommendations
o Lessons Learned
o Annexes
I. Table of McGovern-Dole performance indicators with updated values in 
comparison to baseline values
II. List of meetings
III. Survey instruments
IV. TOR
V. Project-Level Results Framework
e. A final evaluation summary brief, not to exceed 4 pages, that summarizes the main findings 
of the report. It should include charts, graphs, etc. to visualize the data in a clear, easy to 
read format, accessible to stakeholders from the community level to the government level. 
The final results and summary reports will be shared with project stakeholders. (final 
evaluation only)
68.The inception and evaluation reports shall be written in English and follow the DEQAS templates. The 
evaluation team is expected to produce written work that is of very high standard, evidence-based, 
and free of errors. The evaluation company is ultimately responsible for the timeliness and quality of 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 88 | P a g e
the evaluation products. If the expected standards are not met the evaluation company will, at its own 
expense, make the necessary amendments to bring the evaluation products to required quality level.
69.The evaluation TOR, evaluation reports and management responses will be public and posted on the WFP 
External Website (wfp.org/evaluation). The other evaluation products will be kept internal. The CO will 
translate final evaluation products in Portuguese as relevant, for broader dissemination at country level.
6. Organization of the Evaluation
6.1. Evaluation Conduct
70. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close 
communication with the WFP evaluation manager. The team will be hired following agreement with 
WFP on its composition. 
71. The evaluation team 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.
6.2. Team composition and competencies
72. The evaluation team is expected to include three to four members, including the team leader and at 
least one national consultant. To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender￾balanced, geographically and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess gender 
dimensions of the subject as specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections of the ToR. At 
least one team member should have WFP experience. 
73. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance 
of expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas: 
● School Feeding programmes
● Food and Nutrition Security
● Institutional capacity development
● Gender expertise / good knowledge of gender issues
● Familiarity with the USDA M&E policy
● All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience 
and, to the extent possible, familiarity with Guinea-Bissau and/or western Africa development 
context. 
● Oral and written language requirements include proficiency in English and Portuguese among team 
members. The inception and evaluation reports will be delivered in English.
74. The Team leader will have technical expertise in one of the technical areas listed above as well as 
expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience in leading 
similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership, analytical and communication skills, including a 
track record of excellent English and Portuguese writing and presentation skills. 
75. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) 
guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation 
team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work (i.e. exit) 
debriefing presentation and evaluation report in line with DEQAS. 
76. The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise 
required and have a track record of written work on similar assignments. 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 89 | P a g e
77. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document 
review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) 
contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s). 
6.3. Security Considerations
78. Security clearance where required is to be obtained from WFP Guinea-Bissau CO.
● As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible 
for ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation 
for medical or situational reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall 
under the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. 
● Consultants hired independently are covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) 
system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP. 
Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling to be obtained from 
designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the Field 
courses in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.82
79. However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to 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 – e.g. curfews etc.
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
80.The WFP Guinea-Bissau CO:
a- The WFP Guinea-Bissau CO: Management (Director or Deputy Director) will take responsibility to:
o Assign an Evaluation Manager for the evaluation: Elber Nosolini, National Programme Officer.
o Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation reference group (see below).
o Internally approve the final Tor, inception and evaluation reports.
o Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment of an 
Evaluation Committee and of a Reference Group (see below and TN on Independence and 
Impartiality). 
o 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 
o Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external stakeholders 
o Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management 
Response to the evaluation recommendations
b- The Evaluation Manager:
o Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
o Ensures quality assurance mechanisms are operational 
o Consolidates and shares comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the evaluation 
team
o Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support 
o Ensures that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation; 
facilitates the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; sets up meetings, field visits; provides logistic 
support during the fieldwork; and arranges for interpretation, if required.
o Organises security briefings for the evaluation team and provides any materials as required
82 Field Courses: Basic; Advanced
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 90 | P a g e
c- An internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence and impartiality 
of the evaluation. This committee will be composed by Chair-Kiyomi Kawaguchi CD; deputy ChairBob 
Barad DCD; Secretary-Elber Nosolini NPO; Member-Jose Cabral School Meals Focal Point, Filippo Pompili, 
Regional Evaluation Officer. The members of the committee will provide inputs to the evaluation process 
and comment on evaluation products and make key decisions such as internal approval of evaluation 
deliverables (Refer to Annex 3 for the list of members).
81. USDA will be involved in the evaluation at the following stages: Appropriate members of USDA 
(Programme analyst and M&E lead) will be consulted for comment and approval of the TOR; serve as 
a member of the ERG; participate in key informant interviews with selected evaluators prior to field 
data collection; and participate in stakeholder meetings and presentation of the evaluation findings, 
as appropriate. As per agreement between USDA and WFP in the context of the McGovern-Dole grant, 
the final approval of the evaluation main products will be at USDA level.
82.An Evaluation Reference Group has been formed, as appropriate, with representation from DGASE, 
DGPASE, UNICEF and USDA. The ERG members will review and comment on the draft evaluation 
products and act as key informants in order to further safeguard against bias and influence.
83.The Regional Bureau: will take responsibility to:
o Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate. 
o Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the evaluation 
subject as relevant, as required. 
o Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports
o Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the 
recommendations.
While the Regional Evaluation Officer, Filippo Pompili, will perform most of the above 
responsibilities, other RB relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group 
and/or comment on evaluation products as appropriate. 
84.Relevant WFP Headquarters divisions will take responsibility to:
o Discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and subject of evaluation. 
o Comment on the evaluation TOR, inception and evaluation reports, as required. 
85.The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV, through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the Evaluation 
Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is responsible for providing 
access to the outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports 
from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk function upon request.
8. Communication and budget
8.1. Communication
86.To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation 
team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These 
will be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and 
between key stakeholders.
87.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, The CO will translate the final 
TOR and report in Portuguese. Final evaluation products of the evaluation will be disseminated or made 
available to partners in electronic and print form. 
8.2. Budget
88.For the purpose of this evaluation, the budget will be based on pre-agreed rates with long-term 
agreement evaluation firms. Firm engagement for the final evaluation is dependent upon satisfactory 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 91 | P a g e
completion of the mid-term evaluation. The evaluation budget is planned under Mc-Govern-Dole 
contribution. 
89.The evaluation budget should include costs associated with international travel and daily subsistence. 
Local travel will be supported by the Country Office.
Please send any queries to Elber Nosolini , NPO, at elber.nosolini@wfp.org, +245 95 565 17 29].
