Baseline of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
(LRP) Project in Kenya
2017-2020
FINAL Report
June 2018 
Agreement Number: LRP-615-2017/035-00
Commissioned by WFP Kenya 
Baseline Manager: Beatrice Mwongela, M&E Officer 
Prepared by: 
Sophia Dunn, Team Leader 
John Otsola, Research Specialist 
i
ii
Acknowledgements
The consultants wish to acknowledge that the data collection for this baseline was a 
joint effort between the baseline consultants and the WFP Kenya team. We also
acknowledge the significant input from WFP Kenya as organizers and/or as key 
informants. Special thanks are due to Beatrice Mwongela for managing the evaluation, 
and to Polly Akwanyi who provided ongoing support throughout the field work.
The consultants would like to further extend gratitude to the national and county level 
Government of Kenya stakeholders, especially the Ministry of Education and Ministry 
of Agriculture and Irrigation personnel who participated in the baseline as key 
informants. Special thanks to those who organized interviews and/or accompanied the 
Baseline Team Leader for field visits.
Special thanks are also due to the team of enumerators, survey supervisors and drivers 
without whom we could not have completed the school survey data collection: Paul 
Baraka, Gabriel Ekaale, Samuel Kiarae, Zakayo Muindi, Angelica Wanza, Dorcas 
Akuut, Lilycaren Awoton, Miriam Asinyen, Stanley Elain, Geoffrey Nalima, Wilson 
Ekipetot, Dennis Kiplagat, Dennis Marias, Elizabeth Ndole, Millicent Malago, Edward 
Kipchirchir Cheruiyot, Ruth Nyorsok, Amos Apalekem, Pius Rotich, Rose Murket 
Chepkite, Charles Kabage and Mare Jillo.
Special thanks also to Zippy Mbati, the WFP Market Access Team, the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Irrigation counterparts and enumerators for collecting the traderand 
FO data: Consolata Kwadi, Faith Nyamai, Simon Lokapel, Sarah Taiwa Jepchumba, 
Samuel Ekiru, Kipngeno Cheruiyot, Lucy Lokuruchana, Vincent Abuje, Walter 
Kiplagat and Anthony Kiptui.
Special thanks also to all the traders, Farmer Organization members and school 
personnel and other who participated in the qualitative and quantitative interviews.
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed in this report are those of authors, and do not necessarily 
reflect those of the World Food Programme. Publication of this document does not 
imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or 
constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the 
delimitation of frontiers.
For an accessible version of this report, please email 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov.
iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction.............................................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of the baseline subject..................................................................... 1
1.2 Context.............................................................................................................3
1.3 Methodology....................................................................................................6
2 Baseline Findings...................................................................................................11
2.1 Is the LRP design relevant and coherent with key policies and strategies? .11
2.2 Findings from market assessments............................................................... 12
2.3 Findings from the trader survey.................................................................... 13
2.4 Findings from the Farmer Organization survey ........................................... 19
2.5 Findings from the school survey .................................................................. 30
3 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................43
3.1 Are the LRP activities likely to result in an effective programme?...............43
3.2 Are the LRP activities likely to result in an efficient programme?...............43
3.3 Is the LRP likely to have an unintended positive or negative outcomes or 
impact?......................................................................................................................44
3.4 Are the results of the LRP likely to be sustainable?......................................44
4 Recommendations ................................................................................................46
5 Bibliography..........................................................................................................47
Annexes ........................................................................................................................49
List of Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation terms of reference ......................................................................49
Annex 2: LRP Results framework .............................................................................. 60
Annex 3: LRP stakeholder diagram ............................................................................62
Annex 4: Evaluation matrix .........................................................................................63
Annex 5: Quantitative survey tools ..............................................................................67
Annex 6: List of surveyed schools ............................................................................... 86
Annex 7: Detailed description of the sampling methodology .................................... 88
Annex 8: Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation ......................................... 90
Annex 9: Qualitative survey tools ............................................................................... 91
Annex 11: Evaluation timeline .....................................................................................97
Annex 12: Description of the calculation of the baseline scores ................................ 98
Annex 13: Additional data from the trader survey ...................................................100
Annex 14: Additional data from FO survey ...............................................................102
Annex 15: Additional data from school survey .........................................................104
Annex 16: Project monitoring results - 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018 ............... 107
iv
List of Tables
Table 1: LRP locations ...................................................................................................3
Table 2: Number of primary schools, Farmer Organizations and traders participating
in the LRP, by county ....................................................................................................3
Table 3: Key baseline questions .....................................................................................6
Table 4: Number of Farmer Organizations and traders participating in the baseline 
survey, by county............................................................................................................8
Table 5: Number of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed, by county............................8
Table 6: Summary of key informants interviewed ........................................................8
Table 7: Personal characteristics of surveyed traders, by county ............................... 14
Table 8: Business information of surveyed traders, by county .................................. 14
Table 9: Total estimated volume of commodities sold per year ................................. 15
Table 10: Total estimated value and volume of grains in stock .................................. 16
Table 11: Percentage selling commodities to schools through competitive tender in 
2016-17 ......................................................................................................................... 17
Table 12: Received training on procurement processes ............................................. 17
Table 13: Ranking of barriers to grain trading as reported by traders ....................... 18
Table 14: Prices of locally produced vs. externally produced commodities in LRP 
targeted counties ......................................................................................................... 18
Table 15: Characteristics of Farmer Organizations participating in the baseline survey, 
by county. .................................................................................................................... 20
Table 16: Planting data by county .............................................................................. 20
Table 17: Average quantity of commodity produce expected from all members by crop
...................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 18: Estimated use of commodities grown by FOs .............................................22
Table 19: Land ownership by FO .................................................................................22
Table 20: Percentage of surveyed FOs having access to storage facilities .................23
Table 21: FO sales of members’ commodities .............................................................23
Table 22: FO reporting of critical problems for selling commodities on behalf of 
members ......................................................................................................................24
Table 23: FO sale of commodities in last one year .....................................................24
Table 24: Volume and value of sales by FOs during 2017 ..........................................25
Table 25: FO marketing ...............................................................................................26
Table 26: Ensuring quality products for sale ..............................................................26
Table 27: Training provided to FOs in the last one year ........................................... 28
Table 28: Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their members in the past 
one year ........................................................................................................................29
Table 29: Characteristics of surveyed schools, by county ......................................... 30
Table 30: Main source of food for school lunches (Term 1, 2018) ............................. 31
Table 31: Average number of days after start of Term 1, 2018 that food was delivered
...................................................................................................................................... 32
Table 32: Summary of baseline findings on timeliness ..............................................33
Table 33: Baseline Timeliness Score............................................................................34
v
Table 34: Percentage of schools reporting providing a school meal every school day
during Term 1, 2018 ....................................................................................................34
Table 35: Number of days schools reported NOT providing school meal ..................35
Table 36: Reasons for not providing school meals ......................................................35
Table 37: Percentage of schools experiencing problems with food commodities 
received.........................................................................................................................35
Table 38: Mean volume of food per child received for Term 1, 2018 .........................36
Table 39: Number of schools where teachers reported paying additional monies for 
SMP...............................................................................................................................36
Table 40: Additional monies paid by teachers (KES) for Term 1, 2018 .....................36
Table 41: Baseline Cost-effectiveness Score ................................................................37
Table 42: Training for school personnel in LRP targeted counties, 2017 ................. 40
Table 43: School personnel reporting receiving training on the HGSMP from
WFP/MoE since 2016 ................................................................................................. 40
Table 44: Baseline Nutrition Score ............................................................................. 41
Table 45: Baseline Impact Score .................................................................................42
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of traders reporting sale of staple crops .................................... 14
Figure 2: Percentage of traders reporting sale of pluses ............................................ 15
Figure 3: Main source of commodities ....................................................................... 15
Figure 4: Means of transport ....................................................................................... 16
Figure 5: Facilities for long term transport ................................................................ 16
Figure 6: Commodity buyers ....................................................................................... 17
Figure 7: Percentage of traders reporting barriers to purchasing from local farmers 18
Figure 8: Average time the FOs have been established ............................................. 20
Figure 9: Use of certified/recommended inputs ........................................................ 21
Figure 10: Percentage of surveyed FOs receiving different types of assistance, by 
county .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 11: Types of crops grown ..................................................................................22
Figure 12: Percentage of surveyed FOs having access to equipment .........................23
Figure 13: Percentage of FOs reporting different methods of handling their commodity 
during/after harvest ....................................................................................................23
Figure 14: Reported reasons for not marketing products though the FO ..................23
Figure 15: Markets used for sale of FO commodities in the last one year ..................25
Figure 16: Location of main suppliers to surveyed FOs .............................................26
Figure 17: Location of main buyers from the surveyed FOs .......................................27
Figure 18: Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their committee
members in the past one year .................................................................................... 28
Figure 19: Percentage of schools reporting procurement completed before start of 
Term 1, 2018 ................................................................................................................ 31
vi
Figure 20: Percentage of school where food was delivered before the start of Term 1,
2018 .............................................................................................................................32
Figure 21: Percentage of school where food was delivered before the start of Term 2,
2018 .............................................................................................................................32
Figure 22: Percentage of schools reporting use of various food commodities for school 
lunches during Term 1, 2018 .......................................................................................38
Figure 23: Percentage of schools reporting changing their school meals menus .....39
Figure 24: Percentage of schools reporting activities to promote dietary diversity ..39
vii
Acronyms
AMAL Agriculture, Market Access and Linkage 
CO (WFP) Country Office
CTS Cash Transfer to Schools
DAC (OECD) Development Assistance Committee
FAO (UN) Food and Agriculture Organization
FDC Forward delivery contract
FFE Food for Education
FO Farmers Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit 
HGSMP Home Grown School Meals Programme
KES Kenyan Shilling
KESSP Kenya Education Sector Support Programme 
KII Key Informant Interview
LRP Local and Regional Procurement
MoAI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MoE Ministry of Education
MoH Ministry of Health
MT Metric Tonne
NESP National Education Strategic Plan
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NSMNS National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
P4P Purchase for Progress
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PTA Parent-Teacher Association
RB (WFP) Regional Bureau
RF Results Framework
SMC School Meals Committee
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
USD United States Dollar
USDA United States Department of Agriculture 
VCA Value Chain Analysis
WFP World Food Programme
viii
Maps
Map 1: Map of school meals programme in Kenya (September 2017)
Source: WFP Kenya
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. This report is the baseline for the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project 
(LRP) (2017-2020) that is supported by the United States Department ofAgriculture 
(USDA) and implemented by WFP Kenya. The baseline is commissioned by WFP 
Kenya Country Office. As per the evaluation’s Terms of Reference (ToR) (Annex 1) the 
baseline is intended to enable future programme evaluation by laying the foundation 
for an endline evaluation that will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, 
efficiency, sustainability, and impact. The baseline provides a situational analysis of 
the beginning of the project and baseline values for the indicators in the Performance 
Monitoring Plan (PMP). The baseline is also intended to help identify potential 
challenges to project implementation and provide recommendations for overcoming 
these and for optimizing project implementation and monitoring. This will help to 
validate the project design and ensure better implementation.
2. In September 2017 WFP Kenya received a grant of USD 1 million from USDA to 
support the Government of Kenya’s effort to sustainably expand the national Home￾Grown School Meals Programme (HGSMP) into the arid lands. Over a period of just 
over two years (September 2017 to March 2020), WFP will use the funds to
implement a local procurement project to support the school meals programme in 
Baringo, Turkana, and West Pokot counties of Kenya.
3. The key objectives of the LRP are: (i) Improve the effectiveness of food assistance by 
improving cost-effectiveness and improving timeliness; (ii) Increase the capacity of 
traders and school meals procurement committees to effectively and efficiently 
procure local commodities for school meals, promoting sustainability of school 
feeding; (iii) Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to 
culturally-acceptable commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya 
home-grown school meals programme; and (iv) Improve nutrition of students by 
increasing access to and use of various, high quality nutritious and culturally￾appropriate foods in school’s meals.
Methodology
4. The baseline utilized mixed methods – data review, surveys, key informant interviews, 
focus group discussions, and observation, and collected both quantitative and 
qualitative data. Information collected is all directed towards providing situational
analysis and baseline figures for the LRPs PMP and providing information on each 
element of the LRP RF. The baseline and the future endline evaluation use the OECD￾DAC1 international evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
sustainability, and impact.
• Secondary data review: WFP provided several secondary documents 
including project documents, LRP monitoring data, and relevant background
documents. Additional secondary documents were also collected during the 
fieldwork.
• Quantitative data collection: The quantitative data collection utilized three 
assessment tools: a survey of traders (n=54) in Baringo and West Pokot, a survey 
of Farmer Organizations (FOs) (n = 98) in all three targeted counties, and a 
survey of 96 LRP schools as well as 96 non-LRP schools for comparison.
1 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee
x
• Qualitative data collection: Qualitative data was collected from 
stakeholders using semi-structured interview guides. In total, 47 key informant 
interviews were carried out with personnel from WFP, MoE, MoAI, and FOs as 
well as traders and others.
Key baseline findings
Trader survey
• Most traders in Baringo already have experience in providing commodities to 
schools. However, in West Pokot significantly less traders (p<0.05) reported a 
having business licence and low percentage of traders with business registration 
certificates were found in both counties. Both these documents are required for 
the government procurement process and are specified as mandatory in the 
HGSMP Implementation Guidelines.2
• Traders reported that the majority of their commodities are purchased from 
small scale famers outside the county. No trader said they buy from FOs.
• Traders ranked “limited market” and high transport costs as the main barriers to 
grain trading in general. Traders identified similar barriers to purchasing from 
local farmers: low volumes produced, the price and the high transport costs.
FO survey
• Prior to the LRP, WFP has been working with local farmers in Turkana County 
for several years to aggregate them into FOs. This aggregation enables 
smallholder farmers to better share information, aggregate produce and 
therefore increase their ability to supply on an ongoing basis.In contrast, Baringo 
and West Pokot FOs only started receiving WFP support in 2017 through funding 
from the LRP.
• The majority of surveyed FOs reported producing maize, while production of 
their other commodities differed by county. In all three counties, FO member’s 
households consume around half their production.
• Most of the FOs in Baringo and all the FOs in West Pokot reported selling some 
of their commodities in 2017, as did 50 percent of FOs in Turkana.
• The total volume of commodities sold by Baringo FOs in 2017 was 2,020.4MT 
from maize, beans, other vegetables, fruit and millet, with a total estimated value 
of KES 16,974,366 (USD 169,744). Turkana FOs reported a total sale volume of
176 MT from the sale of sorghum, cowpeas, maize, maize/sorghum blended flour 
and one FO selling a large volume (7.8MT) of assorted vegetables. The total 
estimated value of sales was KES 14,707,250 (USD 147,073). In West Pokot,FOs 
reported a total volume 9,334.3MT from sales of maize and beans, with an 
estimated total value of KES 24,433,000 (USD 244,433).
• FOs in Baringo and West Pokot reported that the main reasons they do not 
aggregate commodities for sale was lack of awareness and inadequate production. 
The most critical problems for selling commodities on behalf of members as 
reported by the FOs were the limited consumer demand, their inability to meet 
quality demands, and the poor transport infrastructure. A quarter of FOs in each 
county reported that they take measures to improve the quality of their
commodities.
2 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
xi
School survey
• As a result of the 2017 drought all the LRP schools have been receiving in-kind 
food rather than transitioning to the HGSMP as intended. In Baringo and West 
Pokot, LRP schools received commodities from the MoE, while Turkana LRP 
schools received commodities from WFP. Non-LRP comparison schools 
continued receiving their food either through the HGSMP (Baringo and West 
Pokot) or through cash transfers to schools (Turkana).
• The school survey found that 19.8 percent of LRP schools and 57.3 percent of 
non-LRP schools received their food before the start of the Term 1. For the 
schools receiving their food late, the average delay was 16 days in LRP schools, 
and six days in non-LRP schools. Interviews with MoE personnel indicate that 
the food delivery to LRP schools was delayed due to lack of transport to move 
food from the county/sub-county warehouses to the schools.
• 60 percent of surveyed schools reported that they provided a school meal every 
school day during Term 1, 2018. Overall, a larger percentage of non-LRPschools 
reported providing a meal every school day during Term 1, 2018 although the 
difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05).3
• None of the surveyed schools reported using any drought tolerant crops 
(sorghum, cowpeas, green gram or millet) primarily due to their higher prices. 
For Term 1, 2018 the non-LRP comparison schools reported using one school 
meal menu of maize, beans, oil and salt. LRP schools had more diverse menus 
due to the commodities provided by the MoE.
Conclusions
5. Relevance: The LRP offers an important opportunity to ensure that the targeted 
schools in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot transition smoothly to the HGSMP. The 
LRP is coherent with the recently launched National School Meals and Nutrition 
Strategy (NSMNS) (2017-2022)4 that outlines the design and implementation of 
nutrition-sensitive school meals in Kenya. The LRP also aligns with several MoAI 
strategies and policies including the upcoming national implementation framework 
to guide and direct procurement by public institutions from smaller holder farmers.
6. Effectiveness: The results of the baseline indicate that the LRP activities are likely 
to result in effective support to LRP schools for transitioning to the HGSMP. This 
should result in improved cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food assistance to the 
targeted schools. The inclusion of nutrition activities at school level should also 
contribute to school personnel having a greater understanding of the importance of 
dietary diversity for good growth and development. The baseline has however, 
identified two key challenges to the uptake of more diverse school lunch menus: the 
price of locally grown, drought tolerant commodities compared with the usual maize 
and beans, and the preparation that those commodities require.
7. The support provided through the LRP will be critical for enabling local farmers, 
through FOs, to participate effectively in the school meals market. Currently the FO 
capacity is low, and many of the targeted FOs do not yet aggregate and sell their 
members commodities so they will require a significant level of support.
3 a). While testing the difference between LRP and non LRP schools, it was established that χ(1) = 3.096, p = 0.078. This shows 
that there is no statistically significant association between the school LRP status and provision of lunch. b). Similarly, while 
testing the difference between different counties, it was established that χ(1) = 5.774, p = 0.056. This shows that there is no 
statistically significant association between the county and provision of lunch. 4 Republic of Kenya (2018) National school meals and nutrition strategy 2017-2022. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health 
and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation.
xii
8. Efficiency: WFP has put in more than a decade of capacity building efforts for the
MoE on HGSMP with positive results. This is the penultimate handover of counties 
and there is nothing to indicate that the LRP target counties/sub-counties will not 
also transition smoothly. The baseline finds that the procurement of commodities by 
traders is done within Kenya with traders in border areas sometimes purchasing from 
neighbouring markets in Uganda, Ethiopia and Tanzania. Local procurement will be 
a cost-efficient alternative to international procurement and transport and will result 
in multiplier effects both for the local economy of the targeted county and for the 
Kenyan economy.
9. Impact: Interviews with key stakeholders were overwhelmingly positive about the 
change to the HGSMP citing improved timeliness and economic benefits to local 
communities. The baseline did not identify any potential unintended negative 
consequences of the LRP.
10. Sustainability: The findings of the baseline indicate that some LRP results are likely 
to be more sustainable than others. Intended results in the schools – the main impact 
area of the project, are likely to be sustained. However, any progress made with FOs 
will require ongoing support.
Recommendations (in priority order)
• Recommendations that may be completed by the end of the LRP 
implementation period
Recommendation 1: WFP and partners should continue to implement the LRP 
project as per the current agreement (2017-2020) including WFP providing technical 
support to the MoE and LRP schools as they transition to the HGSMP. 
Recommendation 2: WFP should undertake additional data collection in LRP 
schools once they have transitioned to the HGSMP. This should include collection of
timeliness and cost data and recalculation of the timeliness and cost-effectiveness 
scores.
Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoAI should ensure that the planned LRP 
market linkage forums provide opportunities for FOs to meet with local traders.
Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to support the development of a 
framework that supports and prioritizes procurement from local farmers. This may 
include uncoupling commodities and allowing FOs to provide only the items they grow 
and not the whole school meals basket.