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 92 | P a g e
Annex 14 - Documents Reviewed
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Appraisal mission report N
Project document (including Logical Framework in 
Annex)
Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Dervice and the World Food 
Programme For the donation of agricultural commodities and related assistance 
under the MCgovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 
programme. (2015)
Y
Standard Project Reports Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Y
Budget Revisions N
Note for the record (NFR) from Programme Review 
Committee meeting (for original operation and budget 
revisions if any)
N
Approved Excel budget (for original intervention and 
budget revisions if any)
Annex C in :
Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Dervice and the World Food 
Programme For the donation of agricultural commodities and related assistance 
under the MCgovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 
programme. (2015)
Y
Intervention/Project Plan (breakdown of beneficiary 
figures and food requirements by region/activity/month 
and partners)
N
Other
Country Office Strategic Documents (if applicable)
Country Strategy Document Country Programme Guinea-Bissau 200846 (2016–2020)
Feb (2016)
Y
Other Guinea-Bissau INTERIM Country Strategic Plan 2018-2019
The WFP Guinea-Bissau PRRO 200526(2013-2016)
Transitional ICSP and project Budget revision for T-ICSP for approval by the 
executive Director (2017) Guinea-Bissau Country Strategic Plan - GW01 
Logframe
Assessment Reports
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 93 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability 
Assessments
NA
Crop and Food Security Assessments (FAO/WFP) WFP: resume executif resultats de l’enquete approfondie sur la securite 
alimentaire en milieu rural
2011
N
Emergency Food Security Assessments
Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la Nutrition, 
2017
Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la Nutrition, 
2016
N
Food Security Monitoring System Bulletins West Africa and the Sahel - Food Security and Humanitarian Implications, 2015 N
Market Assessments and Bulletins West Africa - Regional Supply and Market Outlook, December 2017 N
Joint Assessment Missions (UNHCR/WFP) N/A
Rapid needs assessments Guinea Bissau - Rapid Food Security Assessment, June 2012 N
Monitoring & Reporting (if applicable)
M&E Plan Mentioned in annex 7 of project agreement. Y
Country Situation Report (SITREP) N
Country Executive Brief WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Brief 2017 N
Food Distribution and Post-distribution Monitoring 
Reports
N
Monthly Monitoring Reports N
Beneficiary Verification Reports N
Donor specific reports Follow Up on Status of McGovern-Dole Guinea-Bissau Project Activities 
Amendment Request WFP Guinea-Bissau McGovern-Dole (FFE-657-2015/019-
00)
(2017) 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 94 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Programme in Guinea-Bissau
(25 August 2016)
Output monitoring reports (if applicable)
Actual and Planned beneficiaries by activity and 
district/ location by year 
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2017) 
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Y
Male vs. women beneficiaries by activity and district/ 
location by year
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Beneficiaries by age group Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Actual and Planned tonnage distributed by activity by 
year
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016) 
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Commodity type by activity Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Actual and Planned cash/voucher requirements (US$) 
by activity by year 
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Operational documents
Organization chart for main office and sub-offices Terms of Reference Mid-term and Final Evaluations of the McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme project in 
Guinea-Bissau
(2016 - 2018)
Activity Guidelines Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Service and the World Food 
Programme For the donation of agricultural commodities and related assistance 
under the MCgovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition 
programme. (2015)
Y
Mission Reports Semiannual Report Narrative April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016
Semiannual Report Narrative October 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017
Semi-annual Report for April to September 2017Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Semiannual Report Narrative October 2017 – March 2018
Pipeline overview for the period covered by the 
evaluation
Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole’s International Food for Education and 
Child Nutrition Programme in Guinea-Bissau
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 95 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Partners (if applicable)
Annual reports from cooperating partners Semiannual Report Narrative April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016
Semiannual Report Narrative October 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017
Semi-annual Report for April to September 2017Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Semiannual Report Narrative October 2017 – March 2018
Y
Cluster/ Coordination meetings
Logistics/Food Security/nutrition cluster documents NA
NFRs of coordination meetings N
Other
Evaluations/ Reviews
Evaluations/ reviews of past or on-going operation School feeding baseline survey, Guinea-Nissau 2016
Resource mobilisation
Resource Situation Resource Situation Project No
200846 (31-12-2017)
Y
Resource mobilization strategy Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole’s International Food for Education and 
Child NUTRITION PROGRAMME IN GUINEA-BISSAU
Y
Maps (if applicable)
Food Security Map Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la Nutrition, 
2016
N 
Other documents collected by the team (including 
external ones) 
National Programme of education Programme Sectoriel de l’Education de la
Guinée Bissau (2017 -2025)
N
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 96 | P a g e
Annex 15 – Documents gathered
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Appraisal mission report N
Project document (including Logical Framework in 
Annex)
Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Dervice and the 
World Food Program For the donation of agricultural commodities and 
related assistance under the MCgovern-Dole international food for 
education and child nutrition program. (2015)
Y
Standard Project Reports Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Y
Budget Revisions N
Note for the record (NFR) from Programme Review 
Committee meeting (for original operation and budget 
revisions if any)
N
Approved Excel budget (for original intervention and 
budget revisions if any)
Annex C in :
Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Dervice and the 
World Food Program For the donation of agricultural commodities and 
related assistance under the MCgovern-Dole international food for 
education and child nutrition program. (2015)
Y
Intervention/Project Plan (breakdown of beneficiary 
figures and food requirements by 
region/activity/month and partners)
N
Other
Country Office Strategic Documents (if 
applicable)
Country Strategy Document Country Programme Guinea-Bissau 200846 (2016–2020)
Feb (2016) 
Y
Other
Guinea-Bissau INTERIM Country Strategic Plan
2018-2019The WFP Guinea-Bissau PRRO 200526(2013-2016)
Transitional ICSP and project Budget revision for T-ICSP for approval 
by the executive
Director (2017)
Guinea-Bissau Country Strategic Plan - GW01 Logframe Y
Assessment Reports