Recommendation 5: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to develop practical 
guidance for LRP schools on ways to introduce locally-produced drought tolerant 
crops into their school menus within their limited resources.
Recommendation 6: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to ensure that schools 
receive regular nutrition support since this is a new project area.
• Recommendations that may take longer to implement than the LRP duration
Recommendation 7: WFP should support the MoE to review the HGSMP transfer 
rate once updated market assessment findings are available for Baringo and West 
Pokot at end of 2018/Early 2019.
Recommendation 8: WFP and the MoAI should continue to support farmers to 
improve their production capacity.
Recommendation 9: WFP should continue to support County Governments to 
develop and implement food quality and safety strategies for school feeding 
programmes (including aflatoxin testing).
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1. This report is the baseline for the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement Project 
(LRP) (2017-2020) that is supported by the United States Department ofAgriculture 
(USDA) and implemented by WFP Kenya. The baseline is commissioned by WFP 
Kenya Country Office.
2. As per the evaluation’s Terms of Reference (ToR) (Annex 1) the baseline is intended 
to enable future programme evaluation by laying the foundation for an endline 
evaluation that will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, 
sustainability, and impact. The baseline is guided by the WFP/USDA Results 
Framework (Annex 2) and will provide a situational analysis of the beginning of the 
project and baseline values for the indicators in the Performance Monitoring Plan 
(PMP). Lastly, the baseline is intended to help identify potential challenges to project 
implementation and provide recommendations for overcoming these and for 
optimizing project implementation and monitoring. This will help to validate the 
project design and ensure better implementation.
3. The baseline was carried out by a team of independent consultants in collaboration 
with the WFP project implementation team and independent enumerators. As per the
ToR, the baseline is intended to serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of 
accountability and learning.
• Accountability – The baseline will provide the donor with an impartial 
assessment of the situation at the start of the project. The baseline will also assess 
and report on the baseline values of WFP’s LRP Project upon which performance 
of the programme will be measured at the final evaluation.
• Learning – The baseline will develop a programme evaluation design laying the 
foundation for final evaluation to measure the performance of the programme.
1.1 Overview of the baseline subject
4. In September 2017 WFP Kenya received a grant of USD 1 million from the United 
States of Department of Agriculture (USDA) to support the Government of Kenya’s 
effort to sustainably expand the national Home-Grown School Meals Programme 
(HGSMP) into the arid lands. From September 2017 until March 2020 WFP will use 
the funds to implement a local procurement project to support the school meals 
programme in Baringo, Turkana, and West Pokot counties of Kenya.
5. The LRP will strengthen local procurement by increasing the involvement of local 
farmers and local traders into the food assistance for schools. The project will be 
implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Education (MoE) and the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Irrigation (MoAI), and with the Ministry of Health (MoH). The 
relationships between the key stakeholders in the agriculture, education and health 
sectors for this project are illustrated in Annex 3.
6. The key objectives of the LRP are: (i) Improve the effectiveness of food assistance by 
improving cost-effectiveness and improving timeliness; (ii) Increase the capacity of 
traders and school meals procurement committees to effectively and efficiently 
procure local commodities for school meals, promoting sustainability of school 
feeding; (iii) Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to 
culturally-acceptable commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya 
home-grown school meals programme; and (iv) Improve nutrition of students by
2
increasing access to and use of various, high quality nutritious and culturally￾appropriate foods in school’s meals.
1.1.1 Programme activities
7. The above objectives will be achieved through a broad set of activities and inputs as 
outlined in the ToR and including the following:
8. Assessment and mapping of local food systems and value chains: WFP will 
support the government to conduct market assessments of local value chains in 
Baringo and West Pokot sub-counties. WFP will also support the government to 
conduct value chain analyses to identify and map locally produced commodities and 
local agricultural production that are well-positioned to participate in the structured 
demand markets created by the HGSMP. Building upon the Cash Transfers to Schools 
(CTS) market assessments, the value chain analyses will focus on the availability, 
costs and future potential of local, nutritious, and culturally-acceptable food to 
become part of the HGSMP food basket.
9. Capacity building for national and county institutions: WFP will work in 
partnership with the MoE to train school teachers, parents, and education officers in 
Baringo and West Pokot on the HGSMP’s CTS model in order to enhance 
accountability and transparency in school-based food procurement process. WFP and 
MoE will establish a monitoring and oversight plan in Baringo and West Pokot.WFP 
will also support the development of the Government of Kenya’s national 
implementation strategy to guide direct local procurement from smallholderfarmers 
by government institutions.
10. Capacity strengthening for suppliers: WFP will train local farmer organizations 
(FOs) and traders in Baringo and West Pokot on the key requirements for becoming 
suppliers to the HGSMP. WFP will partner with the MoE, MoAI, and MoH to conduct 
market linkage forums in Baringo and West Pokot, which will provide an opportunity 
for potential suppliers to interact with school meals procurement committees (SMC) 
and provide the SMC an opportunity to coordinate with suppliers to adjust the 
HGSMP food basket based on locally-available products.
11. Develop school meals menus using local and nutritious produce: WFP will 
support schools to develop, use, and promote diverse school meals menus based on 
locally-produced, nutritious, and drought-tolerant crops, including sorghum, millet, 
and cowpeas, in Baringo, West Pokot, and Turkana. WFP will analyse the nutrient 
profile of the selected crops and incorporate them into the school meal basket for 
select schools, ensuring that the newly diversified school meal basket is culturally￾acceptable and still meets the nutrient requirements for primary school children. 
WFP will also develop a training curriculum and related materials and tools for 
government officials, school administrators, and school meals procurement 
committees on how to increase the dietary diversity of the school meal basket to with 
locally-produced crops.
12. Procure locally-produced, drought-tolerant crops: WFP will pilot the local 
procurement of sorghum and cowpeas for schools in Turkana supported under 
McGovern-Dole Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-005. WFP will procure 
these locally-produced, drought-tolerant crops using forward delivery contracts and
5 Agreement between USDA/McGovern-Dole and World Food Program Kenya to implement the International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program (2016-2018).
3
direct contracts issued to six farmer organizations in Turkana County. The locally￾procured sorghum and cowpeas will diversify the existing food basket, by replacing a 
portion of the bulgur wheat and green split peas provided under McGovern-Dole 
Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00 for two days per week (20 days per 
term) for two school-terms.
1.1.2 Project locations and beneficiarynumbers:
13. The LRP is implemented in support of the school meals programme implemented in 
382 primary schools in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot counties. The LRP will be 
implemented in four sub-counties as shown in Table 1. The LRP focus counties were 
selected by WFP through consultation with the Government of Kenya and based upon 
the handing over of semi-arid and arid counties to the Government of Kenya’s 
HGSMP. All the targeted LRP schools were handed over to the HGSMP in September
2017. However due to the drought, the government took the decision to keep the 
targeted schools on in-kind assistance until food prices reduced. More information 
on this can be found ahead in the survey findings.
Table 1: LRP locations
County Sub-county No. LRP targeted schools
Baringo East Pokot (Tiaty) 125
Turkana South Turkana & East Turkana 130
West Pokot North Pokot 127
Total 382
14. In addition to the 382 primary schools and their personnel, the LRP will support local 
farmers and Farmer Organizations (FOs) and local traders. Participation in the LRP 
by traders and FOs is voluntary and WFP has an ongoing recruitment process. As a 
result, final numbers are subject to change. For the purpose of this report, the latest 
figures as of May 2018 have been used i.e. 98 FOs and 54 traders (Table 2). Each of 
the targeted FOs and traders are working in the vicinity of the 382 targeted primary 
schools. WFP has previously worked with 6 of the FOs in Turkana while all the other 
FOs are new programme partners/beneficiaries.
Table 2: Number of primary schools, Farmer Organizations and traders 
participating in the LRP, by county
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Primary schools 125 130 127 382
Farmer organizations 46 36 16 98
Traders 13 -- 41 54
1.2 Context
15. Kenya currently ranks 146 out of 188 on the 2016 Human Development Index6, and 
was officially classified as a “middle-income” country in September 2014.7 Kenya has 
a population of 48.46 million, the majority of whom live in rural areas.It also has the 
largest, most diversified economy in East Africa; the average Gross Domestic Product 
(GDP) per capita is US$1,143.10 per annum.
6UNDP (2016) Human Development Report: Human development for everyone. United Nations Development Programme. New 
York. (using 2015 data) 7 http://devinit.org/#!/post/kenya-joins-middle-income-club
4
16. National agriculture sector: The agriculture sector plays a vital role in the rural 
economy, directly contributing 26 per cent of the GDP and another 27 per cent of GDP 
indirectly through linkages with other sectors.8 Agriculture employs more than 40 per 
cent of the total population and more than 70 per cent of Kenya's rural people. The 
sector also accounts for 65 per cent of the export earnings, and provides the livelihood 
(employment, income and food security needs) for more than 80 per cent of the 
Kenyan population. However, only about 20 percent of Kenyan land is suitable for 
farming, and even in arable areas, maximum yields have not been achieved, leaving 
considerable potential for increases in productivity.
17. The sector is also the main driver of the non-agricultural economy including 
manufacturing, providing inputs and markets for non-agricultural operations such as 
building/construction, transportation, tourism, education and other social services. 
Agricultural policy reform is one the seven flagship projects to be implemented under 
Vision 20309, which outlines the Government 0f Kenya’s development direction.
18. Food security: The achievement of national food security is a key objective of the 
agricultural sector. In the last decade the country has faced severe food insecurity 
problems. Official estimates indicate over 10 million people are food insecure. The 
current food insecurity problems are attributed to several factors, including the 
frequent droughts in most parts of the country, high costs of domestic food production 
due to high costs of inputs especially fertilizer, displacement of a large number of
farmers in the high potential agricultural areas following the post-election violence 
which occurred in early 2008, high global food prices and low purchasing power for 
large proportions of the population due to high level of poverty. 10
19. The 2017 Global Hunger Index gives Kenya a score of 2111, which is an improvement 
from 2015’s score of 24 but higher than the average score for the previous 5-year 
period (2010-2014) of 18.
20. Education: The Government of Kenya re-introduced the policy of primary 
education free of all fees in 200312 with a view to achieving universal primary 
education and the goal of “Education for All”. This policy was aimed to reverse 
declining enrolments, correct the regional disparities, social economic and gender 
imbalances in formal education, and ensure access to basic education for all children.
21. The Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (KESSP) 2005-201013 outlined a 
comprehensive development programme in education, including school feeding, 
health, and nutrition programmes. Since then net enrolment figures for primary 
school and pre-school have significantly increased. The current National Education 
Sector Plan (NESP) 2013-201814 builds on the successes and challenges of the KESSP. 
The plan is an all-inclusive, sector-wide programme whose prime goal is quality basic 
education for Kenya’s sustainable development.
8 http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en 9 http://www.visiON2030.go.ke 10 http://www.foodsecurityportal.org/kenya/food-security-report-prepared-kenya-agricultural-research-institute 11 0= no hunger, 100= worst hunger 12 Free primary education was first introduced in Kenya in 1974 when the government at the time abolished the school fees for 
Standards 1 to 4. The elimination of school fees was extended to Standards 5 to 7 in 1978. Subsequently, it was reintroduced in 
1979 and most recently in 2003. 13 Republic of Kenya (2005) Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (KESSP) 2005-2010. Delivering quality, equitable 
education and training to all Kenyans. 14 Republic of Kenya (2014) Education Sector Plan (2013-2018): Volume 1 - Basic Education Programme Rationale and Approach 
2013/2014 – 2017/2018. Ministry of Education Science and Technology.
5
22. Characteristics of the LRP counties: The three LRP counties: Baringo,Turkana 
and West Pokot are all located in the north-western part of Kenya within the Rift 
Valley region (see Map 1) and all are classified as arid.
23. People in Turkana County are mainly pastoralist and outside of small-scale crop 
production for household consumption, commercial crop production centres on 
irrigation. Livelihoods fall within the North-western pastoral zone and the North￾western agro-pastoral zone around the irrigation schemes. Baringo and West Pokot 
Counties have a more agro-pastoralist profile falling within the Western agro-pastoral 
zone while the north of Baringo falls into the North-western pastoral zone.
24. Local crop farmers have limited opportunities to participate in the local markets due 
to several production challenges including high input costs, high transport costs and 
the presence of disease/pests. This means it is difficult for local farmers to compete 
with products coming from more productive areas. A more detailed description of the 
market functionality in the three LRP targeted counties can be found ahead in the
findings section.
25. School meals programming: WFP and the MoE have jointly implemented a 
school meals programme in Kenya since 1980, targeting the most food-insecure 
counties with the lowest enrolment and completion rates and high gender disparities. 
Initially, school meals used an in-kind modality with food commodities provided 
directly by international donors including the USDA/McGovern-Dole. In 2009, the 
Government of Kenya started a national HGSMP to provide meals to children at 
school sourced from local farmers. The HGSMP stimulated local agricultural 
production through purchase of food from smallholder farmers and local traders.
26. USDA/McGovern-Dole has supported school feeding programmes in Kenya since
2004. By November 2017 USDA had committed US$130 million in food to support 
school feeding programmes throughout the country. United States contributions 
alone equalled between 35 percent and 75 percent of all WFP’s commitments to 
school feeding programme since 2004 for different years. This generous support from 
McGovern-Dole and other donors has enabled WFP to engage fully with the 
Government of Kenya on the benefits of school feeding, whilst developing the capacity 
of the government to take over ownership of the programme in a number of areas 
including; procuring food locally, thus stimulating local economies; raising 
awareness on the importance of education; building a rehabilitating school kitchens, 
storage and sanitation facilities; raising awareness on nutrition; raising awareness on 
hygiene and sanitation, such as handwashing and promoting food safety andquality.
27. WFP supports the transition to the HGSMP by providing technical and financial 
support directly to schools in transition for a period of two years. This includes 
strengthening food procurement systems, accountability, transparency and local 
markets. This is done through a combination of technical guidance, training, joint 
missions and exchange of staff to build national capacity in procurement, data 
collection, reporting, monitoring and evaluation, and programme management.
28. Capacity development has been a cornerstone of WFP’s support and as a result of this 
long collaboration and the attainment of middle-income country status in 2014, in 
April 2017 the Cabinet Secretary (MoE) declared during the Third Continental 
Consultation on Home Grown School Feeding in Africa that the Government of Kenya 
was ready for the full responsibility of the SMP in Kenya, and that full handover of 
WFP-supported schools to the HGSMP would occur by the end of June 2018.
6
“Today, the Government of Kenya supports 1.1 million children, while the World Food Programme 
caters for 500,000 children in Kenya” the Cabinet Secretary stated. He further added that Kenya 
intends to fully finance its Home-Grown School Feeding Programme from 2018.15
29. The timing of the handover is an accelerated transition compared to previous plans 
and comes alongside an increasing government budget allocation to school feeding 
from KES 850 million in 2016, to KES 2.5 billion currently. The MoE is also expecting 
a further increase next financial year to 3.4 billion KSh (USD 3.4 million). This 
transition is consistent with reducing WFP funding to the school mealsprogrammes.
30. 2017 drought: Below average performance of the 2016 short and long rains led to a 
severe drought in the arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya including the three LRP 
targeted counties, with Turkana and Baringo among the worst-affected areas. As a 
result of the drought, food prices rose, and it was estimated that 2.7 million people 
needed relief assistance. In February 2017, the President of Kenya declared the 
ongoing drought a national disaster and called for international support. As a result 
of the increased food prices, the MoE decided that the LRP targeted schools in 
Baringo and West Pokot would not transition to the HGSMP on the original schedule 
but instead would receive in-kind commodities from the government’s central stores 
as part of the drought response.
1.3 Methodology
31. The baseline utilized mixed methods and collected both quantitative and qualitative 
data. Information collected is all directed towards providing situational analysis and 
baseline figures for the LRPs PMP and providing information on each element of the 
LRP RF. The OECD-DAC16 international evaluation criteria of relevance, 
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact will be used as the basis of the key 
questions for both the baseline and future endline evaluation. Table 3 outlines some 
of the key questions under each of these criteria as per the ToR. The table has been 
expanded into a full evaluation matrix, which can be found in Annex 4.
Table 3: Key baseline questions
Criteria Baseline questions
Relevance • Determine if the LRP project design is relevant and coherent with key policies and 
strategies and identify any critical shortcomings.
Effectiveness • What are the baseline values for each of the standard and custom indicators for the 
program?
• Are the farmers/traders able to access the school procurement process? Identify 
barriers if present.
Efficiency • What are the baseline values of cost and timeliness of the intervention?
Impact • What are the possible unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? Is the project 
taking into consideration an appropriate mitigation strategy?
Sustainability • Identify any challenges that emerge from the baseline that could affect the 
sustainability of the programme to what extent is it likely that the benefits of the 
project will continue after the end of the project?
15 https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20170606/african-union-commission-and-world-food-programme-promote-home-grown￾school
16 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Development Assistance Committee
7
32. The main data collection methods for the evaluation are:
• Secondary data review including review of reports, monitoring data and other 
information as relevant.
• Collection of qualitative data: Using interviews and focus group discussionswith 
key stakeholder including WFP personnel, MoE, school personnel, FO 
representatives and traders and others
• Collection of quantitative data: Using questionnaires/surveys collected from 
traders, FOs and a matched sample of LRP and non-LRP primary schools. The 
school survey also includes observation of the school’s food storage areas.
1.3.1 Data collection
33. Secondary data review: WFP made a number of secondary documents available 
including project documents, LRP monitoring data, and relevant background 
documents. Additional secondary documents were also collected during the 
fieldwork. The full list of documents used can be found in the bibliography.
34. Quantitative data collection: The quantitative data collection utilized three 
assessment tools: a survey of traders, a survey of FOs, and a survey of schools (SMC 
or responsible teacher). Although the targeted schools are the primary unit of 
analysis, inclusion of the FO and trader surveys will help provide a basis of 
understanding of the current state of the local market and the current linkages 
between smaller holder farmers, traders and schools. Once they are replicated at 
endline, the results will help provide an understanding as to why the intended results 
have been achieved in the schools. Each of the quantitative tools can be found in 
Annex 5. A brief summary of the areas covered by each tool is provided below:
• Trader survey: Ability of traders to participate in tenders, issues with food 
procurement and linkage to smaller holder farmers [Related to A5, LRP 1.3.2.3, 
LRP 1.3.2 and LRP 1.3.3 of the RF]
• FO survey: Ability to produce drought tolerant crops and the value and volume 
of sales to schools [Related to A5, LRP 1.3.2.3, LRP 1.3.2 and LRP 1.3.3 of theRF]
• School survey: Timeliness and cost-effectiveness procurement of food 
commodities for school meals, utilization of nutritious and culturally acceptable 
food. [Related to LRP 1.1, LRP 1.2 and LRP 1.3 of the RF]
35. Trader and FO surveys: The WFP project implementation team was responsible 
for collecting the data for the trader and FO surveys as they require a larger data set 
for project monitoring. The questionnaire that was used for these two surveys have 
therefore been designed by the WFP team. The LRP Baseline Team was then given 
access to the data sets and has included a full analysis of the trader survey in this 
report.
36. For the FO survey, the baseline team has concentrated on analysing the sections of 
the questionnaire that are most relevant to answering the baseline questions: Section 
B: Production, Section D: Marketing, Section F: Training. Table 4 provides a 
breakdown by county of the 98 FOs and 54 traders that have participated in the 
baseline surveys.
8
Table 4: Number of Farmer Organizations and traders participating in the 
baseline survey, by county
County Farmer Organizations Traders
Baringo 46 13
Turkana 3617 --
West Pokot 16 41
TOTAL 98 54
37. School survey: The baseline team, along with a team of independent enumerators 
were responsible for the data collection of the school survey. The school survey 
included questions specifically for the measurement of the LRP PMP, using Term I,
2018 as the starting point. It also included observation of the presence of food for the 
start of Term II. In total, 192 schools were surveyed, 96 LRP schools (cases) and 96 
non-LRP schools for comparison (Table 5).