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 97 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability 
Assessments NA
Crop and Food Security Assessments (FAO/WFP) WFP: resume executif resultats de l’enquete approfondie sur la securite 
alimentaire en milieu rural 2011 N
Emergency Food Security Assessments
Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la 
Nutrition, 2017
Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la 
Nutrition, 2016
N
Food Security Monitoring System Bulletins West Africa and the Sahel - Food Security and Humanitarian 
Implications, 2015
N
Market Assessments and Bulletins West Africa - Regional Supply and Market Outlook, December 2017 N
Joint Assessment Missions (UNHCR/WFP) N/A
Rapid needs assessments Guinea Bissau - Rapid Food Security Assessment, June 2012 N
Monitoring & Reporting (if applicable)
M&E Plan Mentioned in annex 7 of project agreement. N
Country Situation Report (SITREP) N
Country Executive Brief WFP Guinea-Bissau Country Brief 2017 N
Food Distribution and Post-distribution Monitoring 
Reports N
Monthly Monitoring Reports N
Beneficiary Verification Reports N
Donor specific reports
Follow Up on Status of McGovern-Dole Guinea-Bissau Project Activities 
Amendment Request WFP Guinea-Bissau McGovern-Dole (FFE-657-
2015/019-00)
(2017) 
Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program in Guinea-Bissau
(25 August 2016) 
Y
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 98 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Output monitoring reports (if applicable)
Actual and Planned beneficiaries by activity and 
district/ location by year 
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2017)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Y
Male vs. women beneficiaries by activity and district/ 
location by year
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Beneficiaries by age group Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016) Y
Actual and Planned tonnage distributed by activity by 
year
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016) Y
Commodity type by activity Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016) Y
Actual and Planned cash/voucher requirements 
(US$) by activity by year
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016)
Standard Project Report WFP Country Project 200825 (2016) Y
Operational documents
Organization chart for main office and sub-offices 
Terms of Reference Mid-term and Final Evaluations of the McGovern￾Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program 
project in Guinea-Bissau
(2016 - 2018)
Y
Activity Guidelines
Project agreement between The Foreign Agricultural Service and the 
World Food Program For the donation of agricultural commodities and 
related assistance under the MCgovern-Dole international food for 
education and child nutrition program. (2015)
Y
Mission Reports
Semiannual Report Narrative April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016
Semiannual Report Narrative October 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017
Semi-annual Report for April to September 2017Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Semiannual Report Narrative October 2017 – March 
2018
Y
Pipeline overview for the period covered by the 
evaluation
Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole’s International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program in Guinea-Bissau Y
Logistics capacity assessment N
Partners (if applicable)
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 99 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Annual reports from cooperating partners
Semiannual Report Narrative April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016
Semiannual Report Narrative October 1, 2016 – March 31, 2017
Semi-annual Report for April to September 2017Guinea-Bissau
Guinea-Bissau Semiannual Report Narrative October 2017 – March 
2018
Y
List of partners (Government, NGOs, UN agencies) 
by location/ activity/ role/ tonnage handled N
Field level agreements (FLAs), Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOUs) N
Cluster/ Coordination meetings
Logistics/Food Security/nutrition cluster documents NA
NFRs of coordination meetings N
Other
Evaluations/ Reviews
Evaluations/ reviews of past or on-going operation School feeding baseline survey Guinea-Bissau 2016 Y
Resource mobilisation
Resource Situation Resource Situation Project No 200846 (31-12-2017) Y
Contribution statistics by month N
Resource mobilization strategy Implementation of USDA McGovern Dole’s International Food for 
Education and Child NUTRITION PROGRAM IN GUINEA-BISSAU Y
NFRs Donor meetings
Maps (if applicable)
Operational Map N
Logistics Map N
Food/Cash/voucher Distribution Location Map N
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 100 | P a g e
Document Type Comment / Titles & dates of documents received Received - Y/N (N/A) Link to Evaluation matrix
Project related documents
Food Security Map Guinée Bissau - Enquête de suivi de la Sécurité Alimentaire et de la 
Nutrition, 2016 N
Other documents collected by the team 
(including external ones) 
National Programme of education Programme Sectoriel de l’Education de la Guinée Bissau (2017 -2025) N
Specify
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 101 | P a g e
Annex 16 - Data Collection Tools
12.1 List of topics to be used during school visits (Qualitative Survey)
INTERVIEWS AT NATIONAL LEVEL / ENTREVISTAS AO NÍVEL NA￾CIONAL
1. How has this project been implemented since its beginning? /Como esse projeto tem 
sido implementado desde o início?
2. What were the main successes and difficulties?/Quais seus principais sucessos e 
dificuldades?
3. Who is responsible for monitoring the various Project’s activities? Quem é responsável 
pelo monitoramento das diversas atividades do Projeto? 
4. Directed to WFP: How does the WFP follow up/monitores activities that are 
implemented by partners of the project (Ministry of Education, UNICEF, FAO, WHO, 
NGOs)? Dirigido ao PAM: Como é que o PMA acompanha/monitora as atividades do 
Projeto que são implementadas por parceiros de Projeto (Ministério da Educação, 
UNICEF, FAO, OMS e ONGs)?
5. How often are the Project performance indicators collected? By whom (WFP, DGPASE, 
others)? Com que frequência os indicadores de performance do projeto são recolhidos? por 
quem (WFP, DGPASE, outros)?
6. Does this Project incorporate guidelines/elements of Guinea-Bissau’s school feeding 
law? And to the Education policy/plan? How? / Esse projeto está alinhado aos princípios 
da Lei das Cantinas Escolares de Guiné Bissau? E à Política/ao Plano de Educação? Como?
7. Is this Project integrated to other programs/projects of your institution? Which 
projects/programmes? How? Esse projeto está alinhado/integrado a outros 
projetos/programas de sua instituição? Quais projetos/programas? Como?
8. Are there pilot initiatives on local procurement from smallholder farmers/farmers 
cooperatives for supplying the school feeding programme? If so, how do these work: how 
many schools are targeted and where, how is the collaboration (roles, responsibilities and 
cooperation) with MoE, MoA , FAO and other partners on this initiative? What are the 
mechanisms in place to control the local procurement (vouchers?) What are the results of 
these experiences?/ Há experiências piloto de compra de alimentos produzidos localmente 
por pequenos agricultores/cooperativas ? Se sim, como é que esta atividade funciona: 
quantas escolas participam, onde essas escolas se localizam, como é a cooperação com os 
parceiros (papéis, responsabilidades, e coordenação)? Quais são os mecanismos utilizados 
para controlar as compras locais («vouchers» ?) Quais são os resultados destas 
experiências ?
9. What was the contribution of the McGovern Dole-FFE programme to these local 
procurement intiatives ? Qual foi a contribuição do programa McGovern Dole-FFE a estas 
iniciativas de compra local de alimentos ? 