Table 5: Number of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed, by county
County LRP Schools Non -LRP Schools Total
Baringo 29 29 58 (30.2%)
Turkana 34 34 66 (34.4%)
West Pokot 33 33 68 (35.4%)
TOTAL 96 96 192 (100%)
38. The full list of LRP and non-LRP schools surveyed can be found in Annex 6, and a 
detailed description on how the sampled schools were chosen and matched can be 
found in Annexes 7 and 8.
39. Qualitative data collection: The Team Leader was responsible for the collection 
of qualitative data using the semi-structured interview guides found in Annex 9. Table 
6 provides a summary of the location and persons interviewed. In total, 47 key 
informant interviews were carried out with personnel from WFP, MoE/County level 
Department of Education (DoE), MoAI/Country level Department of Agriculture and 
Irrigation (DoAI), and FOs as well as traders and others. The full key informant list is 
in Annex 10.
Table 6: Summary of key informants interviewed
Nairobi+ Baringo Turkana West
Pokot
Total
Ministry/Department of Education
(including teachers)
1 5 4 5 15
Ministry/Department of Agriculture
and Irrigation
1 2 1 4
WFP 9 1 2 1 13
FO members 1 8 9
Traders 2 2 4
USDA 1 1
Independent 1 1
TOTAL 13 11 17 6 47
40. Data collection schedule: The quantitative data collection was conducted at 
different times, depending on the survey and county.
17 Data collected in November/December 2017
18 Turkana (6): Baringo (4); West Pokot (5)
9
• Trader survey: April 2018
• FO survey: Turkana – November/December 2017, Baringo and West Pokot –
April 2018.
• School survey: May 2018.
41. The qualitative data collection was conducted concurrently with the school survey in 
May 2018. Enumerator training for the school survey was conducted during the first 
week of May so that the school survey could be done at the start of Term II, 2018 (May 
7-18). The full survey timeline can be found in Annex 11.
1.3.2 Enumerator selection and training
42. To ensure independence and impartiality in data collection, the school survey utilized 
a team of 15 independent enumerators.18 Training of the enumerators was donefrom
2-4 May 2018. The training included: the purpose of the survey, methods and tools to 
the enumerators, data entry using mobile devices, as well as ethical considerations 
and procedures for reporting. The survey tools were also field-tested during the 
training to provide enumerators with the opportunity to practice the survey, test the 
digital data collection platform and provide feedback on changes to the questionnaire. 
This feedback was then incorporated to form the final tools for data collection and to 
make the final adjustment to the data collection tool on the digital platform. The 
baseline team’s Research Specialist, with support from WFP, was responsible for the 
enumerator training and for the school survey data collection. This included 
systematically checking the accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and 
information and acknowledged any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using 
the data.
43. Data collection was completed in Turkana County as planned over 6 days. However, 
security concerns after a banditry attach in Marigat areas of Baringo County meant 
that the fieldwork could not commence on schedule in that location. The Baringo and 
West Pokot teams therefore worked together in West Pokot for three days. Both the 
teams were then dispatched to Baringo for two days once security had improved. Each 
team then completed their own counties over a two-day period. In total therefore, the 
work in West Pokot and Baringo Counties was completed over 7 days.
44. Both the WFP project implementation team and the baseline team ensured that all 
the traders, FOs, schools and key informants were informed in advance of the study. 
The teams also sought consent from all informants and emphasized the voluntary 
nature of the study and the confidential nature of all information that was provided.
1.3.3 Data analysis
45. Data analysis was done using STATA version 14, SPSS version 24 and MS Excel. The 
analytical path took a funnel approach through the following progressive steps: 
descriptive statistics; associational analyses as well as significance testing; and 
computation of indices. Specific analyses included the following: Levene's test to 
measure the equality of variances between LRP and non-LRP schools as well as 
between the different counties; Chi square test of independence was used to assess 
the statistical significance of the relationship between categorical variables based on 
the corresponding p-values. For instance, Chi-Square tests of independence were
19 Kendall's tau_b
10
carried out to test the statistical difference between LRP and non-LRP schools as well 
as differences within counties in the provision of lunch.
46. Data on the traders is being captured by WFP on a rolling basis after the traders 
participate in procurement training. At baseline therefore, the trader survey sample 
for the baseline is small (54 traders). Given the small sample size and skewed 
distributions among the groups, non-parametric tests were used for data analysis that 
are free from homoscedasticity assumptions.19
47. The endline results of the project will be computed using multivariate statistical 
analyses. This approach will help in computing the performance of the intervention 
while controlling for both direct and indirect factors that may explain the variance in 
the intervention at the endline relative to baseline. The baseline team have developed 
three indices/scores using multiple variables around the three constructs that 
correspond to the three main outcomes of the Results Framework: improved cost￾effectiveness, timeliness and nutrition. These indices will then be summed to give the 
unit for impact measurement at school level: Impact Score. Details on the calculation 
of these scores can be found in Annex 12.
1.3.3.1.1 Limitations
• Following the drought, the government provided in-kind food assistance to the 
LRP schools that were handed over in September 2017. This means that theLRP 
indicators of timeliness, cost-effectiveness is affected since the LRP and the non￾LRP comparison schools were not implementing the same modality of SMP 
(HGSMP) at baseline as intended. The WFP Kenya office will therefore need to 
collect additional data once LRP schools’ transition to the HGSMP.
• The collection of data from FOs in the three counties have been done at different 
times and using slightly different questionnaires. As a result, some information 
is not available for all three counties.
23 Republic of Kenya (2011) National Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU).
11
2 BASELINE FINDINGS
2.1 Is the LRP design relevant and coherent with key policies and 
strategies?
48. WFP has supported the development of key school meal related policies and 
strategies in Kenya for decades and have been integral in supporting the MoE to 
transition schools from in-kind food assistance to the government’s HGSMP. Most 
recently WFP supported the development of the National School Meals and Nutrition 
Strategy (NSMNS) (2017-2022)20 that outlines the design and implementation of 
nutrition-sensitive school meals in Kenya. Among other objectives, the NSMNS 
highlights the need to “increase awareness and intake of locally available and 
nutritious foods among school children and their communities,” and aims to 
“strengthen governance and accountability in implementing school meals and 
nutrition programmes.” The LRP aligns well with both these objectives.
49. The NSMNS is also a collaboration between the MoE, the MoAI and the MoH. The 
NSMNS and the LRP both signify the start of greater collaboration between the MoE 
and MoAI on the national school meals programme. The LRP also marks the starting 
point for increased involvement of the county level nutrition teams into the HGSMP. 
This is appropriate and aligns with the handover to the Government of Kenya.
50. Interviews with MoAI personnel at national and county levels indicate that the LRP 
also strongly links to existing and upcoming MoAI strategies, polices and frameworks 
including the National Agribusiness Strategy21, the Agricultural Sector Development 
Strategy22, and the National Food Security and Nutrition Policy.23 The LRP also aligns 
with their ongoing work to promote local and drought tolerant crops, and on their 
overall work on supporting local farmers. In turn this links to the upcoming national 
implementation framework supported by WFP under the LRP to guide and direct 
procurement by public institutions from smaller holder farmers.
51. The LRP is also coherent with previous work that WFP has done in collaboration with 
the MoAI to support farmers and traders, including the now completed Purchase for 
Progress (P4P) and the Agriculture, Market Access and Linkage (AMAL) project that 
is ongoing in Turkana County. Although the LRP marks the start of WFP support for 
farmers in Baringo and West Pokot, it links closely with asset creation projects 
implemented in recent years for which WFP has worked closely with national and 
county government technical staff and cooperating partners and communities to 
design and implement asset creation projects that harness rainwater for domestic use 
and crop/livestock production purposes.
52. The LRP is also coherent with the new WFP Kenya Country Strategic Plan (CSP)
(2018-2023) which is based on the national zero hunger strategic review andaligned 
with the Government of Kenya’s Vision 2030 and Third Medium-Term Plan. The CSP 
focuses on food systems through the development and modelling of integrated 
solutions along the food production, transformation and consumption chain thatcan 
be scaled up by the Government and the private sector. The CSP also aligns with the 
United Nations Development Assistance Framework.
20 Republic of Kenya (2018) National school meals and nutrition strategy 2017-2022. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health 
and the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 21 Republic of Kenya (2012) National Agribusiness Strategy. Agricultural Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU). 22 Republic of Kenya (2009) National Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009-2020.
26 WFP (2015) Agriculture markets and food supply chain rapid assessment – Turkana County. May 2015.
12
53. Overall, the baseline results indicate that the LRP complements the HGSMP, and 
aligns well with key Government of Kenya policies, strategies and framework, aswell 
as WFP’s own polices and with the direction of other United Nations actors in Kenya.
2.2 Findings from market assessments
54. One of the activities of the LRP is to undertake market assessments including 
mapping local food systems and value chains in all three target counties to better 
understand the market capacity and the availability of locally grown products that 
could be used to enhance the school meals menus. The results of the assessments will 
help determine which crops are appropriate to promote as well as helping the project 
implementation team understand the barriers and opportunities for supporting local 
farmers in the target counties. In addition, the market assessments will provide some 
advocacy information on pricing the school meals basket in the target counties. This 
information will then contribute to the review of the HGSMP transfer values planned 
by the MoE for next financial year.
55. To date, under the LRP, WFP in collaboration with the MoAI has conducted a value 
chain analysis (VCA) in Turkana County24. Another VCA is planned for later in 2018 
in Baringo and West Pokot Counties. Although the VCA of the markets in Baringo and 
West Pokot have not yet been conducted, previous WFP market assessments in those 
counties in 2016 have been utilized for this baseline to help provide an overview of 
the market capacity in the counties. The following section provides a short summary 
of the key market assessment findings to provide context for the baseline trader and 
FO survey findings described ahead.
2.2.1 Baringo
56. The 2016 market assessment in Baringo25 found that in general the supply chain in 
the main markets is well structured, enabling a consistent supply of food commodities 
year-round. Good road infrastructure between main centres enables a flow of 
commodities from surplus areas within Kenya and across the Ugandan and 
Tanzanian borders. However, in more remote areas the supply chain is not well 
structured, and markets are not well integrated. There are also fewer actors and 
limited interactions between actors. Coupled with poor road and communication 
infrastructure, occasional conflict, heavy rains, inadequate transport and storage 
facilities, markets sometimes have a constrained flow of food commodities. The 
majority of the markets in East Pokot sub-county (targeted under the LRP) fall into 
the remote category.
2.2.2 Turkana
57. A WFP market assessment in Turkana County in 201526 found that with the exception 
of the cereal and products produced in the irrigation schemes, within Turkana County 
most of the other commodities supplied to the markets - cereals, vegetables, fruits and 
processed foods - are sourced from markets in the surplus producing areas of Kenya 
or from Nairobi. This remains the case today.
24 Nzuma, J (2018) A value chain analysis of priority commodities for food and nutrition security in Turkana County, Kenya. 
Draft final report. March 2018. 25 WFP et al (2016) Baringo County (East Pokot and Marigat sub-counties) Market Assessment. World Food Programme, Baringo 
County Government, NDMA and World Vision. Kenya
13
58. The 2018 Turkana VCA27 specifically looked at the value chain of four commodities: 
sorghum, cowpeas, goat meat and poultry to determine if there was a marketable 
surplus that could link to school meals or other stable demand markets in the county. 
The assessment found that the only surveyed product that is produced in surplus is 
goat meat. There is a deficit of all the other surveyed crops – sorghum, cowpeas and 
poultry and as a result, the prices are high.
“Turkana County produces surplus goat meat but has huge consumption deficits in sorghum, 
cowpeas and poultry. Crop production is only feasible under irrigation and as a result most of the 
crops consumed in the County are sourced from external markets.”28
59. However, the VCA goes on to say that since devolution,29 “there are growing 
opportunities for farmers to sell their commodities to urban populations and county 
government institutions. In addition, the presence of refugees in Kakuma and 
Kalobeyei offers a great market opportunity for crop and animal producers.” To date, 
local farmers have not been able take advantage of these market opportunities due to 
a number of reasons including lack of awareness and uncompetitive pricing.30
2.2.3 West Pokot
60. The 2016 West Pokot market assessment31 found sufficient marketable surplus of 
maize to satisfy market requirements. Sorghum production was low despite thegood 
growing conditions with famers citing lack of large-scale buyers as the key 
disincentive for increasing sorghum production. The assessment also identified 
several challenges to increased production including poor post-harvest handling 
practices and insufficient use of modern technology. There was also low awareness of 
quality issues, and storage capacity was a key post-harvest handling challenge to all 
farmers.It was noted that farmers in West Pokot do not do group marketing. Farmers 
face marketing challenges, especially on storage, grain quality, transportation cost 
and low market prices. Other key challenges in marketing are lack of reliable market 
information, poor infrastructure (including roads, transport and storage) and
distance from the farms/group stores to the markets.
2.3 Findings from the trader survey
61. The involvement of local traders in the LRP is voluntary, based solely on interest 
expressed. WFP has undertaken community awareness activities in all three LRP 
targeted counties to alert traders to the handover of additional schools to the HGSMP 
and of training opportunities regarding the required procurement process. Since 
participation in the tendering process of HGSMP is not dependent on having WFP 
training this voluntary targeting is an appropriate methodology. Interviews with 
traders indicate that other agencies including government and non-government 
organizations (NGOs) have previously conducted training on the government 
procurement process, so not all traders will need additional training from WFP.
27 Nzuma, J (2018) A value chain analysis of priority commodities for food and nutrition security in Turkana County, Kenya. Draft 
final report. March 2018. 28 Ibid. 29 In 2010, the Government of Kenya changed the constitution and commenced a process to devolve power, resources and 
representation down to the local level. To this end, various laws were enacted by Parliament to create strategies for the 
implementation framework and the adoption on which objectives of devolution can be achieved. 30 Nzuma, J (2018) A value chain analysis of priority commodities for food and nutrition security in Turkana County, Kenya. 
Draft final report. March 2018. 31 WFP et al (2016) West Pokot County agricultural markets rapid assessment. June 2016.
14
62. The following survey data is captured by WFP on a rolling basis after traders 
participate in procurement training. Table 7 shows the demographic characteristics 
of the surveyed traders: 13 from Baringo and 41 from West Pokot. Women make up 
just under half the sample (46.3%). The age and educational details of the surveyed 
traders can be found in Annex 13. Most traders (both male and female) haveprimary 
or secondary level education, with 22 percent overall reporting diploma or degree 
level education.
Table 7: Personal characteristics of surveyed traders, by county
Baringo West Pokot Total
Number of surveyed traders Total 13 41 54
Gender Male 7 22 29 (53.7%)
Female 6 19 25 (46.3%)
63. Table 8 provides information about the traders’ businesses. Overall, the time that 
traders had been in business, and the number of employees were similar between 
counties. The main difference was the proportion of traders reporting having business
licences–significantly less inWestPokot(p<0.05)–and the low percentage of traders 
with business registration certificates in both counties.32 Both these documents are 
required for the government procurement process and are specified as mandatory in 
the HGSMP Implementation Guidelines.33
Table 8: Business information of surveyed traders, by county
Baringo West Pokot
Average time in business 6 years 7 years
Average number of employees 2 2
Percentage of targeted traders with a valid business license 92.3% 58.5%
Percentage of targeted traders with a business registration 
certificate
53.8% 26.5%
2.3.1 Grain and pulse trading
64. Figure 1 shows that most traders in both counties reported selling maize, and in 
Baringo County in particular, millet and rice. Traders in both counties reported that 
maize is the most preferred staple – due to taste, price, and ease of preparation.
Figure 1: Percentage of traders reporting sale of staple crops
65. Figure 2 shows the percentage of traders selling different pulses. Aside from beans 
which is the preferred pulse and sold by all surveyed traders, the pulses sold differ by 
county with Baringo traders reporting a greater range of pulses for sale, particularly 
green gram.
32 To be legally allowed to trade in Kenya, traders require both a business permit/license issued annually through the County 
Government and a business registration certificate issued once through the Attorney general’s office. 33 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Maize Sorghum Rice Millet Other
15
Figure 2: Percentage of traders reporting sale of pluses
66. Surveyed traders were asked to estimate their annual volume of sales. Table 9 shows 
that West Pokot traders reported a higher average volume than traders in Baringo, 
however due to the large range of responses, the difference is statistically insignificant 
(p>0.05).
Table 9: Total estimated volume of commodities sold per year
Baringo West Pokot
Total volume sold per year (MT) 150.3 515
Range 12-600 1.3 – 3,240
69. Traders in both counties reported that the majority of their commodities are 
purchased from small scale farmers (Figure 3) although qualitative interviews 
indicate that the majority of their contacts are outside the county, in Kitale, Eldoret, 
Nakuru or Busia (Uganda). None of the surveyed traders said they buy from FOs. 
Traders also buy from other traders, large scale farmers and from large scale 
wholesalers or traders in Uganda, Ethiopia and Tanzania.
Figure 3: Main source of commodities
70. Most traders reported transporting their commodities either by pick up or by lorry 
(Figure 4), with traders who reported selling larger volumes more frequently using 
lorries. Most surveyed traders used rented warehouses to store their stock (Figure 5), 
while larger traders owned their warehouses. On average, traders reported that the 
permanently owned warehouses in Baringo have capacity of 27 MT, while West Pokot 
traders reported an average warehouse capacity of 180MT. These figures are
consistent with the high annual volume of commodities reported by traders in West 
Pokot (Table 9).
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Beans Cowpeas Pea Pigeon pea Green gram Groudnuts Lentils
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Small scale farmers Large scale farmers FarmerOrganizations Other traders Other
16
Figure 4: Means of transport
Figure 5: Facilities for long term transport
71. Table 10 shows the information provided by traders regarding estimated value and 
volume of their stock of stored grains. Again, traders in West Pokot reported larger 
values and volume of stock and this time the differences were statistically significant 
(p<0.05). Qualitative interviews indicate that traders had access to credit, that 
enables them to purchase large quantities of cereals immediate after the harvests 
when prices are at their lowest. The ability to store grains for long periods is therefore 
a competitive advantage.
Table 10: Total estimated value and volume of grains in stock
Baringo West Pokot
KES Average 239,615 159,996
Median 117,500 10,800
Range 0-1,260,000 0-5 million
MT Average 12.6 1348.3
Median 5 200
Range 0-50 0-8,925
72. All surveyed traders reported selling through multiple avenues including to 
households/individuals, schools, other traders, retail stores, millers/brewers, and
hospitals and government agencies (Figure 6). Most traders in Baringo (76.9%) 
reported that they already sold commodities to schools compared to 32 percent in 
West Pokot.
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Basic earth granaries Permanently owned warehouse Permanently rented warehouse
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Carried by hand Bicycle or 
motorcycle
Pick up Lorry Public transport
17
Figure 6: Commodity buyers
73. The HGSMP is already being implemented in all three targeted LRP counties (in non￾LRP targeted sub-counties) and 61.5 percent of the surveyed traders in Baringo, and
31.7 percent of those in West Pokot reported that they have already sold commodities
to schools through competitive tender (Table 11). This number is slightly different
from that shown in Figure 6 as that includes sales to all types of schools including 
both private and public, and primary and secondary schools. The higher number of 
traders selling to schools in Baringo is also coherent with the higher number reporting
having a valid business licence in Table 8 above since this is required for the HGSMP 
tendering process.
Table 11: Percentage selling commodities to schools through competitive 
tender in 2016-17
Baringo West Pokot
Percentage supplying schools through competitive tender in 
2016/17
61.5% 31.7%
2.3.2 Capacity building for traders
74. As previously noted, the traders were selected for the survey after they attended 
training by WFP on the HSGMP procurement process. As part of the post-training 
survey they were asked if they had ever received any other training on procurement. 
Less than 10 percent of traders in both counties said they had (Table 12). These 
trainings were conducted by the county governments, company contractors, or NGOs.