10. Regarding to the following activities, please tell us about your successes and 
difficulties. Is the activity implemented according to the plan (target, approach)? Are the 
expected results being achieved ? Have these activities been implemented in the most 
efficient way? Em relação às atividades a seguir, indique quais foram os seus sucessos e 
dificuldades. As atividades estão sendo implementadas de acordo com o planeamento 
(meta, abordagem)? O resultado desejado está sendo alcançado? Estas atividades foram 
implementadas da maneira mais eficiente? 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 102 | P a g e
a) Provision of daily school meals/ Distribuição de refeições escolares
b) Provision of take-home rations (to female pupils) / Distribuições de «rações secas» de 
gêneros alimentícios para levar à casa (para raparigas)
c) Trainings on food management and storage for School Management Committees, 
Parent Associations, Headmasters, Inspectors / Treinamentos em gestão da alimentação 
escolar (em nível escolar) para Comitês de Gestão Escolar, Associações de Pais de Alunos, 
Diretores e Inspetores escolares
d) Trainings on food preparation and storage practices for school cooks/ Treinamentos 
sobre práticas de armazenamento e preparo de alimentos, para cozinheiras das escolas
e) Building and rehabilitating kitchens and storerooms/ Construção e reabilitação de 
cozinhas e armazéns/dispensas escolares 
f) Providing storage, food preparation equipment and eating utensils / Fornecimento de 
equipamentos para o armazenamento e o preparo de alimentos e utensílios para consumo 
de refeições escolares (talheres e pratos)
g) Distributing deworming medication to students/Distribuição de 
vermífugos/desparasitantes aos alunos
h) Capacity building / Desenvolvimento de capacidade
a) at national level/ao nível nacional
b) b) at regional level/ao nível regional
c) at local level (district)/ao nível local
11. Erros de inclusão / de exclusão? Os critérios de seleção excluem as crianças mais 
vulneráveis das escolas mais pobres?(o Baseline Report diz isto). Os critérios de seleção 
das escolas não melhoraram desde a definição das 758 escolas (o Very First semi-annual 
report diz isto). Como correu a transição do IPHD para o PAM? Melhorou a questão da 
inclusão/exclusão?
11. If there was an opportunity to adjust future programmes regarding its various activities 
and targets, what changes would you recommend? Why ? / Se houvesse uma oportunidade 
de ajustar programas futuros em relação às diversas atividades previstas e às suas metas, 
qual seriam as suas recomendações ? Por quê ? 
12. In your opinion were the targets that were established (for each planned activity) 
realistic? Na sua opinião, as metas estabelecidas para cada atividade foram realistas? 
13. Regarding to the challenges faced, tell us about the underlying causes. How could these 
difficulties be solved?/ Em relação aos desafios enfrentados, conte-nos sobre suas causas 
subjacentes. Como poderiam ser superadas essas dificuldades?
a) For the SF operations based on WFP (procurement and delivery of school meals and 
take-home rations)/ Para a implementação das atividades de alimentação escolar pelo 
PMA (aquisição de alimentos para o preparo de refeições escolares e para as rações secas 
para levar à casa .
b) For the capacity building activities (at national, regional and local level)/Para o 
desenvolvimento/ fortalecimento da capacidade do governo (aos níveis nacional, regional 
e local)
c) For monitoring and evaluating/Para o monitoramento/monitoria e avaliação
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 103 | P a g e
14. Regarding the WFP partnership with the GoGB, what is the role/participation in the 
implementation and monitoring and evaluating of the Project activities / Em relação à 
parceria entre o PMA e o Governo de Guiné Bissau, qual o papel/responsabilidade:
a) The Ministry of Education/National Directorate of School Feeding (NDSF)/ 
Ministério da Educação / DGPASE
b) The Ministry of Agriculture/ Ministério da Agricultura
c) The Ministry of Health (deworming activities)/Ministério da Saúde (distribuição de 
vermífugos/desparasitantes)
d) District governments/Governos distritais
15. Please explain us the financial aspects of this project/ Por favor, nos explique os 
aspectos financeiros deste projeto:
a) Successes and difficulties on financing the activities? Was the budget realistic? Is 
there any balance left? How used? / Sucessos e dificuldades (no financiamento das 
atividades)? O orçamento era realista? Ficou um saldo? Como foi utilizado? 
b) Outlook to the immediate future/Perspectivas para o future imediato ? 
16. How is the collaboration between WFP and project partners, such as/Como tem sido a 
colaboração entre o PAM e os principais parceiros de projeto, tais como
a) Ministry of Education/Ministério da Educação
b) Ministry of Health /school health and nutrition services/Ministério da 
Saúde/serviço de nutrição e saúde escolar
c) UNICEF: provision of didactic materials, teachers’ trainings, potable water and 
sanitation improvements and improvements of school structures/UNICEF: fornecimento 
de materiais didáticos, treinamentos de professores, melhorias nas condições sanitárias e 
de água potável em escolas, e melhorias nas estruturas escolares em geral
d) FAO: support for school gardens and partner in the implementation of the Home 
Grown School Feeding approach through the Country Programme/FAO: assistência em 
hortas escolares, e parceria na implementação/abordagem sustentável do programa 
alimentação escolar (Home Grown School Feeding) no Programa-País?
e) WHO: providing deworming medication/ OMS: fornecimento de 
vermífugos/desparasitantes
f) NGOs (partners) that are responsible for sensitizing communities and parents’ 
associations to build school kitchens / ONGs (parceiras) que são responsáveis para 
sensibilizar comunidades e associações de pais de alunos para a construção de cozinhas 
escolares
Extra: O programa logrou êxitos no seu grande objetivo de melhorar o nível de literacía 
dos alunos, ou falhou no alcançe deste objetivo? (Como se mede a literacía?) Porque teve 
sucesso/falhou? 
17. What are the contributions of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme towards the 
development of a national school feeding programme (HGSF)?/Quais as contribuições 
desse projeto de alimentação escolar (MGD) para o desenvolvimento de um programa 
nacional de alimentação de Guiné-Bissau? Any perspectives for a future programme ? 
Perspetivas para um programa futuro ? 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 104 | P a g e
18. How do you evaluate the perspectives of GB towards/Como você avalia as perspectivas 
da GB em relação a:
a) Funding SF in Guinea-Bissau after the completion of this project?/ Finan-ciamento 
da alimentação escolar em Guiné Bissau após o término deste projeto?
b) The GoGB establishing and running their own Home-Grown School Feeding 
Programme? O governo de Guiné Bissau estabelecendo e gerindo seu programa nacional 
de alimentação escolar sustentável?
c) The GoGB regularly monitoring and evaluating the SF activities, and timely issuing 
monitoring reports? O governo de Guiné Bissau monitorando e avaliando regularmente as 
atividades de alimentação escolar, e emitindo os relatórios de avaliação como regularidade.