Table 12: Received training on procurement processes
Baringo West Pokot
% of traders trained on HGSMP procurement (by WFP) 100% 100%
% of traders trained on procurement (by other agencies) 7.7% 9.8%
2.3.3 Reported barriers to purchasing from local smallholderfarmers
75. Traders ranked the key barriers to grain training in general, as well as the barriers to 
purchasing from local farmers. Table 13 shows the traders in both counties ranked 
limited market in the top two barriers, which is consistent with the findings of the 
market assessments described earlier. High transport costs were ranked the biggest
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
18
barrier in Baringo, which again is consistent with the Baringo market assessment34 
recommending a higher HGSMP transfer value in East Pokot County.
Table 13: Ranking of barriers to grain trading as reported by traders
Average ranking 1-5 with 5 as biggest barrier.
Ranking Baringo West Pokot
Biggest barrier
Least
High transport cost (3.9) Limited market (3.7)
Limited market (3.1) Lack of finance (3.5)
Lack of finance (2.8) High transport cost (3.3)
Lack of equipment (2.1) Lack of equipment (3.1)
Other (2) Other (2.3)
76. Traders from Baringo reported the main two barriers to purchasing from local 
farmers as the low volumes produced, and the high transport costs. In West Pokot, 
most traders reported the purchase price to be the main barrier (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Percentage of traders reporting barriers to purchasing from 
local farmers
77. These findings are consistent with the market assessments, and qualitative interviews 
confirm that low production means that locally produced drought tolerant cereals and 
pulses are usually more expensive than maize and beans. Maize and beans are also 
the most preferred commodities and available more cheaply due to the surplus 
production in neighbouring counties. Traders reported it is significantly more 
profitable for them to buy commodities in neighbouring counties and transport them, 
rather than buy from farmers within the county. Table 14 shows the price of locally 
produced vs. externally produced cereals and pulses as reported by the traders and 
county level MoAI personnel.
Table 14: Prices of locally produced vs. externally produced commodities 
in LRP targeted counties
Locally produced: within the county Sourced elsewhere
Baringo
Cereal Sorghum: 20-22 KES/kg 
Finger millet: 89 KES/kg Maize: 20-22KES/kg
Pulses Green gram: 55-77 KES/kg Beans: 44-55 KES/kg
West 
Pokot
Cereal Sorghum: 25-39 KES/kg 
Maize: 30KES/kg Maize: 25-26 KES/kg
Pulses No data Beans: 53-54 KES/kg
Turkana
Cereal Sorghum: 66 KES/kg Maize: 30-40 KES/kg
Pulses 55-60 KES/kg Beans: 62-78 KES/kg
34 WFP et al (2016) Baringo County (East Pokot and Marigat sub-counties) Market Assessment. World Food Programme, Baringo 
County Government, NDMA and World Vision. Kenya
Volume produced by farmers Purchase price Transport costs Other
80
60
40
Baringo West Pokot
19
2.4 Findings from the Farmer Organization survey
78. The HGSMP provides market opportunities for local suppliers (traders, FOs and 
smallholder farmers) due to the creation of a stable demand market. Unlike traders, 
FOs do not require a tax compliance certificate as per the government procurement 
guidelines. This should make it easier to them to utilize the market opportunity. 
However, the latest external evaluation of the HGSMP35 concluded that it has still 
been difficult for farmers’ groups to supply schools without sustained capacity 
development support. This indicates that the support provided to the FOs under the 
LRP is appropriate, and that WFPs support to the ongoing development of a national 
implementation strategy to guide direct local procurement from smallholderfarmers 
by government institutions is highly relevant.
79. Prior to the LRP, WFP had been working with local farmers in Turkana County to 
aggregate them into FOs. This enables smallholder farmers to better share 
information, aggregate produce and therefore increase their ability to supply on an 
ongoing basis. The Turkana FOs have also received support with storage facilities and 
various trainings to enable them to increase their production, store commodities 
appropriately and market their products at a reasonable price to various markets. In 
contrast, Baringo and West Pokot FOs only started receiving WFP support in 2017 
through funding from the LRP.
2.4.1 Group governance
80. As with the traders, targeting of FOs into the LRP is voluntary, with the exception of 
the FOs chosen for forward contracting (described ahead). Data is therefore collected 
on a rolling basis as FOs express interest. The baseline has therefore used the available 
data from WFP as at May 2018 on 98 FOs (Table 15). The full FO questionnaire shown
in Annex 5 is comprehensive and will be used by the markets
35 Haag, P. (2014), External Evaluation of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Programme 2009-2013.
Key findings from the trader survey:
• Most traders in Baringo already have experience in providing commodities to schools. 
Most have a valid business license as required by the government procurement process 
while a large percentage of surveyed traders in West Pokot reported that they donot.
• For most traders, the WFP training on the government procurement process was their first 
training on the topic.
• Most surveyed traders are currently purchasing commodities from smallholder farmers in 
surplus producing areas of Kenya (outside of the targeted LRP counties) as the prices are 
significantly lower.
• None of the surveyed traders reported buying from FOs.
• Traders have access to credit and transport and they have the expertise required to procure 
large volumes of food and transport them long distances.
• Traders with large warehouses have a competitive advantage of being able to buy larger 
volumes of cereals immediately after harvest when prices are low and store them.
• Currently there is little demand for drought tolerant crop varieties as maize and beans are 
culturally preferred and are cheaper.
• Traders reported that they are able to increase their capacity and sales depending on the 
demand.
20
team for project monitoring. For the purpose of the baseline report, only the key 
variables have been analysed, those of particular relevance for the LRP.
Table 15: Characteristics of Farmer Organizations participating in the 
baseline survey, by county.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Number of surveyed FOs 46 36 16
Membership Total members 978 31,142 424
Average number per FO 21 865 26.5
Median number of members 17 394 17.5
Average % female 74% 56.8% 66.3%
Active members 83.7% 66.2% 91%
81. Many of the FOs are very large, particularly in Turkana, where the average 
membership is 865, compared with 21 members in Baringo, and 26.5 members in 
West Pokot. In Turkana, there is also a large range of membership sizes with the 
median membership still be larger than the other two counties (Table 15). All of the 
FOs reported that the majority of their members were active, and more than half their 
members were female. Figure 8 shows that the majority of Turkana FOs have been 
established for much longer than the FOs in the other two counties. More than half 
(52.8%) have been established for over 20 years with three groups being established 
as far back as the 1960s.
Figure 8: Average time the FOs have been established
82. By contrast, most of the FOs in West Pokot (81.3%) have only been established in the 
last five years. In Baringo just under half (45.7%) the FOs were established in the last 
five years.
2.4.2 Production capacity
83. Table 16 shows that the area under cultivation by FOs in Turkana is larger than in the 
other two counties with an average area of 519.5 acres. This is coherent with the much 
larger membership. The majority of FOs in all three counties reported using certified 
inputs.
Table 16: Planting data by county
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Total area planted by 
members (acres)
Total area 1,200 18,701 634
Average 26 519.5 40
Median 17 253 27.5
% of members using certified/recommended inputs 81.2%% 61.7% 90.1%
% of members having their soil quality tested before
planting
No data 28.6% No data
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80%
60%
40%
0%
≤ 5 years
No. years established
21
84. Figure 9 shows that these include seeds, fertilizer and agrochemicals. FOs in West 
Pokot also reported using certified feed. A third of Turkana FOs reported that 
members test the quality of their soil before planting however there is no data on this 
from Baringo or West Pokot.
Figure 9: Use of certified/recommended inputs
85. Within the three targeted LRP counties, qualitative interviews indicated that the main 
agency supporting farmers, particularly technical support and inputs, is the MoAI. In 
addition, there are some NGOs providing some form of input. Overall, more than a 
quarter of the surveyed FOs reported receiving assistance for seeds (either subsidized 
price or free) – from the MoAI. Some FOs (18.4%) reported using subsidized or free 
fertilizer that was supplied by the government, although in West Pokot, some FOs 
received fertilizer from NGOs. Less than 10 percent of the surveyed FOs reported 
receiving the other forms of support shown in Figure 10. International development 
agencies were the main supporters of construction/rehabilitation of storage facilities, 
particularly in Turkana.
Figure 10: Percentage of surveyed FOs receiving different types of 
assistance, by county
86. Figure 11 shows that the majority of FOs in all three counties reported producing 
maize, while production of their other commodities differs by county. For example, 
most of the FOs in Turkana County and West Pokot reported producing sorghum, 
while this is was not as common in Baringo. Similarly, most FOs in Baringo and West 
Pokot produced beans, while none of the Turkana FOs reported doing so. Table 17 
shows the average quantity of commodities that FOs are expecting from their 
members. Again, it shows that production capacity varies by county.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80%
60%
40%
0%
Subsidized or free 
seeds
Subsidized or free Subsidized or free Subsidized or free Providing or Loans of agricultural
fertilizer farming implements pesticides/herbicides rehabilitating storage tools or work animals
(tools) facilities
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80%
60%
40%
0%
Seeds Fertilizer Agrochemicals Feeds Other
22
Figure 11: Types of crops grown
Table 17: Average quantity of commodity produce expected from all 
members by crop
Commodity Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Maize 30.7 MT 184 MT 17.5 MT
Beans 11.7 MT 4.5 MT
Millet 4.7 MT
Sorghum 5MT 60.1 MT 0.55 MT
Cowpeas 6.4 MT
Vegetables 18.9 MT 2.7 MT
87. The FO survey found that the in Turkana and West Pokot, household members 
consume more than half of their production, with Baringo just under half (Table 18). 
No data was available on the percentage of commodities sold in Turkana, but less 
than half is sold in both Baringo and West Pokot.
Table 18: Estimated use of commodities grown by FOs
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Consume by HH members 46.8% 51.2% 70.6%
Sold 43.9% No data 26.5%
2.4.3 Group assets
88. All the FOs in Turkana County reported that they owned land, compared to only 25 
percent in West Pokot and none in Baringo (Table 19). The average size of land owned 
in Turkana is 512 acres, significantly more than the FOs in West Pokot.
Table 19: Land ownership by FO
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Percentage of FOs owning land 0% 100% 25%
Average size of land owned by FO 512 acres 0.9 acres
89. Less than half the Turkana FOs reported having access to basic equipment such as 
sieves, driers, tarpaulins and shellers. (Figure 12). Rather, 30 percent of the Turkana 
FOs reported having more advanced equipment including weighing scales, 
generators, posho mills, sewing machines and water pumps. Most of the FOs in 
Baringo and West Pokot had sieves but little other equipment but more access to 
storage facilities (Table 20).
Baingo Turkana West Pokot
80%
60%
40%
Maize Sorghum Beans Cowpeas Green grams Vegetables Fruits Other
23
Figure 12: Percentage of surveyed FOs having access to equipment
Table 20: Percentage of surveyed FOs having access to storage facilities
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Access to storage facilities 60.8% 52.8% 87.5%
90. Post-harvest handling methods varied between counties with more Turkana FOs 
reporting using multiple methods (Figure 13).
Figure 13: Percentage of FOs reporting different methods of handling 
their commodity during/after harvest
2.4.4 Marketing
91. Only a quarter of FOs in each county reported aggregating and marketing members’ 
food commodities (Table 21). FOs in Baringo and West Pokot reported that the main 
reasons they do not do so was lack of awareness, along with inadequate production 
(Figure 14). No data was available from Turkana.
Table 21: FO sales of members’ commodities
Baringo Turkana West
Pokot
Percentage of FOs aggregating and marketing members 
food commodities
26.1% 27.8% 25%
Figure 14: Reported reasons for not marketing products though the FO
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Sieve Drier Tarpaulin Sheller Moisture meter Other
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Timely harvest Conduct sorting for the 
produce after harvesting
Placing produce on 
open/bare ground during 
harvesting and drying
Use of tarpaulins during 
harvesting/drying
Baringo West Pokot
80
60
40
Lack of adequate awareness Inadequate production Poor FO governance Other
24
92. The most critical problems for selling commodities on behalf of members as reported 
by the FOs were the limited consumer demand, their inability to meet quality 
demands, and the poor transport infrastructure (Table 22). However, the problems 
differed by county. More than 20 percent of the FOs in Turkana mentioned the 
government trade restrictions (25%), their limited access to credit (22%) and their 
limited access to price information (22%). In West Pokot limited access to price 
information was also a critical problem (25%). The “other” problems listed were that 
members did not trust the FO management and that storage was inadequate.
Table 22: FO reporting of critical problems for selling commodities on 
behalf of members
Percentage of FOs
Baringo Turkana West 
Pokot Total
Limited consumer demand 57.25 8.33 4.17 28.57
Not able to meet quality demands 17.39 13.89 27.08 15.65
Poor transport infrastructure 2.90 19.44 33.33 9.52
Limited access to price information 4.35 22.22 25.00 8.50
Low volume of commodities available from
members 9.42 16.67 2.08 6.80
High cost of collecting/ preparing commodities 
for market 7.97 2.78 10.42 7.14
Government trade restrictions 1.45 25.00 8.33 4.76
Limited access to credit 0.00 22.22 6.25 1.36
Other 0.72 0.00 0.00 1.02
Unpredictable prices 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00
93. Most of the FOs in Baringo and all the FOs in West Pokot reported selling some of 
their commodities in the last year, as did 50 percent of FOs in Turkana. (Table 23). 
Overall, of the FOs that reported selling commodities, members sell around 40-50 
percent of their total production volume through the FO and the rest is consumed by 
the household.
Table 23: FO sale of commodities in last one year
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Percentage of FOs reporting selling 
commodities in the last one year
91.3% 50% 100%
Percentage of total production volume 
members sell through the FO
48% No data 41%
94. In total, 42 FOs in Baringo (91.3%) reported sales of commodities during 2017. The 
total volume of commodities sold was 2,020.4MT from maize, beans, other 
vegetables, fruit and millet, with a total estimated value of KES 16,974,366 (USD
169,744). The reported median volume of sales per FO was 38.9 MT with a median 
value of KES 127,333 (USD 1,273) (Table 24).
25
Table 24: Volume and value of sales by FOs during 2017
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Volume of maize sales 
per FO (MT)
Average 30.7 (n=42) 9.6 (n=8) 392.1 (N=16)
Median 19.8 9.6 12.5
Volume of bean sales 
per FO (MT)
Average 11.9 (n=37)
NIL
128.8 (n=14)
Median 5.1 2.9
Volume of sales of 
other commodities
per FO (MT)
Average 10.1 19.0 12.7
Median 2.5 6.3 1.1
Volume of sales
Total all FOs 2,020.4 MT 176 MT 9,334.3 MT
Median volume 
per FO 38.9 MT 9.3MT 19.1 MT
Value of sales
Total all FOs
KES 
16,974,366
KES 
14,707,250
KES 
24,433,000
USD 169,744 USD 147,073 USD 244,433
Median value 
per FO
KES 127,333 KES 390,000 KES 612,500
USD 1,273 USD 3,900 USD 6,125
95. One hundred percent of West Pokot FOs (n=16) reported sales in 2017, with the total 
volume sold being 9,334.3MT (Table 24). This was from sales of maize and beans, 
with an estimated total value of KES 24,433,000 (USD 244,433). The median volume 
sold per FO was 19.1 MT and the median value of sales was KES 612,500 (USD 6,125) 
(Table 24). The overall results from Baringo and West Pokot counties are each skewed 
by one FO per county selling more than the others, hence the considerable difference 
between the average and median volumes of sales.
96. In Turkana, 19 FOs (50%) reported sales in 2017. The total reported sale volume was
176 MT from the sale of sorghum, cowpeas, maize, maize/sorghum blended flour and 
one FO selling a large volume (7.8MT) of assorted vegetables. The total estimated 
value of sales was KES 14,707,250 (USD 147,073) with a median value of sales per FO 
of KES 390,000 (USD 3,900).
97. The FOs from all counties reported mostly sell directly to consumers or to retail 
traders (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Markets used for sale of FO commodities in the last one year
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Consumers
(individuals) traders traders
Schools Millers Hospitals Brewers WFP NCPB
26
98. At least one FO in each county reported that they have existing contracts to sell 
commodities (Table 25). Five Turkana FOs also reported that they have value addition 
enterprises including sorting, grading, milling, fortification, drying, packaging. This 
accounts for the more advanced equipment reported earlier.
Table 25: FO marketing
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
FOs with signed contracts to sell commodities 1 3 1
FOs that have value addition enterprises No data 5 No data
99. Table 26 shows that currently 20-30 percent of FOs reported monitoring market 
trends or requirements related to product quality. This is consistent with findings 
above (Table 22) that indicate that producing quality products is an issue for FOs.
Table 26: Ensuring quality products for sale
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
FOs reporting monitoring market trends/ 
requirements related to product quality and market
demand
22.4% 27.8% 25%
Out of those who try and ensure quality:
Methods to Use certified seeds 10% 100% 100%
ensure Testing moisture content 0 10% 75%
quality
Clean product, free of foreign matter 90% 33% 50%
standard
Sorting produce after harvest 0 20% 75%
100. Those FOs who reported trying to ensure quality do so by using certified seeds, and/or 
ensuring that the product is clean and free from foreign matter. FOs in West Pokot 
were more likely to use multiple strategies. Since most FOs in Baringo and West Pokot 
do not market their members’ products, ensuring quality is the responsibility of the 
individual farmer.
101. Figures 16 and 17 show that the markets used by FOs – both their traders and their 
buyers are local although the three counties showed different patterns. The majority 
of Baringo FOs work at a ward level, while the rest use some suppliers outside their 
ward but still within the county. FOs in West Pokot buy and sell outside their county, 
while FOs in Turkana reported no external suppliers or buyers. Qualitative interviews 
indicate that FOs have limited networks and therefore will need ongoing support to 
enable them to establish relationships/contacts in other locations.
Figure 16: Location of main suppliers to surveyed FOs
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Within the ward Within the county but Outside the county Outside the country No external suppiers 
outside the ward reported
27
Figure 17: Location of main buyers from the surveyed FOs
2.4.5 Forward delivery contracting of FOs to supplysorghum
102. Qualitative interviews indicate that farmers/FOs face several production challenges 
including erratic rains, high input costs, and the presence of pests. Therefore, for 
famers to be prepared to take the risk of increasing their production and paying for 
the required inputs, they first need to be sure that there is a market for their products. 
To this end, one of the activities of the LRP is to contract FOs to supply sorghumand 
cowpeas to WFP. Forward delivery contracting (FDC) provides a known opportunity 
for farmers and is more likely to result in increased production to meet the 
contractual volume.
103. These contracted commodities will be donated to LRP schools as an introduction to 
the potential of using drought tolerant cereals and pulses in their school meals. The
2016 market assessment in West Pokot36 concluded that forward contracting for 
purchases of sorghum and beans was not feasible in the immediate term since the 
marketable surplus for beans and sorghum was low and not adequate to satisfy the 
local populace, as well as WFP procurement requirements. As the market assessment 
in Turkana concluded that FDC would be possible, this activity of the LRP will only 
be carried out in Turkana County.
104. FOs were selected for FDC based on their production capacity, their agreement to 
WFP’s price, and the presence of the required documentation to comply with WFP’s 
procurement process. In September 2017, WFP signed contracts with nine FOs to 
supply sorghum and cowpeas for Term 1, 2018 to align with the transition to HGSMP. 
The commodities were intended to provide meals for 20 days per term for Terms 1
and 2, 2018 in an effort to increase the diversity of the school meals menus. In total, 
the volume of contracted commodities is 111,460.67 MT of sorghum and 44,650.71
MT of cowpeas, with a total value of KES 16 million (USD 158,200). However, as a 
result of the drought, production was low, and the FOs were unable to supply 
sufficient quantities of commodities in time for Term 1, 2018. WFP therefore provided
1,275 farmers with early maturing cowpea seeds.
105. As of May 2018, the contracts remain in place with a view to harvest in June 2018 and 
the commodities be made available for Term 3, 2018. Three of the nine FOs have since 
declared that they will be unable to fulfil their contract, partly due to low production 
and partly due to lack of required documentation. The volume of commodities
allocated to those three FOs will be assigned to the remaining six FOs if production 
volumes allow.
36 WFP et al (2016) West Pokot County agricultural markets rapid assessment. June 2016.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Within the ward Within the county but Outside the county 
outside the ward
Outside the country No buyers reported
28
106. Previous evaluations have established that existing procurement regulations, 
processes and tools do not fully support the inclusion of smallholder farmers.37 This 
finding is confirmed by this baseline. Although the HGSMP Implementation 
Guidelines38 currently mention that schools should prioritize local farmers to supply 
commodities, the baseline indicate a number of barriers to this. Qualitative interviews 
also indicate that most FOs are currently not in a position to provide commodities on 
a regular basis due to low productivity. They also lack the networks, the logistics 
knowledge and the transport capacity to provide all the required SMP basket items 
and/or to calculate a price for doing so. Until FOs become more proficient at 
marketing/selling their commodities, allowing farmers/FOs to supply only the 
products they produce would be helpful.
2.4.6 Capacity development of FOs
107. A key component of the LRP is to provide training for FOs to increase their production 
and improve their marketing and sales capacity. In the last year, 36.7 percent of FOs 
reported that their committee members had received training, while 60.2 percent of 
FOs reported that their members had received some type of training (Table 27). FOs 
in Turkana were more likely to have received training for their committee members.
Table 27: Training provided to FOs in the last one year
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
FOs reporting their committee members
have been trained
17.4% 72.2% 12.5% 36.7%
Average number of committee members 
trained
3 5 4.5 4
FOs reporting their members have been
trained
37% 75% 93.8% 60.2%
108. FOs reported that training was provided by MoAI but also by several other agencies 
including WFP.39 Figure 18 show the main training topics for committee members 
were group dynamics/governance (in Turkana), and leadership skills (in Baringo). 
Very few FOs in West Pokot reported their committee members received any training. 
However, most FOs in all counties reported that their members received training on 
a range of topics (Table 28).
Figure 18: Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their 
committee members in the past one year
37 SNV (2016), Improving Procurement Tools for Smallholder Farmer Inclusion in Kenya. 38 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme. 39 Other agencies included the Ministry of Social Services, WFP, ChildFund, FAO, GIZ, World Vision International, Action Aid 
and the National Irrigation Board.
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Group dynamics/ 
governance behaviour
Leadership skills Record keeping Other
29
Table 28: Percentage of FOs reporting receiving training for their 
members in the past one year
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Good agronomic practices 21.7 66.7 68.8
Conservation agriculture 21.7 47.2 81.3
Post-harvest handling 13.0 52.8 68.8
Entrepreneurship 21.7 19.4 100.0
Gender in agribusiness 4.3 47.2 62.5
Setting prices for produce 6.5 38.9 50.0
Procurement processes 4.3 19.4 37.5
Record keeping 26.1 25.0 87.5
Aflatoxin awareness 4.3 44.4 25.0
Financial management 17.4 27.8 31.3
Other 13.0 0.0 0.0
109. FOs were asked to nominate additional areas of training for their members. The 
responses were many and varied with the main areas of interest being similar to the 
training already provided under the LRP:
• Baringo: Group dynamics; Marketing and market linkages; Post-harvest 
management; Agribusiness and financial management; Conservation 
agriculture; Increasing productivity and sound agricultural practice
• Turkana: Cooperative management; Good agronomic practices; Marketing and 
market linkages; Post-harvest management; Agribusiness and financial 
management; Aflatoxin prevention
• West Pokot: Group marketing; Financial management and record keeping
110. Additional FO survey data can be found in Annex 14.
Key findings from FO survey:
• Turkana FOs have been established longer than FOs in the other two counties.
• FOs in Baringo and West Pokot reported having few basic production assets while 30% of 
Turkana FOs reported having advanced assets such as generators and grindingmills.
• Some of the Turkana FOs (15%) reporting value addition businesses as part of their 
organization including sorting, grinding and packaging.
• Most of the FOs in each county reported that they do not aggregate members’ commodities 
for sale. This is mainly because of limited awareness and knowledge on how to do so, and 
because of limited consumer demand for their commodities.
• A quarter of FOs in each county reported that they take measures to improve the quality 
of their commodities.
• FOs estimate that more than 50% of member’s production is consumed at home, while 
around 40% is sold.
• Previous evaluations have highlighted the difficulties for FOs in supplying schools, 
indicating that they require ongoing support. They have also established that existing 
government procurement regulations do not fully support the inclusion of smallholder 
farmers.
• Only the FOs in Turkana and Baringo reported that their committee members had received 
training, while FOs in all counties reported that their members had receivedtraining.
30
2.5 Findings from the school survey
111. The key outcomes of the LRP are to improve the cost-effectiveness and timeliness of 
food assistance in schools, and support schools to use nutritionally appropriate, 
diverse school meals menus. The following section reports the school survey data to 
enable a baseline comparison of timeliness, cost-effectiveness and other indicators 
between LRP targeted and schools that are not participating in the LRP programme. 
The following findings come from the baseline survey completed in May 2018 
covering 192 school (96 LRP targeted schools, and 96 non-LRP targeted comparison 
schools).
112. Table 29 shows the characteristics of the surveyed schools. Overall, the majority of 
both LRP and non-LRP schools in all three counties are day schools (~62%) while just 
over a third (34+%) have both day and boarding students. were matched on 
enrolment numbers.40
Table 29: Characteristics of surveyed schools, by county
Type of 
school
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Day school 45% 55% 50% 50% 56.5% 43.5% 61.5% 62.5%
Boarding 
school 100% 75% 25% 4.2% 1%
Day +
Boarding 58.8% 41.2% 37.5% 62.5% 46.5% 53.5% 34.3% 36.5%
Average 
enrolment 309 234 383 304 342 347 346 300
113. Since the proportions of day and boarding schools are similar in LRP and non-LRP 
schools the presence or not of boarding facilities makes no statistical difference to the 
baseline results (p>0.05).41 Similarly, the LRP and non-LRP schools are similar in 
terms of school enrolment (p>0.05) which is to be expected, since the schools
2.5.1 Provision of schoolmeals
114. Table 30 shows the main source of the food commodities for the school lunches. As 
previously mentioned, although the LRP targeted schools in Baringo and WestPokot 
were handed over to the MoE in September 2017 with the expectation of transitioning 
from in-kind food assistance to the HGSMP, as a result of the 2017 drought all the 
LRP have been receiving in-kind food assistance from the MoE. This decision was 
taken because of rising food prices, and the MoE deciding that it would be more cost￾effective to utilize food from the central stores. This has therefore delayed the 
transition of the LRP targeted schools to the HGSMP model. Table 26 therefore shows 
that all the LRP schools received in-kind food from MoE or from WFP. Thenon-LRP 
comparison schools in Baringo and West Pokot had transitioned to the HGSMP 
earlier and therefore continued to purchase their food through the local traders. Non￾LRP schools in Turkana were in the process of transitioning and continued to 
purchase their commodities through WFP cash transfers to schools.
40 Levene’s test for equality of variances: M = 302, SD = 152.9 for non LRP schools and M = 346, SD = 125.4 for LRP schools, t 
(189) = 2.2, p > 0.05 41 Levene’s test for equality of variances: M = 1.73, SD = 0.961 for non LRP schools and M = 1.73, SD = 0.946 for LRP schools, t 
(189) = 0.021, p > 0.05.
31
Table 30: Main source of food for school lunches (Term 1, 2018)
Main source of 
food
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Directly 
provided by the 
MoE or from
WFP
29 34 33 96
Through MoE 
funding
(HGSMP)
29 33 62
WFP funding
(Cash for 
schools)
34 34
Total 29 29 34 34 33 33 96 96
15.1% 15.1% 17.7% 17.7% 17.2% 17.2% 50% 50%
115. In addition to the above, some schools - LRP (25%) and non-LRP (14.6%) - reported 
receiving food from other sources including from NGOs, from churches, from the 
school gardens/farms, from parents, from the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) and 
from the County Government. These may include additional cereals and pulses or 
vegetables or fruits that can complement the meal.
116. Surveyed teachers were asked to report if the food procurement process was 
completed before the start of Term 1, 2018. Since the LRP schools received their food 
directly from the MoE, no procurement was required on their part, hence LRP schools 
are not included in Figure 19 below. Figure 19 shows that overall, 76 percent of the 
non-LRP schools using either HGSMP or CTS modality completed the procurement 
on time. Turkana non-LRP schools performed the best, with 91.2 percent of them 
procuring on time, compared with 75.8 percent of non-LRP schools in West Pokot 
and 58.6 percent of non-LRP schools in Baringo.
Figure 19: Percentage of schools reporting procurement completed before 
start of Term 1, 2018
117. Figure 20 shows that lower percentages of LRP schools reported receiving their food 
for Term 1, 2018 before the start of term compared to the comparison non-LRP 
schools. Overall, 19.8 percent of LRP schools and 57.3 percent of non-LRP schools 
received their food before the start of the Term 1. For the schools receiving theirfood 
late, Table 31 shows that the average delay was 16 days in LRP schools, and 6 days in 
non-LRP schools. Interviews with MoE personnel indicate that the food was delayed 
due to lack of transport to move food from the county/sub-county warehouses to the 
schools.
Non-LRP Schools
80%
60%
40%
LRP Target = 90%
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
32
Figure 20: Percentage of school where food was delivered before the start 
of Term 1, 2018
Table 31: Average number of days after start of Term 1, 2018 that food was 
delivered
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Average number of 
days delayed 21 9 3 1 24 9 16 6
118. Since the school survey took place in the first week of Term 2, 2018, the team checked 
the food stores and observed whether food had been delivered to schools for Term 2. 
Figure 21 shows that most schools in Turkana County, both LRP (79.4%) and non￾LRP (76.5%) received their food for Term 2, 2018 ahead of the school opening. This 
was not the case however for Baringo and West Pokot.Interviews with MoE personnel 
indicate that for LRP schools, the delay was the same as for Term 1, i.e. delay in the 
logistics of moving the food from the county warehouses to the schools. For non-LRP 
schools, the delay was intentional as there was still food remaining in the school stores 
from Term 1. There is a statistically significant difference in the delay of delivery of 
food between LRP and non-LRP schools.42
Figure 21: Percentage of school where food was delivered before the start 
of Term 2, 2018
42 Levene’s test for equality of variances: LRP schools (M = 15.61, SD = 13) and non LRP schools (M = 6, SD = 9.5), t (189) = 5.8, 
p < 0.001
LRP School Non LRP School
80%
60%
40%
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Target = 90%
LRP School Non LRP School
LRP Target = 90%
80%
60%
40%
0%
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
33
119. Previous evaluations of the school meal programme43 have shown that there are 
challenges to the government providing in-kind food to schools in a timely manner 
and the above findings are no exception. The HGSMP puts the responsibility of 
procurement into the hands of the schools and the task of food delivery to the local 
traders. In general, this results in more timely delivery of commodities to schools.44
120. For Term 1, 2018 most schools reported that they used only one supplier to provide 
all the food for the school meals. This is consistent with the HGSMPImplementation 
Guidelines45 that indicate that schools should select the supplier that provides the 
lowest cumulative price for the commodities required for the school meal. Qualitative 
interviews with traders, farmers and with MoA personnel indicate that requesting one 
supplier to provide all the commodities needed for school meals each term is a barrier 
to schools buying from farmers or FOs as they are generally only able to provide the 
items they produce, and they do not have the transport capacity, the financial/credit 
means or the market linkages to easily procure the other items in large quantities 
(including salt and oil).
121. Table 32 shows the overall baseline picture of timeliness of food delivery to schools. 
Given that the LRP schools were not operating under the same modality as the non￾LRP schools as planned, there is a clear difference in the timeliness of delivery 
between LRP and non-LRP schools, with significantly less LRP schools receiving their 
food in a timeline manner. Once the LRP schools’ transition to the HGSMP as 
originally intended and receive ongoing support on the procurement process through 
the LRP project, it is anticipated that the LRP schools will improve their performance 
regarding timeliness.
Table 32: Summary of baseline findings on timeliness
Target LRP
schools
Non-LRP
comparison schools
Percentage of schools procuring food before 
the beginning of Term 1, 2018 90% N/A 76%
Percentage of schools with food delivered
before the beginning of Term 1, 2018 90% 19.8% 57.3%
Percentage of schools with food delivered 
before the beginning of Term 2, 2018 90% 34.4% 28.1%
122. Qualitative interviews indicate that HGSMP schools sometimes intentionally delay 
procurement to later in the term if there is still food in stock. For this reason, the 
baseline team has developed a timeliness index that considers, not only when food 
was delivered but whether it affected the ability to provide school meals. This will be 
useful for comparison at endline when both LRP and non-LRP schools are using the 
HGSMP. The formula for the Timeliness Score can be seen below. The ideal valuefor 
the timeliness score is 1oo percent. This equates to no delay in food delivery and no 
days when meals were not provided.
43 Including Haag, P. (2014), External Evaluation of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Programme 2009-2013; Dunn, S. & 
Kariuki, W (2015) External Evaluation of WFP’s Cash Transfers to Schools Pilot Project, March 2013 - March 2015. Isiolo Country, 
Kenya.
44 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme. 45 Ibid.
34
123. Table 33 shows that non-LRP schools in Turkana scored perfectly at baseline (99.1%) 
while the lowest rating was obtained by LRP schools in Baringo (77.9%) and West 
Pokot (79%). There is a statistically significant difference (p<0.001) in thetimeliness 
score in LRP compared with non LRP schools47 with the non-LRP schools having a 
higher (better) timeliness score than the LRP schools. There is also a statistically 
significant difference (p<0.001) in the Timeliness Score between counties.48 Turkana 
scored the highest (97.5%) followed by Baringo (84.9%) and West Pokot (82.6%).
Table 33: Baseline Timeliness Score
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Timeliness Score
77.9% 91.8% 95.9% 99.1% 79% 86.2% 84.7% 92.5%
84.9% 97.5% 82.6% 88.6%
124. 60 percent of surveyed schools reported that they provided a school meal every school 
day during Term 1, 2018 (Table 34). Overall, a larger percentage of non-LRP schools 
reported providing a meal every school day during Term 1, 2018 although the 
difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05).49
Table 34: Percentage of schools reporting providing a school meal every 
school day during Term 1, 2018
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Schools providing
lunch every school
day in Term 1, 2018
48.3% 75.9% 61.8% 88.2% 63.6% 45.5% 58.3% 69.8%
125. On average, schools reported not providing food on 5-6 days during Term 1, 2018 
(Table 35) although there were large differences between schools. The main reason 
given by both LRP and non-LRP targeted schools for not providing meals was that no 
food was available (Table 36). Non-LRP schools in Baringo also said they sometimes 
there was no one to prepare the meal.
46 For Term 1, 2o18: Term days = 70, maximum delayed delivery days = 70, maximum number of days of lunch missed = 70 47 The Levene’s test for equality of variances indicates the following measures: (M = 92.5, SD = 11.9) for non LRP schools and (M
= 84.7, SD = 13.0) for LRP schools, t (189) = 4.328, p < 0.001. 48 Results from one way analysis of variance indicate that the differences in the Timeliness Score in both LRP and non LRP schools 
is statistically significant across the three study counties - F(2,188) = 33.8, p = 0.000. 49 a). While testing the difference between LRP and non LRP schools, it was established that χ(1) = 3.096, p = 0.078. This shows 
that there is no statistically significant association between the school LRP status and provision of lunch. b). Similarly, while 
testing the difference between different counties, it was established that χ(1) = 5.774, p = 0.056. This shows that there is no 
statistically significant association between the county and provision of lunch.
Timeliness Score = (FD – DD – ML)/ (FD) * 100
Where:
FD = Full days (Term days + maximum number of delayed delivery days + maximum number of 
days of lunch missed)46
DD = Actual number of delayed delivery days
ML = Actual number of missed school meal (lunch) days
35
Table 35: Number of days schools reported NOT providing school meal
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Mean 9.6 2.9 2.6 0.5 5.9 10.1 5.8 4.5
Maximum 32 21 24 10 45 42 45 42
Grouped 
median 2 1.5 1.8 0.1 2.6 3.5 1.4 0.4
Table 36: Reasons for not providing school meals
Average days 
missed due 
to…
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
No food
available 10 days 2 days 3 days 0 6 days 10 days 6 days 5 days
No one to 
prepare meals 0 1 day 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not enough
water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Not enough 
firewood 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poor condition
of kitchen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
126. Head Teachers were also asked to report on the quality of the food received, and the 
majority reported no problems with the food, either from the MoE or from the local 
traders (Table 37). However, several LRP schools in Baringo County (24.1%) reported 
received food that was infested with weevils, and 34.5% (n=10) reported other 
concerns with their food related to the quality of beans received.
Table 37: Percentage of schools experiencing problems with food 
commodities received
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Bags arrived in poor 
condition
3.4% 0% 0% 5.9% 0% 3% 3.1% 1%
Food was infested 24.1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 9.1% 10.4% 0%
Incorrect amount arrived 
(i.e. not as ordered)
6.9% 0% 5.9% 0% 0% 0% 4.2% 0%
Supplier refused to bring
food directly to the school
0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0%
Other 34.5% 3.4% 5.9% 0% 12.1% 3% 16.7% 2.1%
127. As part of the survey, the enumeration team asked about the volume of cereals and 
pulses received by LRP and non-LRP schools during Term 1, 2018 and checked the 
SMP documents to confirm the answers. Overall, the volume of cereals and the pulses 
received by LRP and non-LRP schools are not significantly different (Table 38). Over 
a 70 day school term period (Term 1, 2018) each child should receive 13.8kg of food 
based on the SMP ration.50 The mean volume of food per child is slightly less, around
13 kg which confirms qualitative interview findings that schools are trying to stretch
50 The recommended SMP ration provides a total of 197g per child per day = 150g cereals, 40g pulses, 5g oil and 2g salt.
36
their resources into the next term because of the uncertainty of when the next tranche 
of funds will arrive. Overall, there was no statistical difference between what children
in LRP and non-LRP schools received. This is to be expected as both LRP and non￾LRP schools should be using the same WFP basket to calculate how much food is 
required per term.51
Table 38: Mean volume of food per child received for Term 1, 2018
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Mean volume of 
food per child
LRP schools 12.8 14 11.6 12.8
Control schools 16.1 12.9 9.6 12.9
128. In addition to the volume, schools reported the value of the commodities they bought 
for Term 1, 2018. However, since LRP schools received their food from the MoE, no 
cost data was available. Non-LRP schools receive 10-13 shilling per child per day to 
provide food under the HGSMP. The cost per child varies depending on the 
remoteness of the school. Qualitative interviews with MoE personnel indicate that 
HGSMP schools receive money twice a year, the first coming in time for Term 1, while 
the second tranche is usually received late in Term II. Schools therefore try and 
stretch the Term 1 food well into Term 2. This may account for schools providing less 
than the ideal amount of food per child per day.
129. Table 39 shows that some schools (<10%) reported paying additional monies tohave 
their food for SMP transported, unloaded or stored. Table 40 shows that on average 
the LRP and non-LRP schools paid similar amounts of additional monies for Term1,
2018 (~KES 12,000 /USD120). LRP schools reported paying for food to be unloaded, 
while non-LRP schools did not. Under the HGSMP, the winning supplier is tasked 
not only with procuring the food but also delivering, unloading and stacking it in the 
food store.
Table 39: Number of schools where teachers reported paying additional 
monies for SMP
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Number of schools 
paying additional 
monies
N 2 1 4 0 2 5 8 6
% 6.9% 3.4% 11.8% 0 6% 15.2% 8.3% 6.3%
Table 40: Additional monies paid by teachers (KES) for Term 1, 2018
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Food 
transport 1,500 10,000 4,250 5,620 5,000 5,620
Food 
storage
Food 
unloading 1,500 2,400 2,220
Other 3,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 6,500
Total 3,000 3,000 17,400 0 4,250 15,620 12,220 12,120
51 There is insignificant variation in the mean volume of food per child received for Term 1, 2018 between LRP schools (M = 12.9, 
SD = 11.1) and non LRP schools (M = 12.8, SD = 4.8), t (189) = 0.076, p >0.05 as indicated by Levene’s test for equality of 
variances.
37
130. Given that LRP schools did not conduct the procurement process for Term 1, 2018 it 
was not possible to calculate the cost per child of school meals in the targeted LRP 
schools based on actual costs. Instead the Cost-effectiveness Score described below 
has been calculated using the actual volumes of commodities received by schools, ab 
the market values of commodities obtained by the matched non-LRP schools.