19. How is the institutional coordination for implementing the MGD/WFP school feeding 
Project?/Como é a coordenação institucional para a implementação do projeto de 
alimentação escolar PMA/MGD? Which improvements do you see possible? Quais 
melhorias acha possível?
a) Coordination among Guinea-Bissau WFP CO and its sub-offices/ Coordenação 
entre do Escritório do País, do PMA, e seus escritórios regionais.
b) Coordination among WFP and its partners (DGPASE, DGASCE, UNICEF, FAO, 
WHO, NGOs)/ Coordenação entre PMA e seus parceiros (DGPASE, DGASCE, UNICEF, 
FAO, OMS e ONGs)
c) Coordination among Education Sector (national, regional, local) and school level 
(committees and community)
d) Coordenação entre os níveis do Setor da Educação (nacional, regional e local) e nível 
escolar (comitês e comunidade)
e) Coordination inter-sectorial (Education, Agriculture, Health, Finance and 
Planning)/Coordenação intersetorial (Educação, Agricultura, Saúde, Finanças e 
Planeamento)
20. What are the Programme’s outcomes in terms of gender equality and women’s 
empowerment? Could it have been more ambitious? How? Quais são os resultados do 
Programa em relação a igualdade de gêneros e empoderamento das mulheres? Poderia o 
programa ter sido mais ambicioso? Como? 
21. Which improvements would you wish to see in future SF programmes in Guinea￾Bissau? /Quais melhorias você gostaria de ver em futuros programas de cantinas escolares 
na Guiné Bissau? 
22. How is the WFP/MGD school feeding project monitored and evaluated at central level? 
Are the results of the project reported to other government (beyond the Ministry of 
Education) institutions and project partners? How often?/ Como o projeto de alimentação 
escolar do PMA/MGD é monitorado e avaliado a nível central? Os resultados do projeto 
são relatados e divulgados para outras instituições (além do Ministério da Educação) e 
para parceiros do projeto? Com que frequência?
23. In your opinion, is the existing WFP M&E of school feeding programme efficient 
(performance indicators are timely monitored and reported)? And for monitoring other 
activities planned on the MGD/WFP SF project? How the M&E of the McGovern-Dole FFE 
programme could be improved? / Em sua opinião o sistema de Monitoramento e Avaliação 
utilizado no programa de alimentação escolar do PMA é eficiente (os indicadores de 
desempenho do projeto são regularmente monitorados)? E para o monitoramento das 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 105 | P a g e
outras atividades planeadas no projeto de alimentação escolar do MGD/PMA? Como o 
monitoramento e a avaliação do projeto de alimentação escolar do MGD/PMA poderiam 
ser melhorados?
2. List of specific topics / Tópicos específicos (nível nacional) 
2.1. INTERVIEWS WITH MNEJCD AND WITH THE DGASCE 
1. Are you satisfied with the way that the McGovern Dole FFE programme was 
implemented? Está satisfeito com o programa McGovern Dole FFE, tal como foi 
implementado? 
2. What difficulties did you experience during the implementation of this programme? 
Quais as dificuldades que vocês encontraram durante a implementação deste programa?
3. Was strengthening of the MNEJCD’s capacities in relation to SF sufficiently present in 
this programme? O reforço das capacidades do MNEJCD estava suficientemente presente 
no programa que agora terminou? 
4. In what ways could partners like the WFP contribute to the improvement of the 
pedagogical quality of primary education in GB, with SF as a tool? Has the MGD FFE 
programme failed in its objective to improve the literacy level of the pupils? Why? How 
can one measure literacía? De que maneira parceiros como o PMA poderiam contribuir 
na melhoria da qualidade (pedagógica) do ensino primário na GB, em paralelo à 
alimentação escolar ? O programa FFE falhou no melhoramento dos níveis de literacía dos 
alunos? Porquê? Como se pode medir o nível de literaçía?
5. What improvements would you propose in relation to possible future similar 
programmes? Quais melhorias gostaria de propor em relação a possíveis futuros 
programas do mesmo tipo? 
6. Existem planos para extender as cantinas escolares para todas as escolas do país? Qual 
é o grau de cobertura agora? Quantas escolas primárias existem no total? 
2.2. INTERVIEWS WITH DONORS (ACTUAL AND/OR POTENTIAL)
1. Are you satisfied with the results obtained by the school feeding programme (to which 
you contributed financially)? Would you be interested in financially contributing to the 
programme in the future? Why? In what form? Está satisfeito com os resultados obtidos 
pelo programa de cantinas escolares (ao qual contribuiu financeiramente)? Estaria 
interessado em continuar a vossa contribuição (financeira) no futuro? Por quê? De que 
forma? 
2. For future contributions to school feeding in GB, would you wish to see changes in the 
way of operating of WFP, MNEJCD and its DGASCE? Em relação a futuras contribuições 
à alimentação escolar em GB, gostaria de ver alterações no modo de funcionar do PMA, do 
MNEJCD e a sua DGASCE? 
2.3. INTERVIEWS WITH OTHER UN ORGANIZATIONS: UNICEF, FAO, 
UNESCO, etc.
1. How is the coordination/collaboration between the different UN organizations 
functioning? Como funciona a coordenação/colaboração entre as diferentes organizações 
das NNUU?
2. Com UNICEF: como funciona o vosso programa de child-friendly schools? A 
combinação deste programa com cantinas escolares (do PAM) resulta numa sinergia que 
se pode constatar e provar estatísticamente ¿ 
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 106 | P a g e
3. Com a FAO: a importação de gêneros alimentícios pelo PAM não leva a distorções do 
mercado interno? Prejudicando os produtores locais? 
2. How would you describe your collaboration/coordination with the WFP and with the 
MNEJCD (in relation to the school feeding programme)? What were the weak points? Any 
improvements you could suggest? Como pode caraterizar a vossa 
colaboração/coordenação com o PMA e com o MNEJCD (em relação à alimentação 
escolar)? Quais os pontos fracos que existiam? Poderia fazer sugestões para os melhorar?
2.4. Interviews with local and international NGOs and organizations in 
partnership with WFP / Entrevistas com ONGS LOCAIS E INTERNACIONAIS 
PARCEIRAS do PMA.
1. Are you satisfied about your work in this partnership and the partnership itself? What 
improvements would be posible? Estão satisfeitos do vosso trabalho no âmbito da parceria 
e da vossa parceria com o PMA? Que melhorias seriam possíveis?
2. What is your opinion about the role of school feeding in the reduction of rural poverty? 
Would you have any recommendation as to strategy? Qual a vossa opinião sobre o papel 
da alimentação escolar no alívio da pobreza rural? Teria alguma recomendação acerca da 
estratégia a seguir? 