131. The cost-effectiveness score equates to the cost of feeding one child per day (in KES). 
It should be noted that the costs below for the non-LRP schools are all inclusive 
(commodities, transport and delivery) while for LRP schools, the cost excludes the 
cost of the government’s food purchase (although most is donated), transport and 
delivery making them not directly comparable. At endline, the Cost-effectiveness 
Score will again be computed on volumes for comparison, and assuming the LRP 
schools’ transition to HGSMP, the Score can also be calculated based on actualcosts.
132. Table 41 shows that overall, the cost of providing food to schools in the three targeted 
LRP counties was between 10-13 KES per child per day, with Baringo being the most 
expensive at 12.1 KES. This finding is consistent with the 2016 market assessment52
that found that East Pokot sub-county will need to have a higher transfer value when 
transitioning to HGSMP due to the risks to proper market functioning. It is also 
consistent with the Baringo traders ranking high transport costs as the main barrier 
to grain trading (Table 13). There is currently no statistical difference in the direct 
cost of feeding one child in LRP and non LRP schools (p>0.05)53 or between counties 
(p=0.058).54
Table 41: Baseline Cost-effectiveness Score55
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Cost-effectiveness 
Score
11.5 12.7 10.9 9.8 9.6 8.9 10.7 10.4
12.1 10.4 9.3 10.5
2.5.2 School menus
133. To support the introduction of locally produced foods into the school meals, the LRP 
includes nutrition training at county and school level to provide awareness on the 
nutritional benefits of locally produced drought tolerant crops as well as training on 
the benefits of dietary diversification. The LRP also supports the development of more 
diversified school menus to include the locally produced crops.
52 WFP et al (2016) Baringo County (East Pokot and Marigat sub-counties) Market Assessment. World Food Programme, Baringo 
County Government, NDMA and World Vision. Kenya 53 The Levene’s test for equality of variances indicates the following measures – (M = 10.4, SD = 4.1) for non LRP schools and (M
= 10.7, SD = 8.5) for LRP schools, t (189) = -0.282, p > 0.05. 54 Results from one way analysis of variance indicate that the differences in the direct cost of feeding one child in both LRP and 
non LRP schools is statistically insignificant across the three study counties - F(2,188) = 2.89, p = 0.058 55 The Cost-effectiveness Score for LRP schools does not include the cost of the government’s purchase of commodities, or their 
transport and delivery. The CES for the non-LRP schools is all inclusive (cost of commodities, transport and delivery).
Cost-effectiveness Score = GMC * VCPD
Where:
GMC = ATA/ATV
VCPD = VCPT/DLS
Actual grouped median cost = actual total cost of commodities/ 
actual total volume of commodities
Volume per child per day = Volume per child per term/ number of 
days lunch is served
38
134. At the time of the baseline survey, FAO in collaboration with nutrition sector partners 
were updating the National Food Composition tables which provide detailed nutrient 
analysis of a variety of food and drinks consumed in Kenya. WFP had alsocompleted 
a detailed anti-nutrient analysis of sorghum and cowpeas, and is developing
guidelines for the management of anti-nutrients56 at food preparation level. This is 
important as some of the proposed drought tolerant crops including sorghum, finger 
millet and cowpeas contain anti-nutrients such as phytates, polyphenols and 
digestion-inhibiting enzymes. WFP has also put together a variety of recipes for the 
preparation of sorghum and cowpeas, and these guidelines and recipes will be tested 
in schools in Turkana in August 2018.
135. Figure 22 shows that in general, non-LRP schools reported using four commodities 
for their school lunches – maize, beans, oil and salt (one menu). For Term 1, 2018
LRP schools had more diverse menus due to the commodities provided by the MoE. 
LRP schools received rice, wheat, beans, yellow split peas, oil and salt as these were 
commodities that MoE had for distribution during the drought. None of the surveyed 
schools reported using any drought tolerant crops (sorghum, cowpeas, green gram or 
millet).
Figure 22: Percentage of schools reporting use of various food 
commodities for school lunches during Term 1, 2018
136. The LRP project plans to support schools to provide more diverse school meal menus. 
The Head Teacher or the teacher responsible for the school meals were therefore 
asked if they had done any work with WFP in the last two years to revise their school 
lunch menus. Figure 23 shows that 80 percent of LRP schools (79.4%) in Turkana 
County reported that they had either already changed their menus or were currently 
in discussion with WFP on how to do so. Overall, 25 percent of LRP schools said they 
had already changed their menus compared to 4 percent of Non-LRP schools. 
However, this change in menu is not as a result of the LRP since nutrition activities 
have not yet started. Schools reported the change in menu brought about by the MoE 
providing a wider range of food commodities for Term 1, 2018 as described above.
56 Anti-nutrients inhibit the absorption or digestion of nutrients from food. For example, phytates inhibit the absorption of several 
minerals including iron. Similarly, polyphenols – including tannin – which is present in finger millet, may also play a role in 
reduced iron absorption. http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0818e/T0818E0j.html
LRP Non-LRP
Rice Maize Wheat Beans Yellow split 
peas
Oil Salt
39
No Yes we are in discussion Yes we changed our menus
80%
60%
40%
0%
Figure 23: Percentage of schools reporting changing their school meals 
menus
LRP Non-LRP
Baringo
LRP Non-LRP
Turkana
LRP Non-LRP
West Pokot
LRP Non-LRP
TOTAL
137. Figure 24 shows activities conducted in schools to promote dietary diversity. Most 
schools already provide nutrition education for the children as it is included in the 
school curriculum, but less than 10 percent of schools conduct any other activity to 
promote dietary diversity. In addition, all HGSMP schools (including the LRP 
schools) have received training on the HGSMP which includes a module on nutrition.
Figure 24: Percentage of schools reporting activities to promote dietary 
diversity
138. The promotion of dietary diversity and the inclusion of locally produced, drought 
tolerant crops are new for the SMP and key informant interviews with MoE and MoAI 
personnel indicate that it is needed, to complement the work already being done 
related to procurement and the choice of commodities that schools will request. 
However, key informant interviews with school personnel made it clear that price 
remains the largest determinant of what commodities are purchased/requested by 
schools for the SMP.
139. The current transfer rate per child for the HGSMP is calculated on the original WFP 
school meals ration of maize, beans, oil and salt. Currently therefore the HGSMP rate 
is insufficient to allow schools to purchase any commodities that cost more than maize 
and beans. The MoE, with WFP’s support plan to undertake a review of the transfer
rates once the LRP supported market assessments are carried out later in the year. 
Until the schools have additional funding it is unlikely that drought tolerant crops will 
be purchased by schools. Interviews with MoE personnel also indicate that school 
enrolments are increasing but the SMP value provided to schools is not being updated 
accordingly resulting in less funding than is required per school.
2.5.3 Capacity building inschools
140. In collaboration with the MoE, through the LRP, WFP has trained school teachers, 
parents, and County Education Officers in Baringo and West Pokot on the HGSMP’s
LRP Non-LRP
Provide more than one type Use drought tolerant crops Provide nutrition education Use food from a school 
of school meal for lunch as part of school meal for the children garden in school meals
40
CTS model in order to enhance accountability and transparency in school-based food 
procurement process.
141. WFP and MoE also conducted training for the Schools Board of Management 
Chairperson, the Head Teacher and the School Meals Teacher in Baringo and West 
Pokot at the end of 2017 in preparation for their transition to the HGSMP. The 
numbers of personnel trained can be found in Table 42. In total, 721 personnel have 
been trained, 19.4% of whom were women.
Table 42: Training for school personnel in LRP targeted counties, 2017
County Date of training Number trained
Male Female
Baringo 20-26 November 2017 280 60
West Pokot 27 November – 3 December 2017 301 80
TOTAL 721
142. Table 43 shows that both LRP and comparison non-LRP schools reported receiving 
training on HGSMP and on the government tendering process. More LRP schools 
reported that the School Meals Committee members had received training than in the 
non-LRP schools. Training for school personnel was also conducted in Turkana 
earlier in 2017 with funding from other donors (non-LRP funding).
Table 43: School personnel reporting receiving training on the HGSMP 
from WFP/MoE since 2016
Personnel
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Head teacher 79.3 96.6 97.1 64.7 66.7 90.9 81.3 83.3
Teachers 44.8 72.4 47.1 14.7 39.4 81.8 43.8 55.2
SMC members 13.8 41.4 55.9 2.9 15.2 12.1 29.2 17.7
SMC Chair 31.0 86.2 91.2 2.9 48.5 72.7 58.3 41.7
143. With the ongoing receipt of MoE in-kind food and the final distribution of USDA￾funded commodities, it is unlikely that the LRP targeted schools will transition to the 
HGSMP until at least Term 3, 2018 if not Term 1, 2019.
144. Qualitative interviews indicate that aside from price, the other significant challenge 
to introducing drought tolerant croups into the school meals menus will be meal 
preparation. To reduce the effect of the anti-nutrients, additional preparation steps 
will be required. Depending on the commodity this is likely to include soaking (which 
uses more water) or fermentation (longer preparation time), or longer cooking (using 
more cooking fuel and more time). Cooks will therefore need additional training on 
preparing new commodities. To date, WFP has provided some training for school 
cooks on good nutrition and menus, particularly in Baringo and West Pokot. However 
additional, practical training on the preparation of different recipes will be required.
145. As with the other key LRP outcomes of timeliness and cost-effectiveness thebaseline 
team have developed a scoring system for evaluating whether the LRPs nutrition 
outcome has been achieved. The Nutrition Score considers three components:
41
whether a child receives a meal every school day (actual days served), in the 
appropriate quantity (volume) and whether there is some diversity in the school 
menu (menu diversity). Each of these components are then given equal weighting to 
form a measure of good nutrition. The ideal value for the Nutrition Score is 1oo 
percent. This equates to the children receiving the correct volume of food (197g),57 
every school day, along with a different meal each day of the school week (a maximum
of 5 meal options).
146. Table 44 shows that at baseline, the average score was 67.1 percent with LRP schools 
scoring slightly higher (67.4%) than non-LRP schools although the difference is not
significant (p>0.05).58 Since the LRP nutrition work has not yet commenced, the 
difference is due to the more diverse basket of commodities that MoE provided to 
LRP schools due to the drought response. The survey results described earlier indicate
that there was no significant difference in LRP and non-LRP schools’ volume of
commodities provided to children or the number of days that schools missed meals.
Table 44: Baseline Nutrition Score
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non- LRP
Nutrition 
Score
66.6% 69.7% 70.5% 70.6% 64.8% 60.5% 67.4% 66.9%
68.2% 70.6% 62.7% 67.1%
147. The overall aim of the LRP is to improve the effectiveness of food assistance through 
local and regional procurement. To measure whether this has been achieved (at 
endline), an overall Impact Score has been calculated based on the three intended 
programme outcomes: cost-effectiveness, timeliness and nutrition. The calculation of 
the Impact Score can be seen below.
148. Overall, the benchmarking of the Impact Score at baseline (Table 45) shows that non￾LRP schools are currently performing better in all counties. This is largely due to the 
non-LRP schools’ better results on timeliness and cost effectiveness. The difference
57 197g = 150g cereals, 40g pulses, 5g oil and 2g salt. 58 The Levene’s test for equality of variances indicates the following measures – (M = 66.9, SD = 7.5) for non LRP schools and (M
= 67.4, SD = 7.7) for LRP schools, t(189) = -0.391, p > 0.05.
Nutrition Score = Av ((TVCD/150), (TVPD/40), (TVOD/5), (TVCS/2))*W1/3, 
(DLS/70)* W1/3, (MEN/3)* W1/3
Where:
Av Average
TVCD Total volume of cereals per child per day fed 
TVPD Total volume of pulses per child per day fed 
TVOD Total volume of oil per child per day fed 
TVSD Total volume of salt per child per day fed 
DLS Actual days lunch was provided
MEN Menu items diversity
W1/3 1/3 weighting
Impact Score = (TS + NS - CS)/187*(100)
Where:
TS = Timeliness Score 
NS = Nutrition Score
CS = Cost Effectiveness Score
42
is statistically significant (p<0.01)59 and primarily due to the late transition of the
LRP schools to the HGSMP. There is also statistically significant difference between
counties (p<0.001), with schools in Turkana currently ranked as the best performers
in the three outcome areas, with West Pokot performing the poorest.60
Table 45: Baseline Impact Score
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Impact 
Benchmark Score
71.1% 79.6% 83.2% 85.5% 71.8% 73.7% 75.6% 79.7%
75.4% 84.3% 72.7% 77.6%
149. Qualitative interviews with MoE personnel indicate the LRP support that will be 
provided to farmers and FOs under the LRP is well received. The main concern of 
MoE stakeholders was that traders already have the capacity to complete the required 
tender application and also have the networks that enable them to provide 
commodities to schools at a lower price. Stakeholder were therefore uncertain how 
the schools can support farmers/FOs to enter the market.
150. Additional school survey data can be found in Annex 15.
151. Overall, the main factors identified by stakeholder as having the potential to affect 
the results of the LRP are listed below. All these areas are already incorporated in the 
support that will be provided through the LRP.
59 The Levene’s test for equality of variances indicates the following measures – (M = 79.71, SD = 9.59) for non LRP schools and 
(M = 75.61, SD = 10.02) for LRP schools, t (189) = 2.889, p <0.01. 60 Results from one way analysis of variance indicate a statistically significant difference across the three counties - F(2,188) = 
32.7, p = 0.000. Turkana scored the highest (84.3%) followed by Baringo (75.4%) and West Pokot (72.7%).
Key findings from the school survey:
• The 2017 drought resulted in the LRP schools not transitioning to the HGSMP as planned 
and receiving in-kind support from the MoE instead.
• As a result, there was a statistically significant difference in the timeliness of delivery of 
food assistance to LRP and non-LRP schools for Term 1, 2018, with non-LRP schools 
performing better.
• Overall, 60% of schools reported providing a school meal every school day again with non￾LRP schools performing better.
• Some quality concerns were reported primarily with the beans in LRP schools. No quality 
concerns were reported in non-LRP schools.
• On average, the cost of the school meal in Baringo is 12 KES/child/day, higher than in 
Turkana and West Pokot where the average was 10 KES/child/day.
• Most schools reported conducting nutrition education for the children.
• The LRP schools reported consuming a greater diversity of foods for their school meals, 
primarily because the MoE provided a variety of commodities through their drought relief. 
However, there was no statistically significant difference in the Nutrition Score of LRP and 
non-LRP schools.
43
• Adequate training provided to schools
• MoE monitoring of the programme
• Clear implementation of the procurement process
• Clear guidance on how to prioritize famers into the procurement process
• The price of drought tolerant commodities and the value of the HGSMP transfer
• Training provided to cooks on ways to prepare the new commodities, and
• Improving the linkages between farmers, traders and schools
152. The full LRP PMP showing the baseline values of all the LRP indicators up to March 
31, 2018 can be found in Annex 16.
3 CONCLUSIONS
153. The LRP offers an important opportunity to ensure that the targeted schools in 
Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot transition smoothly to the HGSMP. It also provides
a starting point for WFP to work with farmers and FOs in Baringo and West Pokot and 
expand its work in Turkana.
3.1 Are the LRP activities likely to result in an effective programme?
154. The results of the baseline indicate that the activities outlined in the LRP project 
document are likely to result in effective support to LRP schools for transitioning to 
the HGSMP. This should result in improved cost-effectiveness and timeliness of food 
assistance to the targeted schools.
155. In addition, the inclusion of nutrition activities at school level should contribute to 
school personnel having a greater understanding of the importance of dietary 
diversity for good growth and development. If schools decide to request traders to 
provide a greater range of commodities for the school meals, this will also contribute 
to the nutritional status of the school children. The baseline has however, identified 
two key challenges to the uptake of more diverse school lunch menus: the price of 
locally grown, drought tolerant commodities compared with maize and beans, and 
the preparation that those commodities require.
156. While the recent market assessments indicate that the market supply to all three 
targeted LRP counties will support the transition to HGSMP, the support provided 
through the LRP will be critical for enabling local farmers, through FOs, to participate 
in the school meals market. Currently the FO capacity is low, particularly in Baringo 
and West Pokot where this component of work is new. Many of the targeted FOs do 
not yet aggregate and sell their members commodities so they will require a 
significant level of support. Further, although the HGSMP guidelines indicate a 
preference for supply by local farmers in reality this is difficult for several reasons. As 
a result, currently the schools are being supplied by local traders. The upcoming MoAI
procurement framework should help to address this issue, although it is likely to take 
longer than the LRP timeframe to address the barriers hindering farmer’s 
participation in the school feeding programme.
3.2 Are the LRP activities likely to result in an efficient programme?
157. WFP has put in more than a decade of capacity building efforts for the MoE on 
HGSMP with positive results. This is the penultimate handover of counties and there
44
is nothing to indicate that the LRP target counties/sub-counties will not also 
transition smoothly.
158. The baseline finds that the procurement of commodities by traders is predominantly 
done within Kenya with traders in border areas sometimes purchasing from 
neighbouring markets in Uganda, as well as Ethiopia and Tanzania. The transitionof 
the LRP schools to the HGSMP therefore fits with the overall local and regional 
procurement direction of the school meals programme in Kenya. Local procurement 
will be a cost-efficient alternative to international procurement and transport and will 
result in multiplier effects both for the local economy of the targeted county and for 
the Kenyan economy.
159. Supporting LRP schools to transition to the HGSMP should also result in a more 
efficiently operated programme. While the LRP schools remain on in-kind assistance, 
one of the current inefficiencies is the transport of commodities from the government 
stores to the schools. This also timeliness consequences as the county authorities lack 
the logistics capacity to deliver to all their schools in a timely manner. Giving this 
responsibility to local traders or FOs should alleviate this issue.
3.3 Is the LRP likely to have an unintended positive or negative outcomes 
or impact?
160. Interviews with key stakeholders were overwhelmingly positive about the change to 
the HGSMP citing improved timeliness and economic benefits to local communities. 
The baseline did not identify any potential unintended negative consequences of the 
LRP. However, it was made clear by several stakeholders that the procurement 
process followed by the HGSMP schools needs to be done in a very transparent, well￾advertised way. Some stakeholders felt that schools were currently advertising within 
a very small geographic area that does not fully allow for competitive bidding. The 
LRP schools may need ongoing support on the procurement process once they 
transition to the HGSMP to ensure that procurement is carried out as per the HGSMP 
Implementation Guidelines.61
3.4 Are the results of the LRP likely to be sustainable?
161. The findings of the baseline indicate that some LRP results are likely to be more 
sustainable than others. Intended results in the schools – the main impact area of the 
project, are likely to be sustained. However, any progress made with FOs will require
ongoing support that may span beyond the initial project period of two years.
162. Capacity building: WFP Kenya’s past record successfully building the capacity of 
the MoE to take over the school meals programme is a strong indicator of future 
success in this area, and the accelerated transition plan for handover is a testament 
to this. Previously, when counties were handed over to the MoE, WFP continued to 
provide technical support for two years. From the handover of the LRP schools in 
September 2017, this support reduced to one year, as the MoE now has the experience 
and capacity to implement the programme. Financially the MoE increased the budget 
allocation to school feeding for SY 2017/18 and this is expected to increase again in 
FY 2018/19 to enable full handover and implementation.
163. Schools: The support provided to schools through the LRP is likely to be sustainable 
since the Government of Kenya already implements the HGSMP in the majority of
61 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
45
counties. The technical support that will be provided to school personnel in the first￾year post-handover will help ensure that schools have the capacity to implement the 
HGSMP in an appropriate way. The key factors that are likely to affect the 
sustainability of the school level results are if/when the LRP schools’ transition to the 
HGSMP, the value of HGSMP allocations to schools, and whether those allocations 
are distributed in a timely manner.
164. Traders and local FOs: Although capacity support to local farmers is in the early 
stages in Baringo and West Pokot, WFP has done considerable work with farmers in 
Turkana County. Experience shows that improving farmer capacity takes time, longer 
than the duration of the LRP. Although the short duration of the LRP is unlikely to be 
conducive with sustainable change in production the evaluation finds that the work 
is needed. Overall, the LRP should result in sustained improved awareness for FO 
members on the opportunity that the HGSMP presents, the importance of price 
negotiation and possible new markets for the sale of their products.
165. Forward delivery contracting of FOs in Turkana introduces schools to the potential of 
using locally produced, drought tolerant crops. However, unless schools can afford to 
buy sorghum and cowpeas post-FDC, any interest in these commodities for school 
meals is likely to wane. Improved nutrition is unlikely to be a strong enough factor 
for schools to purchase a more diverse range of commodities, given their limited 
resources. Given the current production levels of the FOs, it is also unlikely that their 
production will increase sufficiently to supply schools unless there is an ongoing 
demand for the commodities.
166. Food quality and safety is an important aspect in the procurement and handling of 
locally procured food, however less than a third of the survey FOs make any effort to 
ensure their commodities are of good quality. This will need to be rectified if FOs will
be applying for school tenders directly. This aspect is currently being addressed 
through McGovern Dole, Canada and other donor funding in collaboration with MoH 
and Food Safety and Quality is a module that is covered during both the LRP trader 
ad FO training. WFP has also supported the development of national guidelines for
Food Safety and Quality for School Meals in Kenya, which should be finalised soon.
167. Overall, the main challenges to sustained LRP results identified through this baseline 
are as follows:
Challenges to improved cost-effectiveness
• The current HGSMP transfer rate per child must be sufficient to ensure that 
schools can purchase adequate, good quality food from local suppliers (either 
FOs or traders).
•
Challenges to improving timeliness
• The disbursement of HGSMP funds to the schools must come in a timely manner.
• Schools must ensure that the tender process includes delivery of commodities 
directly to their school store.
•
Challenges to improving access to nutritious and culturally acceptable foods
46
• The current HGSMP transfer rate is insufficient to purchase commodities other 
than maize, beans, oil and salt, the value of which was used to calculate the 
transfer rate initially.
• Low production levels of crops in the targeted counties means that the price of 
locally produced commodities is unlikely to drop significantly in the short term.
• There is currently limited incentive for farmers to produce more drought tolerant 
crops as there is limited market demand.
• The HGSMP Implementation Guidelines62 include prioritizing local farmers but 
in practice this is not being done. Most FOs lack the expertise, credit, transport 
and storage facilities needed to be able to supply schools with large quantities of 
commodities on a regular basis.
• There is currently no linkage between schools and FOs. Schools interact with 
traders since they are known to have the capacity to supply.
4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations (in priority order)
• Recommendations that may be completed by the end of the LRP 
implementation period
Recommendation 1: WFP and partners should continue to implement the LRP 
project as per the current agreement (2017-2020) including WFP providing technical 
support to the MoE and LRP schools as they transition to the HGSMP. 
Recommendation 2: WFP should undertake additional data collection in LRP 
schools once they have transitioned to the HGSMP. This should include collection of
timeliness and cost data and recalculation of the timeliness and cost-effectiveness 
scores.
Recommendation 3: WFP and the MoAI should ensure that the planned LRP 
market linkage forums provide opportunities for FOs to meet with local traders.
Recommendation 4: WFP should continue to support the development of a 
framework that supports and prioritizes procurement from local farmers. This may 
include uncoupling commodities and allowing FOs to provide only the items they grow 
and not the whole school meals basket.
Recommendation 5: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to develop practical 
guidance for LRP schools on ways to introduce locally-produced drought tolerant 
crops into their school menus within their limited resources.
Recommendation 6: WFP and the MoH should collaborate to ensure that schools 
receive regular nutrition support since this is a new project area.
• Recommendations that may take longer to implement than the LRP duration
Recommendation 7: WFP should support the MoE to review the HGSMP transfer 
rate once updated market assessment findings are available for Baringo and West 
Pokot at end of 2018/Early 2019.
Recommendation 8: WFP and the MoAI should continue to support farmers to 
improve their production capacity.
Recommendation 9: WFP should continue to support County Governments to 
develop and implement food quality and safety strategies for school feeding 
programmes (including aflatoxin testing).
62 Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation Guidelines. World Food Programme.
47
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Devereux, S et al (2010) Home Grown School Feeding and Social Protection. HGSF 
Working Paper Series #5. Institute of Development Studies. London
Dunn, S. & Kariuki, W (2015) External Evaluation of WFP’s Cash Transfers to Schools
Pilot Project, March 2013 - March 2015. Isiolo Country, Kenya.
Dunn, S. et al (2017) Final evaluation report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s Support in Kenya
from 2014 to 2016
Haag, P (2014) External Evaluation of Kenya´s Home-Grown School Meals Program
(2009 – 2013). Final Report.
http://devinit.org/ - !/post/kenya-joins-middle-income-club
http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0818e/T0818E0j.html
http://www.fao.org/kenya/fao-in-kenya/kenya-at-a-glance/en
http://www.vision2030.go.ke/
https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20170606/african-union-commission-and-world￾food-programme-promote-home-grown-school
Langinger, N (2011) School Feeding Programs in Kenya: Transitioning to a Home￾grown Approach. Stanford Journal of International Relations. Vol. XIII | No. 1. p30-
37.
Nzuma, J (2018) A value chain analysis of priority commodities for food and nutrition
security in Turkana County, Kenya. Draft final report. March 2018.
Republic of Kenya (2005) Kenya Education Sector Support Programme (KESSP) 
2005-2010. Delivering quality, equitable education and training to all Kenyans.
Republic of Kenya (2009) National Agricultural Sector Development Strategy 2009-
2020.
Republic of Kenya (2010) National School Health Strategy Implementation Plan 2011-
2015. Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation & the Ministry of Education.
Republic of Kenya (2011) National Food Security and Nutrition Policy. Agricultural
Sector Coordination Unit (ASCU).
Republic of Kenya (2011) National Nutrition Action Plan 2012-2017. Ministry of Public 
Health and Sanitation
Republic of Kenya (2012) National Agribusiness Strategy. Agricultural Sector 
Coordination Unit (ASCU).
Republic of Kenya (2013) Home Grown School Meals Programme: Implementation 
Guide
Republic of Kenya (2014) Education Sector Plan (2013-2018): Volume 1 - Basic
Education Programme Rationale and Approach 2013/2014 – 2017/2018. Ministry of 
Education Science and Technology.
Republic of Kenya (2016) Home Grown School Meals Programme Implementation 
Guidelines. World Food Programme.
48
Republic of Kenya (2018) National school meals and nutrition strategy 2017-2022.
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Irrigation.
Republic of Kenya & WFP (2013) Strategy to strengthen and expand the Home-Grown 
School Meals Programme into the Arid Lands of Kenya.
SNV (2016) Improving Procurement Tools for Smallholder Farmer Inclusion in 
Kenya.
The World Bank (2012) Scaling up School Feeding: Keeping children in school while 
improving their learning and health.
UNDP (2016) Human Development Report: Human development for everyone. 
United Nations Development Programme. New York. (using 2015 data)
WFP (2013) Revised School Feeding Policy. WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C
WFP & Republic of Kenya (2013) Market dynamics and financial services in Kenya’s
arid lands
WFP Kenya (2014) Country Programme 200680 (2014—2018) Baseline Report
WFP Kenya (2014) Country Programme document (2014-2018) WFP/EB. A/2014/8. 
9 May 2014
WFP (2015) Agriculture markets and food supply chain rapid assessment – Turkana
County. May 2015.
WFP et al (2016) Baringo County (East Pokot and Marigat sub-counties) Market 
Assessment. World Food Programme, Baringo County Government, NDMA and
World Vision. Kenya
WFP et al (2016) West Pokot County agricultural markets rapid assessment. June 
2016.
WFP/FAS (2017) Attachment A – Plan of Operation – Local and Regional Food AID 
Procurement Programme FY 2017.
49
ANNEXES
Annex 1: Evaluation terms of reference
Introduction
This TOR is for a baseline of the World Food Programme (WFP) Local Regional Procurement 
(LRP) Project that will be implemented in Kenya from 2017-2020. The project is funded by 
the United States Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) This baseline is commissioned by WFP 
Kenya Country Office and seeks to assess the situation before the beginning of the programme. 
Under the project, WFP will, over a period of approximately two years, use the funds provided 
by FAS to implement a local procurement project to support its on-going school feeding 
project in Baringo, Turkana, and West Pokot counties of Kenya, focused on achieving the 
following objectives:
• Improve effectiveness of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and improving 
timeliness
• Increase the capacity of traders and school meals procurement committees to effectively 
and efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, promoting the 
sustainability of school feeding;
• Strengthening local and regional food market systems, improving access to culturally￾acceptable foods and connecting them to the home-grown school meals program’;and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, quality, 
nutritious, and culturally-appropriate foods in school meals.
Reasons for the Baseline
This baseline is being commissioned for the following reasons:
• To develop a program evaluation design, laying the foundation for a final evaluation that 
will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact.
• To provide a baseline assessment of the situation at the beginning of the project guided 
by the results framework and PMP and to provide baseline values.
• To identify threats to project implementation and provide recommendations for 
overcoming threats, as well as recommendations for optimizing project implementation 
and monitoring.
Objectives
The main objective of this baseline is to assess and report on the situation before the beginning 
of the project. The baseline will serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of 
accountability and learning.
• Accountability – The baseline will assess and report on the baseline values of WFP’s 
Local Regional Procurement (LRP) Project upon which performance of the programme 
will be measured at the final evaluation.
• Learning – The baseline will develop a programme evaluation design laying the 
foundation for final evaluation to measure the performance of the programme.
Stakeholders and Users
A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the 
baseline and some of these will be asked to play a role in the baseline process. Table 1 below 
provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the baseline team 
as part of the inception phase. Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s 
commitments to include beneficiaries as key stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is 
committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment in the baseline process, 
with participation and consultation in the baseline by women, men, boys and girls.
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis
Stakeholders Interest in the baseline and likely uses of baseline report to this
stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office 
(CO) Kenya
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, 
it has a direct stake in the baseline and an interest in learning from
50
experience to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account
internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for performance and 
results of its operation.
Regional 
Bureau (RB) 
Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, 
the RB management has an interest in an independent account of the 
operational performance as well as in learning from the baseline findings to
apply this learning to other country offices.
Office of 
Evaluation 
(OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, 
useful and credible evaluations. OEV management has an interest in 
providing decision-makers and stakeholders with independent 
accountability for results and with learning to inform policy, strategic and
programmatic decisions.
WFP Executive 
Board (EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the 
effectiveness of WFP operations. This baseline results will not be presented
to the EB but its findings may feed into corporate learning processes.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP 
determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the 
level of participation in the baseline of women, men, boys and girls will be 
determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. More 
specifically,teachers, school meals procurement committees, students, local
traders and traders should be considered as key stakeholders.
Government, 
National and 
County Levels
Both county and national governments have a direct interest in knowing 
whether WFP activities in the country are aligned with its priorities, 
harmonised with the action of other partners and meet the expected results. 
The Government has the overall ownership of the school feeding 
programme, and shares the interest in learning lessons for design of future 
programmes, including transition to cash model. The key line Ministries 
are:’ Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Ministry 
of Health including relevant Ministries at county level. County and Sub￾county Education Officers, School Management Committees are also keyas 
they are involved in school feeding programme implementation and policy
support.
United 
Nations and 
Development 
Partners
The Kenya United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 
should contribute to the realisation of the government developmental 
objectives. Kenya United Nations Country Team (UNCT) has therefore an 
interest in ensuring that WFP operation is effective in contributing to the 
United Nations concerted efforts. WFP implements the programme within 
a wider UN system of support to government priorities. The partner 
agencies are interested in learning to what extent WFP interventions are 
contributing to the overall outcomes committed to the UNDAF particularly 
UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, UNDAF thematic working groups, the Education
Sector Donors Groups.
Donors [USDA, 
Australia, 
Canada, EU, 
Germany, Japan, 
Russia, Private 
donors]
Whereas LRP is funded by USDA, WFP operations are voluntarily funded 
by a number of donors. This project builds on the existing school feeding 
programme which is a multi-donor initiative. As such, USDA as well as other 
donors will have an interest in knowing how findings from this evaluation 
fit in the larger school meals programme implementation context.
The primary users of this baseline will be:
51
• The Kenya country office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to 
programme implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships
• This baseline (and subsequently the final evaluation) will contribute to the body 
of knowledge on the LRP projects. USDA, as the funder of the baseline, will use
findings and lessons learned to inform program funding, design, and 
implementation decisions.
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use 
the baseline findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and 
oversight
• WFP HQ may use baseline for wider organizational learning and accountability
• Context and subject of the baseline
Context
Since 1980, WFP and the Ministry of Education have jointly implemented a school meals 
program targeting the most food-insecure counties with the lowest enrolment and completion 
rates and high gender disparities - including all primary schools in the marginalized arid and 
semi-arid lands of Kenya and in the informal settlements of Nairobi. WFP and the 
Government of Kenya are currently giving a hot lunch to 1.5 million children attending school 
across the country each day of the school term.
In 2009, the Government of Kenya started a national home grown school meals programme 
(HGSMP) to provide a meal to children at school; to support education achievements while 
also stimulating local agricultural production through purchase of food from smallholder 
farmers and local food suppliers. Unlike other school feeding programmes, the HGSMP seeks 
to deliver simultaneously on ‘local’ economic growth and social protection or poverty 
education objectives.
After more than three decades of joint WFP-Government programming, the transition of 
school feeding activities to Government ownership is due to be completed by June 2018. WFP 
supports the hand-over process through strengthening food procurement systems, 
accountability, transparency and local markets. This is done through a combination of 
technical guidance, training, joint missions and exchange of staff to build national capacity in 
procurement, data collection, reporting, monitoring and evaluation, and programme 
management.
The Home-Grown School Meals Programme supports access to education while also 
stimulating local economic development (including agricultural production) through 
procurement of food from local structured markets, increasing farms’ income and creating 
additional jobs in the community. HGSMP is an investment in the local economy, linking 
small-scale farmers and suppliers to an ongoing school market. The programme promotes 
smallholder farmer productivity and capacity by offering a widespread market that is 
accessible to farmers due its decentralized procurement approach.
The United States Department of Agriculture’s- Mc Govern Dole has been a long standing 
staunch and generous supporter of school feeding programmes in Kenya since 2004. By 
November 2017, the U.S. Department of Agriculture had committed US$117 million dollars in 
food to support school feeding programmes throughout the country. United States 
contributions alone were equated to be between 35% and 75% of all WFP’s commitments to 
school feeding programme since 2004 for different years. Generous support from McGovern￾Dole and other donors has enabled WFP to engage fully with the Government of Kenya on the 
benefits of school feeding, whilst developing the capacity of the government to take over 
ownership of the programme in a number of areas including; procuring food locally, thus 
stimulating local economies; raising awareness on the importance of education; building a 
rehabilitating school kitchens, storage and sanitation facilities; raising awareness on 
nutrition; raising awareness on hygiene and sanitation, such as handwashing and promoting 
food safety and quality.
Structured Demand markets are markets created by public or non-profit entities that have a 
predictable and reliable demand for food products. The HGSMP provides a structured demand
52
market. On the demand side, the procuring entity can offer a market and an additional source 
of income for smallholder farmers through inclusive public procurement processes. On the 
supply side, structured demand markets like schools can inspire farmer organizations to 
increase their levels of production and organization in order to meet the demands of 
structured demand markets and other high-value markets. The project aims to use the 
structured demand markets of the HGSMP to encourage local agricultural production and 
strengthen local food supply systems.
The HGSMP provides market opportunities for local suppliers (traders, farmer’s organizations 
and smallholder farmers). However, a recent external evaluation of the HGSMP63 concluded 
that it has been difficult for farmers’ groups to supply schools without sustained capacity 
development support. Moreover, is has been established that existing procurement 
regulations, processes and tools do not fully support the inclusion of smallholder farmers, 
promote transparency, or ensure schools get value for the funds spent.64 Food quality and
safety is an important aspect in the procurement and handling of locally procured food, there 
is therefore a need to support County Governments to develop and implement food quality 
and safety strategies for school feeding programmes (including aflatoxin testing). This is 
especially pertinent for sub counties that have been implementing HGMSP.
Schools have the potential to become powerful platforms for mainstreaming nutrition while 
promoting lifelong healthy eating habits. Daily school meal plays a considerable impact on the 
overall daily dietary intake of a student. Currently, for schools in the arid and semi-arid lands, 
the school basket consists of three food groups, including cereals, pulses and oil, which 
provides 30 percent of the recommended daily energy requirements but is lacking in dietary 
diversity and micronutrient intake. The 2014 Kenya Demographic Health Survey (KDHS) 
revealed that only 21% of children in the lowest wealth quintile consumed four or more food 
groups. Identifying local and culturally appropriate foods, including locally available drought 
tolerant crops, to add to the school meals menus can contribute to the improvement of the 
student’s nutritional status.
Subject of the baseline
The project will be implemented over a period of two years running from U.S fiscal year (FY) 
2017 -2020. The project is in support of WFP and the government of Kenya’s ongoing school 
feeding project in Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot counties.
The project will build on WFP’s accomplishments in supporting the expansion of the 
government-led school meal programme. Key objectives of the project are to:
• Improve effectiveness of food assistance by improving cost-effectiveness and improving 
timeliness
• Increase the capacity of suppliers and school meals procurement committees to 
effectively and efficiently procure local commodities for school’s meals, promoting 
sustainability of school feeding;
• Strengthen local and regional food market systems, improving access to culturally￾acceptable commodities and connecting them to Government of Kenya home-grown 
school meals programme; and
• Improve nutrition of students by increasing access to and use of various, high quality 
nutritious and culturally –appropriate foods in school’s meals.
These objectives will be achieved through a broad set of activities and inputs including:
Assessment and Mapping of Local Food Systems and Value Chains
WFP will support the government to conduct market assessments of local value chains in 
Baringo and West Pokot sub-counties, where the Government of Kenya will start providing 
cash transfers to schools under the Home Grown School Meals Program (HGSMP) in January 
2018. These market assessments will map the production and supply capacity of local traders 
and farmers to schools, and the market assessments will be used to estimate the cash transfer 
rates that the government should use when transitioning schools to the HGSMP.
63 Haag, P. (2014), External Evaluation of Kenya’s Home-Grown School Meals Programme 2009-2013. 64 SNV (2016), “Improving Procurement Tools for Smallholder Farmer Inclusion in Kenya”
53
WFP will support the government to conduct value chain analyses to identify and map locally 
produced commodities and local agricultural production that are well-positioned to 
participate in the structured demand markets created by the HGSMP. Building upon the Cash 
Transfers to Schools (CTS) market assessments, the value chain analyses will focus on the 
availability, costs and future potential of local, nutritious, and culturally-acceptable food to 
become part of the HGSMP food basket. The assessments will also consider the local 
availability of drought-tolerant crops in order to inform the development of diverse menus 
under the HGSMP.
Capacity Building for National and County Institutions
WFP will work in partnership with the Ministry of Education (MOE) to train school teachers, 
parents, and education officers in Baringo and West Pokot on the HGSMP’s Cash Transfer to 
Schools (CTS) model in order to enhance accountability and transparency in school based food 
procurement process. WFP and MOE will establish a monitoring and oversight plan in Baringo 
and West Pokot, building upon the WFP Beneficiary Complaints and Feedback mechanism 
(helpline) and reporting structure developed by WFP and MOE under McGovern-Dole 
Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00.
WFP will support the development of the Government of Kenya’s national implementation 
strategy to guide direct local procurement from smallholder farmers by government 
institutions, such as schools, the National Youth Service, hospitals and the Kenya Police 
Service. WFP, in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (MoAI)) and the 
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), have obtained consensus from the 
Ministries of Education, Health, Interior, Labour and Social Protection, Devolution and 
Planning, as well as the Kenya Dairy Board, and the National Cereals and Produce Board, to 
support procurement from smallholder farmers and agricultural processors by developing an 
implementation strategy, which will be first implemented in Turkana, Baringo and West 
Pokot, before a national roll-out.