3. O programa falhou do reforço da literacía? Teria elementos para contribuir à análise e 
à explicação deste fenómeno? O que é realmente necessário fazer para realizar um 
aumento da literaçía dos alunos?
I – INTERVIEWS AT LOCAL LEVEL / ENTREVISTAS AO NÍVEL LOCAL
A. ESCRITÓRIO REGIONAL DO PAM
1. Qual a participação do escritório local do PAM no planejamento, implementação e 
monitoramento das atividades do WFP/MGD?
2. Qual o tipo de colaboração dos diferentes parceiros institucionais, incluindo 
governo? 
3. Como é feita a articulação entre o PMA e o governo local, a UNICEF, a FAO, a OMS, 
e as NGOs parceiras, para coordenação das actividades desenvolvidas no âmbito desse 
projeto? Há outros intervenientes? (treinamentos, construções e reformas nas estruturas 
escolares, distribuição de vermífugos/desparasitantes, sensitização/sensibilização e 
formação de camponeses/agricultores, etc..)
4. Como é feito o acompanhamento/monitoria das actividades desenvolvidas pelos 
parceiros do projeto nas escolas? E com os agricultores?
5. Como funciona, ao nível local, o sistema de financiamento das compras locais 
(distribuição de vouchers às escolas, para a aquisição de alimentos produzidos pelos 
agricultores locais?) Em sua avaliação, quais os resultados dessa atividade (sucessos e 
dificuldades)? 
6. Quais as experiências bem sucedidas? E as dificuldades e/ou fracassos na 
implementação desse projeto (desde 2016)? 
7. O que está contribuindo para o sucesso do programa na região? E o que está 
causando dificuldades ou levando ao fracasso do mesmo?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 107 | P a g e
7bis: Porque é que o projeto falhou no aumento da literacía dos alunos? Como melhorar o 
programa a este respeito?
8. Como você avalia a participação/engajamento da comunidade local nas atividades 
do WFP/MGD? E do governo local?
9. Como você considera os resultados/contribuição desse programa para a qualidade 
de vida da população que se beneficia do mesmo (homens e mulheres, meninos e 
meninas)?
10. Caso fosse possível ajustar as atividades e a forma operacional de projeto para um 
melhor desempenho, o que você recomendaria?
B. MEMBROS DOS GOVERNOS REGIONAL E DISTRITAL (EDUCAÇÃO E 
OUTROS SETORES ENVOLVIDOS)
1. Como você percebe o programa de cantinas escolares PMA/MGD, isto é, quais as 
atividades desenvolvidas e quem são os responsáveis pelas mesmas?
2. Qual o papel do governo regional/distrital no atual programa das cantinas escolares 
(WFP/MGD)?
3. De que forma o programa cantinas escolares está inserido na (ou coordenado com) 
política/estratégia/ plano regional/distrital do governo local? E no plano da educação?
4. Há alguma linha de financiamento dentro do orçamento da região/distrito para 
participar no custo das atividades desse programa?
5. Como é feita a articulação entre os sectores da educação, agricultura e saúde para o 
desenvolvimento das atividades como distribuição de medicação anti-verme, assistência 
técnica a agricultores, e a outras atividades intersetoriais? Existe algum tipo de 
coordenação entre o governo local para esse fim?
6. Quais os resultados do programa das cantinas escolares nas escolas da 
região/distrito (experiências bem sucedidas e dificuldades/fracassos)? (distinguir a parte 
do MGD FFE do resto do PAM e do programa realizado pela própria DGASCE)
6bis: A estatística mostra que não houve melhoria no nível de literacía dos alunos. Porquê 
é que o programa falhou em atingir esse objetivo?
7. Caso haja dificuldades ou até fracassos, quais foram as causas ? O que deveria ser 
feito para evitar que esses problemas se repitam, ou que novos problemas surjam no 
futuro?
8. Os membros do governo receberam algum tipo de treinamento para desenvolver as 
atividades relacionadas ao programa de cantinas escolares? Se recebeu, sente necessidade 
de treinamento adicional? Se sim, em que aspectos?
9. O que poderia ser feito para melhorar o desempenho desse projeto na 
região/distrito?
10. Existem planos regionais para o alargamento das cantinas escolares a todas as 
escolas da região ? Quais escolas são excluídas agora? Porquê? 
C. INSPETORES ESCOLARES
1. Qual é a vossa função? Quais as atividade desenvolvidas pelos inspetores da 
educação em relação às cantinas escolares? E em relação ao programa WFP/MGD FFE ?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 108 | P a g e
2. Com que frequência cada escola é visitada pelos inspetores? O que é observado na 
visita? Com que frequência os relatórios de visita são emitidos e divulgados para outros 
setores dentro do departamento/ministério de educação?
3. Houve/há algum tipo de assistência técnica/treinamento/outro tipo de apoio por 
parte do PMA para a participação dos inspetores da educação nas atividades desenvolvidas 
pelo Projeto? Se sim, que tipo de assistência/treinamento?
4. Como você percebe os resultados desse programa/projeto, ou seja sucessos e 
dificuldades em relação ao bom funcionamento das cantinas escolares? Inclusive a falha 
do programa em melhorar o nível de literaçía dos alunos? Como se poderia melhorar esta 
literacía? 
5. E em relação às rações secas, há algum tipo de participação/acompanhamento dos 
inspetores escolares nessa atividade? Se sim, qual? Vossa opinião sobre a efetividade 
destas rações secas? 
6. Em sua opinião, qual o resultado da alimentação escolar para a qualidade da 
educação e condições de vida dos alunos das escolas beneficiárias?
7. O que poderia ser feito para tornar mais eficiente a participação dos inspetores 
escolares nesse projeto?
8. Como é controlada (pelos inspetores) a utilização dos vouchers para a 
aquisição de alimentos?
9. O que poderia ser feito para melhorar o programa das cantinas escolares e os 
resultados destas cantinas? 
D. PROFESSORES E DIRETORES
1. Como tem sido a experiência da vossa escola com o projeto de Cantinas Escolares 
do PMA/MGD (desde 2016)? Quais os sucessos, dificuldades ou fracassos ocorridos no 
mesmo?
2. Desde o início desse programa de cantinas escolares (Janeiro 2016), houve algum 
dia ou período quando não foram distribuídas refeições aos alunos? Se sim, qual foi o 
motivo? 
3. Se houve interrupção na oferta de refeições, foi tomada alguma medida pela escola 
para evitar que isso se repita? Se sim, o quê?
4. Qual a rotina de recebimento e armazenamento de alimentos, controle de estoque, 
preparo e distribuição de refeições? (Passo por passo?) Tem havido alguma iregularidade, 
algum conflito, na gestão dos alimentos ? 
5. Há alguma diferença entre a quantidade de alimentos distribuída para meninos e 
raparigas? Quem recebe primeiro as refeição ( classe/idade, gênero, etc..) ?
6. Em relação às rações secas ("take-home") distribuídas pelo PMA para ser levadas à 
casa : quem recebe estas rações, como é feito o controle dos/das beneficiário/as ?
7. Qual a participação/responsabilidade do diretor e professores nas atividades 
relacionadas ao programa de cantinas escolares? (incluir uma análise de género: proporção 
e funções de homens e mulheres)
8. Os professores e o diretor participam nas compras locais para as cantinas escolares? 
(na utilização dos vouchers para a aquisição de alimentos produzidos localmente? ) (incluir 
uma análise de género: proporção e funções de homens e mulheres)
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 109 | P a g e
9. Os professores/diretor receberam algum tipo de treinamento para desenvolver as 
atividades no projeto? Se sim, em quê? O treinamento foi suficiente? (incluir uma análise 
de género: proporção e funções de homens e mulheres)
10. Em sua opinião, quais os resultados do projeto para a qualidade da educação nessa 
escola? E para os alunos? E para a comunidade em geral? A literacía dos alunos 
melhorou? Porquê não ? 
11. Caso fosse possível fazer ajustes nas atividade do projeto para melhorar o 
desempenho/resultados do mesmo, o que você recomendaria?
12. Como é o nível de formação dos professores na sua/vossa escola? como é a qualidade 
do ensino? Há materiais didáticos, livros escolares, cadernos, quadro preto, etc.? 
13. As casas de banho oferecem condições mínimas de segurança às meninas? 
E. Comité de Gestão Escolar e Associação de Pais de Alunos
1. Qual a composição e participação do comité de gestão escolar e associação de pais 
de alunos nas atividades de alimentação escolar da escola? (incluir uma análise de género 
do comité e da associação de pais: proporção e funções de homens e mulheres)
2. Quais os cuidados aplicadas nas rotinas operacionais para garantir a boa qualidade 
e higiene da alimentação oferecida nas escolas? E uma gestão honesta, correta? 
3. Ao decorrer do trabalho, têm havido casos de alguma iregularidade, desvio, ou 
distribuição indevida de alimentos? Ou de uso discutível do dinheiro para compras locais? 
4. Os membros do vosso comitê receberam algum tipo de treinamento para 
desenvolver as atividades relacionadas ao programa de cantinas escolares? Se recebeu, 
sente necessidade de treinamento adicional? Se sim, em que aspectos? (incluir uma análise 
de género: proporção e funções de homens e mulheres)
5. Com que frequência esse comitê/membros do comitê desenvolvem atividades na 
escola, relacionadas ao programa de cantinas escolares? (incluir uma análise de género: 
proporção e funções de homens e mulheres)
6. Há algum tipo de comunicação formal entre esse comitê e os inspetores das escolas/ 
oficiais do governo local em relação às atividades desenvolvidas pelas cantinas escolares 
nas escolas (reunião, emissão de relatório ou outro tipo de documento)? 
7. No caso das escolas piloto: como funciona na vossa escola o sistema financeiro para 
pagar os produtores locais de alimentos (vouchers ?) (planejamento, rotinas de controle, 
etc.).
8. Em sua opinião, quais são os resultados do programa cantinas escolares (projeto 
MGD) para a qualidade da educação e na vida dos alunos? Quais seus sucessos e 
dificuldades? Falhou na melhoria do nível de literacía, como se poderia fazer para que seja 
mais efetivo neste respeito? 
9. Em sua opinião, de que forma esse projeto contribui/afeta (ou não) a vida da 
comunidade ao entorno dessa escola (famílias de alunos, moradores da localidade, 
agricultores e comerciantes locais)?
10. Caso houvesse possibilidades de ajustes nas atividades do vosso comitê em 
contribuição às atividades da cantina escolar, o que deveria ser feito?
11. Caso houvesse possibilidade de modificar/ajustar a forma como o programa 
cantinas escolares é posto na prática/conduzido nessa escola para melhorar seus 
resultados, o que deveria ser feito? Quais seriam os seus conselhos ou recomendações ?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 110 | P a g e
F. COZINHEIRAS
1. Quantas cozinheiras trabalham nessa escola? são voluntárias ? Há algum tipo de 
incentivo/indemnização/pagamento para as cozinheiras?
2. Como é o sistema de trabalho, todas as cozinheiras trabalham da segunda à sexta 
ou há algum tipo de rotação?
3. Quais são as atividades das cozinheiras no programa cantinas escolares? Qual sua 
jornada de trabalho (quando começa e quando termina o trabalho na cozinha)?
4. Você recebeu algum tipo de treinamento para ser cozinheira nas cantinas escolares? 
O que você aprendeu nesse treinamento? Se recebeu, sente necessidade de treinamento 
adicional? Se sim, em que aspectos?
5. Qual é a sua opinião sobre a alimentação oferecida aos alunos: a quantidade é 
suficiente? e o que você pensa da qualidade da alimentação oferecida? Alguma 
recomendação em relação a quantidade ou qualidade da alimentação?
6. Qual é a rotina de distribuição de alimentos, passo por passo ? Rapazes e raparigas 
recebem a mesma quantidade de alimento? Quem é servido em primeiro lugar?
7. Que tipos de alimentos são usados regularmente? Caso haja a utilização de 
alimentos que não são distribuídos pelo PMA, de onde vêm esses alimentos (doações, horta 
escolar, comprado com dinheiro ou com vouchers ?
8. Qual é a sua opinião em relação às compras locais, se isto existir na vossa escola 
(adição de alimentos frescos, produzidos pelos agricultores locais, aos produtos secos 
(feijão, arroz, óleo e sal, distribuídos pelo PMA) nas refeições escolares? (benefícios e 
dificuldades, necessidades) 
9. Você enfrenta alguma dificuldade para preparar os alimentos e distribuir as 
refeições aos alunos? Se sim, qual (quais)?
10. A cozinha tem os equipamentos e utensílios em quantidade e qualidade necessária 
para o preparo e a distribuição dos alimentos?
11. Quais os cuidados de higiene no preparo e distribuição dos alimentos (passo a 
passo)? E para a lavagem e armazenamento dos equipamentos e utensílios usados (passo 
a passo)?
12. De onde vem a água utilizada para cozinhar, lavar equipamentos/utensílios, e 
beber? O que é feito na escola/cozinha para garantir a sua qualidade? 
13. Quem é responsável por fornecer a lenha/combustível para a cozinha? Há 
problemas de suprimento (fornecimento suficiente) ? Se sim, o que poderia ser feito?
14. Vocês as cozinheiras desta escola passaram por algum tipo de avaliação (controlo) 
de saúde (antes de iniciar atividades e de tempos em tempos)? Qual?
15. Desde que você começou a trabalhar como cozinheira na escola tem havido falhas 
na distribuição das refeições (dias sem alimentação ou dias com uma quantidade de 
alimentos insufi-ciente)? Se sim, qual foram os motivos, as causas ? 
16. Caso seja possível fazer ajustes nas rotinas de trabalho na cozinha, e outras 
atividades ou aspetos do programa onde as cozinheiras participam, qual seria sua 
recomendação?
G. Alunos (meninos e meninas) - grupos mistos de 10 alunos (5 meninos e 
5 meninas)
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 111 | P a g e
1. Quando é distribuída a alimentação na vossa escola (horário, em relação ao início da 
aula)? Isto está bem assim? Poderia ser melhorado? 
2. A alimentação escolar está a ser oferecida todos os dias, cada dia ? Se não, você saberia 
responder quantas vezes houve falta de alimentos (e por quanto tempo) ? Neste caso 
porque é que isto aconteceu?
3. Quem recebe primeiro a alimentação em sua escola? (meninos ou raparigas, alunos mais 
jovens ou mais velhos, ou outro critério de organização da distribuição de refeições) 
4. Qual sua opinião sobre a alimentação distribuída nas cantinas escolares: a quantidade é 
suficiente? Ou insuficiente, ou excessiva? A comida é gostosa, boa ? 
5. (Pergunta delicada) Você comeu hoje antes de vir para a escola? Se sim, o quê? se não, 
quando foi a última vez que comeu antes de vir para a escola?
6. Qual a sua contribuição para as cantinas escolares (ajuda no preparo da comida ou na 
lavagem de pratos e panelas, contribuição com alimentos ou dinheiro, traz lenha ou água, 
outras ?) (atenção, perguntar separadamente a rapazes e meninas)? 
7. Nas escolas piloto com compras locais : o quê você pensa sobre a adição de produtos 
frescos (verduras, legumes, frutas, ovos/peixe/carne) a alimentação escolar? 
8. Em sua opinião, quais os benefícios de ter as cantinas escolares nessa escola 
(distribuição de refeições escolares pelo PMA/MGD)? Você percebe algum resultado 
positivo na sua vida como aluno/a? qual?
9. O que você aprendeu sobre saúde, nutrição e higiene na escola? Você pratica em sua casa 
algo que aprendeu na escola sobre higiene, saúde e nutrição? Ou é difícil demais? Se sim, 
quais as principais barreiras?
10. Os alunos costumam comprar comida (rebuçados, doçaria, bolachas, etc) nas 
vendedoras à porta da escola? Se sim, o que costumam comprar?
11. Caso fosse possível modificar ou ajustar o programa de cantinas escolares, para torná￾lo melhor, o que você recomendaria?
11. Como está a situação da higiene na vossa escola? As latrinas/casas de banho estão bem 
feitas? Dá para as utilizar de maneira segura, sem ser incomodado/a? 
H. Meninas (da 4ª à 6ª classe) – grupos de só raparigas (de 6 a 10)
1.Como funciona o sistema das rações secas para levar à casa nesta escola: quem recebe as 
rações (somente meninas ou meninos e meninas, alunos de todas as classes ou de 4-6, etc)? 
2.Há algum tipo de controle pela escola sobre a distribuição das rações secas (arroz ou 
outra)?
3.Você recebe a ração seca todos os meses ou houve meses que não recebeu os alimentos? 
Caso não tenha recebido em algum mês, qual foi o motivo? Explicaram-lhes?
4.Como você percebe essa atividade, isto é, você acha que de alguma forma afeta sua 
escolaridade/participação nas atividades da escola?
5.E sua família, como eles percebem essa atividade? Há algum tipo de incentivo por parte 
de sua família para que você atenda regularmente as classes para poder receber a ajuda 
mensal de alimentos?
6.Caso sua escola deixasse de distribuir os alimentos da ração seca, isso afetaria de alguma 
forma sua participação nas aulas/estudo? Se sim, qual seria o impacto para você?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 112 | P a g e
7. O que poderia ser feito para melhorar o sistema das rações secas ?
8. Outros elementos que podem influenciar a decisão de deixar de ir à escola: as casas de 
banho/latrinas que não permitem segurança, privacidade, situações intra-familiares 
(delicado a perguntar), ...? 
I. AGRICULTORES LOCAIS (Mulheres e Homens) 
1.Você participa de alguma associação/cooperativa ou produz e vende seus alimentos de 
forma independente?
2.O que você pensa do programa de cantinas escolares?
3.Você participa de alguma forma a este programa, isto é, vendendo produtos alimentícios 
para o programa/escola? 
4.Se sim, que produtos e quantidades vende para a cantina escolar (por semana)?
5.Se sim, o que você pensa do sistema de pagamento (vouchers escolares)? Funciona bem 
ou traz alguma dificuldade para os agricultores? 
6.Se não, quais são suas expectativas, como produtor rural, em relação a sua possível 
oportunidade futura de participação do programa de cantinas escolares?
7.Você (ou sua associação de agricultores) recebe ou recebeu algum tipo de apoio 
(assistência técnica e capacitação/treinamento relacionado ao programa cantinas 
escolares/ PMA? (pode ter sido feita por parceiros do programa, como FAO/NGOs, em 
colaboração como o PMA/MGD)? Se sim qual/quais?
8.Caso você tenha recebido capacitação/treinamento de que forma sua prática como 
agricultor/produtor rural foi melhorada (ou não)?
9.Há algum aspeto relacionado com a sua atividade em que gostaria de ser treinado?
10.Você participou ou conhece alguém que participou de atividades como aulas de 
alfabetização para agricultores (financiadas pelo projeto PMA/MGD)? Se sim, qual é a sua 
opinião em relação às mesmas? (incluir uma análise de género: proporção e funções de 
homens e mulheres)
11.Como produtor rural/agricultor, qual seria sua recomendação para melhorar sua 
participação no programa de cantinas escolares?
Evaluation Report Version March 2021 113 | P a g e
Annex 17 - Bibliography
Presented throughout the text as footnotes
Guinea
-Bissau Country Office
https://www.wfp.org/countries/guinea
-bissau
Bogotá-Colombia, March 2021, Final evaluation 
report Version 8