Capacity Strengthening for Local Traders and FOs
WFP will train local farmer organizations, and traders in Baringo and West Pokot on the key 
requirements for becoming suppliers to the HGSMP, including HGSMP eligibility criteria for 
traders, procurement procedures for schools, food quality assurance, and post-harvest 
handling.
WFP will partner with the MoE, MoAI, and MoH to conduct market linkage forums in Baringo 
and West Pokot, which will provide an opportunity for potential suppliers to interact with 
school meals procurement committees. Market linkage forums will increase awareness, 
promote transparency during the procurement process, and provide school meals 
procurement committees with the opportunity to coordinate with suppliers to adjust the 
HGSMP food basket based on locally-available products.
Develop School Meals Menus Using Local and Nutritious Produce
WFP will support schools to develop, use, and promote diverse school meals menus based on 
locally-produced, nutritious, and drought-tolerant crops, including sorghum, millet, and 
cowpeas, in Baringo, West Pokot, and Turkana. WFP will analyse the nutrient profile of the 
selected crops and incorporate them into the school meal basket for select schools, ensuring 
that the newly diversified school meal basket is culturally-acceptable and still meets the 
nutrient requirements for calories, protein, fats, and micronutrients for primary school 
students.
WFP will develop a training curriculum and related materials and tools for government 
officials, school administrators, and school meals procurement committees on how to increase 
the dietary diversity of the school meal basket to with locally-produced crops. WFP will pilot 
the training curriculum and related material in Baringo, West Pokot, and Turkana. WFP will 
conduct nutrition education for students and parents on the importance of diversifying the 
diet.
WFP will assess the inclusion of locally-produced foods and nutrition education on the dietary 
diversity of the school meals and students’ diet. WFP will use this assessment to provide 
evidence-based recommendations on the minimum standards for school meal composition, 
working in collaboration with MOE and MOH. WFP will advocate for investments in the
54
integration of health and nutrition education into the school curriculum to support the 
national School Nutrition and Meals Strategy (SNMS) and HGSMP guidelines.
Procure Locally-Produced, Drought-Tolerant Crops
WFP will pilot the local procurement of sorghum and cowpeas for schools in Turkana 
supported under McGovern-Dole Program Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00. WFP will 
procure these locally-produced, drought-tolerant crops using forward delivery contracts 
(FDCs) and direct contracts issued to six farmer organizations in Turkana County. The farmer 
organizations have received technical support on cultivating sorghum and cowpeas, and using 
FDC and direct contract mechanisms through WFP activities supported by non-USG funds. 
The locally-procured sorghum and cowpeas will diversify the existing food basket, by replacing 
a portion of the bulgur wheat and green split peas provided under McGovern-Dole Program 
Agreement No. FFE-615-2016-014-00 for two days per week (20 days per term) for two 
school-terms.
The project will use USDA cash funding to contribute towards USDA LRP highest strategic 
objective (LRP SO1); improved effectiveness of food assistance through local and regional 
procurement. The following activities will contribute to the achievement of LRP SO 1:
• Improved cost-effectiveness of Food assistance: Capacity building for national and 
county institutions
• Improved timeliness of Food Assistance: Capacity building for national and county 
institutions and Capacity strengthening for local suppliers
• Improved Utilization of Nutritious and Culturally Acceptable Food that Meet Quality 
Standards: Assessment and mapping of local food systems and value chains, develop 
school meals menus using local and nutritious produce and Procure locally-produced, 
drought-tolerant crops
•
Capacity building for national and county institutions will contribute to the foundational 
results of increased capacity of government institutions and improved policy and regulatory 
framework. Capacity strengthening for local suppliers will also contribute to the foundational 
result of improved capacity of relevant organizations and increased leverage of private sector 
resources.
For a graphical representation of the project’s theory of change, including the linkages among 
key activities and results, see the results framework in Annex 1 of this document.
The performance monitoring plan gives details of the indicators that will be used to measure 
performance of the project.
Baseline Approach 
Scope
This baseline is expected to provide a situational analysis before the program activities begins. 
While ensuring the components of the results framework and the indicators as per PMP are 
covered, the baseline and the final evaluation will focus more on the capacity strengthening 
component of the programme.
The baseline will focus on LRP activities that will be implemented from 2017 to 2020 in the 
arid counties of Baringo, Turkana and West Pokot. The baseline team will develop and 
implement an appropriate programme evaluation design, clearly outlining the data collection 
and analysis methods, sample design and sample size calculations.
The values obtained will allow WFP and partners to establish baseline information for the 
project’s indicators and to verify the targets established. The baseline results will also form the 
foundation for the planned final evaluations to measure performance indicators as well as the 
highest-level results that feed into LRP strategic objective. This information will inform 
project implementation and will provide important context necessary for final evaluations to 
assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact. At baseline, 
the baseline team will focus on the following:
Establish an indicator baseline data and information for use to regularly monitor activity 
outputs and performance indicators for lower level results;
Lay the foundation for the planned final evaluations to measure performance indicators as 
well as the higher-level results that feed into the LRP strategic objective;
55
Provide a situational analysis – based on a desk review of documentation and qualitative 
interviews. The situational analysis will document what the conditions for implementation are 
at the baseline. Any key shortcomings will be identified.
Criteria Baseline Questions
Relevance Summarize the findings on relevance from available documentations and 
identify any critical shortcomings.
Was the project designed to reach the right people with the right type of 
assistance?
Is the project aligned with national government’s relevant policies and 
strategies?
Did the project complement other donor-funded and government 
initiatives?
Effectiveness What are the baseline values for each of the standard and custom indicators
for the program?
Efficiency What are the baseline values of cost and timeliness of the intervention?
Impact What are the possible unintended outcomes, either positive or negative? Is 
the project taking into consideration an appropriate mitigation strategy? 
what internal and external factors are likely to affect the project’s results?
Sustainability Identify any challenges that emerge from the baseline that could affect the 
sustainability of the programme to what extent is it likely that the benefits 
of the project will continue after the end of the project?
What are the key factors that are likely to affect the sustainability of the 
results of the project?
Data Availability
The baseline will entail qualitative and quantitative primary data collection per the PMP. Any 
quantitative data collection will be done with support of WFP Kenya M&E team. The following 
is a list of background data and or information available for the baseline team. It is expected 
that the team will expand at inception phase.
• Final evaluation report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program’s Support in Kenya from 2014 to 2016
• Baseline report for the WFP USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program’s Support in Kenya from 2016 to 2020
• Kenya Country Programme 200680 (2014-2018) project document and log frame
• 2016 Standard Project Reports (SPRs).
• Strategy to Strengthen & Expand the Home Grown School Meals (HGSM) Programme 
into the Arid Lands of Kenya (Validated version 2013)
• USDA commitment letter for Agreement
• Evaluation Plan
• Government of Kenya Education related policies and strategies
•
Concerning the quality of data and information, the baseline team should:
• Assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the 
information provided. This assessment will inform the data collection
• Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and 
information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the 
data.
Methodology
The baseline team is responsible for developing the full methodology during the inception 
phase. The team should identify potential risks of the approach and mitigation measures. The 
following should be considered and included by the baseline team:
56
• Firstly, confirm and define specific baseline questions, and record them in the WFP 
Evaluation Matrix.
• Develop and agree an appropriate evaluation design for the project including sample 
size, data collection and analysis methods.
• Design credible data collection tools
• Use mixed methods in the evaluation design and data collection (including quantitative 
(Where applicable) and qualitative to ensure a comprehensive design. This can include 
triangulation of information through a variety of means, or different evaluation 
questions being answered through different methods and types of data. The use of mixed 
methods should be documented in the inception report.
• Use participatory methods, including key informant interviews and focus group 
discussions;
• Ensure the evaluation design takes into account ways to ensure that the voices of women, 
girls, men and boys are heard and documented;
• Ensure the methodology and baseline implementation are ethical and conform to the 
UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.
•
Quality Assurance
WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality 
standards expected from this baseline and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality 
Assurance. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) 
and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the international 
evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform 
to best practice.
DEQAS will be systematically applied, where applicable, to this baseline.
WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This 
includes Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation/baseline products. The 
relevant Checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the baseline process 
and outputs.
This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the 
baseline team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and 
convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
The baseline team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and 
accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The baseline team should be 
assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive 
on disclosure of information. This is available in WFP’s Directive (#CP2010/001) on 
Information Disclosure.
Phases and Deliverables
The baseline will proceed through the 5 following phases.
• Preparation phase (December 2017-February 2018): The baseline manager will 
conduct background research and consultation to frame the baseline; prepare the TOR; 
select and contract the baseline team for the management and conduct of the evaluation.
• Inception phase (March 2018): This phase aims to prepare the baseline team by 
ensuring that it has a good grasp of the expectations for the baseline 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.
• Data collection phase (March 2018): The fieldwork will include visits to project 
sites and primary and secondary data collection from local stakeholders. A debriefing 
session will be held upon completion of the field work.
• Reporting phase (April-May 2018) The baseline team will analyse the data collected 
during the desk review and the field work, conduct additional consultations with 
stakeholders, as required, and draft the baseline report. The draft baseline report will be
submitted to the baseline manager for quality assurance. Stakeholders will be invited
57
to provide comments, which will be recorded in a matrix by the baseline manager and 
provided to the baseline team for their consideration before report finalisation.
• Follow-up and dissemination phase: The final baseline report will be disseminated 
and shared with the relevant stakeholders. Specifically, a dissemination meeting with 
key stakeholders will be held where the baseline team will disseminate thefindings.
• WFP anticipates finalizing the baseline data collection by March 2016 Table 2 gives 
details of timing each of the phases.
The expected deliverables from the baseline exercise are the following:
• Inception report written following WFP recommended template. The report should 
include but not limited to:
• Detailed baseline design
• Quality Assurance Plan
• Detailed work plan, including, timeline and activities
• Bibliography of documents/secondary data sources utilised;
• Final data collection tools, data bases, analysis plan
• Power-point on methodology, overall survey plan, timeline and activities
• Final report, including a first draft, and a final report using WFP recommended 
template. The final report should include an executive summary and recommendations 
for optimizing both project implementation and monitoring. Annexes to the final report 
include but not limited to a copy of the final ToR, bibliography, list of sampled schools, 
detailed sampling methodology, Maps, A list of all meetings and participants, final 
survey instruments etc.
• Clean data set
• Transcripts from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, etc.
• Table of all standard and custom indicator baseline values
• List of sites visited
• Power-point presentation of main findings and conclusions for de-briefing and 
dissemination purposes
Organization of the Baseline 
Baseline Conduct
The baseline team will conduct the baseline under the direction of its team leader and in close 
communication with the baseline manager appointed by WFP senior deputy country director 
in accordance to the WFP decentralized evaluation guidelines. The team will be hired through 
an HR process following agreement with WFP on its composition and in line with the baseline 
schedule.
The team members will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject 
of baseline or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect 
the code of conduct of the evaluation profession.
The baseline team will be supported by the WFP M&E team specifically in planning and 
implementation of quantitative data collection where applicable.
Team composition and competencies
The team will be composed of a lead evaluator and a statistician. The two will be external 
evaluators with no prior association with the subject of evaluation. The team will conduct this 
baseline in adherence to DEQAS standards (where applicable) and requirements of the UNEG 
Norms and Standards and Code of Conduct for Evaluators65. The team will be supported by 
the WFP Kenya M&E unit.
The Team Leader will be a senior evaluator with at least 20 years of experience in evaluation 
of complex interventions, with demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary teams. 
The team leader will preferably have experience evaluating school meals and or 
education/capacity related interventions, and experience working in Kenya. She/he will be 
confident in using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods and will have good
65 UNEG 2008 – Code of conduct for evaluators http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/100
58
understanding of home grown school meals programmes, nutrition/ procurement of local 
commodities to support school meals programs and additional significant experience in other 
development and management positions.
The Team Leader will also have expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools 
and demonstrated experience in leading similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership 
and communication skills, including a track record of excellent writing and presentation skills. 
Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the baseline approach and methodology;
ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the baseline mission and representing the 
baseline team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work
i.e. (exit) debriefing presentation and baseline report.
The statistician will have at least 5 years of experience in data analysis for development and 
humanitarian organizations. He/she must have a strong demonstrated knowledge of 
quantitative methods. The statistician primary responsibilities will be: 1. Provide statistical 
expertise in development of the evaluation design 2. Develop data collection and analysis plans
3. Lead data collection preparation and actual collection with support from WFP M&E team
4. perform all required analysis and support drafting and revision of the final evaluation 
report.
The team will abide by the Code of Conduct for evaluators (Attached to individual contracts), 
ensuring they maintain impartiality and professionalism.
Security Considerations
Security clearance: where required is to be obtained from WFP Kenya office.
Consultants hired through HR process are covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security 
(UNDSS) system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff and consultants contracted directly 
by WFP.
The consultants will be required therefore obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling 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 withthem.66
However, to avoid any security incidents, the baseline 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.
The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and 
arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the 
ground.
The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc. 
Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The Kenya Country Office: The Kenya country Office management (Senior Deputy 
Country director will take responsibility to:
• Appoint a baseline manager in line with WFP evaluation guidelines
• Compose the baseline committee
• Approve the final TOR, inception and baseline reports.
• Ensure the independence and impartiality of the baseline at all stages
• Participate in discussions with the baseline team on the baseline design and the baseline 
subjects with the baseline Manager and the baseline team
• Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external 
stakeholders
• Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes
66 Field Courses: Basic https://dss.un.org/bsitf/; Advanced http://dss.un.org/asitf
59
Baseline Manager:
• Manages the baseline process through all phases including drafting this TOR
• Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational
• Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and baseline reports with the 
baseline team
• Ensures expected use of relevant quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality 
support etc.)
• Ensure that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the 
baseline; facilitate the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; set up meetings, field 
visits; provide logistic support during the fieldwork; and arrange for interpretation, if 
required.
• Organise security briefings for the baseline team and provide any materials as required
An Internal Baseline Committee will ensure independence and impartiality of the 
baseline. The membership includes baseline manager, relevant technical staff from Country 
Capacity Unit and Rural Resilience unit and Senior Deputy Country director (Chair). The key 
roles and responsibilities of this team, includes providing input to baseline process and 
commenting on baseline products
A baseline reference group with representation of USDA/FAS, Ministry of Education and 
WFP Country office and will review the baseline products to further safeguard against bias and 
influence
Independent Baseline team: under the leadership of the baseline team leader, the baseline 
team will be responsible for undertaking the baseline, as per this TOR, independently. The 
baseline team will select and interview staff from the Country Office. The team will also have 
contact with CO staff who are members of the RG during inception and dissemination. The CO 
staff who are members of the RG will be required to provide comments on the baseline 
products. The responsibilities of the baseline manager are clearly stated above and will, in 
addition to other provisions for impartiality already put in place, ensure the baseline is 
implemented as per the WFP decentralized evaluation quality assurance system.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) will review, comment and approve 
the baseline TOR; serve as a member of baseline reference group; participate in a key 
informant interview phone call with the selected evaluator prior to fieldwork; and participate 
in stakeholder meetings and presentation of the evaluation findings;
The partnerships officer (Washington office) will work closely with the WFP CO, RB, 
OEV and the USDA to ensure smooth communication and submission of key baseline 
deliverables. The partnerships officer will review baseline deliverables for adherence to USDA 
policy and facilitate communication with USDA; Provide feedback on draft TORs and draft 
baseline report; coordinate with the donor (USDA) to seek feedback of TORs, inception and 
baseline reports.
Communication
To enhance the learning from this baseline, the baseline team should place emphasis on 
transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These may for example take 
place by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and 
between key stakeholders. Communication with baseline team and stakeholders should go 
through the baseline manager.
WFP Kenya Country Office will organize an internal meeting to discuss baseline findings and 
recommendations, where the consultant will present the key findings; WFP will discuss the 
report with USDA and disseminate the findings and recommendations in various ways, 
including through discussions with WFP senior management and staff as well as with the key 
partners including the Ministry of Education, non-governmental partners and United Nations 
agencies.
60
Annex 2: LRP Results framework
61
Annex 3: LRP stakeholder diagram
62
63
Annex 4: Evaluation matrix
Evaluation 
questions
Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of 
data analysis
Data availability
RELEVANCE
Determine if the LRP project design is relevant and coherent with key policies and strategies, and identify any shortcomings.
Was the project 
designed to reach 
the right people with 
the right type of
assistance?
Does the project meet a 
specific need?
How was targeting done? 
How were schools chosen for 
the LRP? How were Farmer 
Organizations chosen? How 
were suppliers chosen? Have 
any key groups been 
excluded?
Do stakeholders have 
suggestions for improving 
the LRP design and/or
targeting criteria?
Clear project purpose.
Clear targeting criteria and 
rationale for selection of all 
beneficiary groups (FOs, 
supplier and schools).
LRP project related 
documents 
including market 
assessments if 
available.
Background 
documents on the 
context of
agriculture in the 
targeted counties. 
Interviews with key
LRP stakeholders.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with 
WFP personnel, 
school personnel, 
FOs and traders.
Descriptive 
analysis.
Triangulation of 
documents and 
results from key 
informant 
interviews.
Project 
documentation and 
policy documents are 
available.
WFP to provide 
additional 
documentation when 
available.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field. 
Information on 
interventions by
other partners to be 
collected by the
team with support 
from WFP and 
through KII
interviews as 
appropriate.
Is the project
aligned with 
national 
government’s 
relevant policiesand 
strategies?
Does the current design of 
the LRP align with relevant 
policies and strategies of the 
Government of Kenya and 
WFP?
Does the LRP design align 
with other WFP work in 
Kenya?
Does the LRP design align 
with the work of other 
development partners 
working in the same sector? 
Do stakeholders have 
suggestions for improving 
the LRP design?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with government 
objectives and legislative 
direction.
LRP project related 
planning
and implementation 
documents.
Government and
WFP policy 
documents.
Interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews withMoE 
representatives at 
national and county 
level.
Does the project 
complement other 
donor-funded and 
government 
initiatives?
Alignment of the LRP 
approach with the direction of 
other development actors.
Evidence of partnerships. 
Evidence of complementarity 
and no evidence of 
duplication.
Documentation of 
projects by other 
development actors 
at national and 
district level.
Interviews with 
other development 
partners.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with 
other development 
actors.
64
Evaluation 
questions
Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of 
data analysis
Data availability
EFFECTIVENESS
Determine if the activities outlined in the LRP are likely to result in an effective programme.
Has the project 
resulted in
increased access to 
markets for sale of 
agricultural 
products?
Is the produce from targeted 
FOs being sold to schools?
What are the current volumes 
of food commodities (andtype) 
being produced by the FOs? 
(compared to how much food 
schools need) i.e. Are 
producers able to meet 
demand?
Is it likely that projectactivities 
will enable farmers to supply 
adequate volumes of food for 
the schools in their locations? If 
not, what are the current 
challenges faced by farmers?
Current value of sales by 
project beneficiaries (FOs 
and traders)
Current volume of 
commodities (metric tons) 
sold by project 
beneficiaries.
Ability of FOs and traders to 
access the school 
procurement process.
Identified support required 
by schools, FOs and traders.
Quantitative 
survey of key LRP 
stakeholders.
FO and trader 
records (if 
required).
WFP monitoring 
data.
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders. 
Quantitative survey 
of FOs and traders.
Quantitative data 
analysis of survey 
findings.
Comparison of case 
and control school 
findings.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey 
findings and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate.
Has the project 
contributed to 
strengthening local 
and regional food 
market systems?
Has the presence of the 
HGSMP had any impact on the 
local markets? Changes in 
price? Volume? Etc.
Ability of FOs and traders to 
meet demand.
Number of traders and local 
farmers contributing to 
HGSMP
Quantitative 
survey of key LRP 
stakeholders
WFP monitoring 
data and market 
surveys
Quantitative survey 
of FOs and traders.
Evidence of improved 
linkages between farmers 
and schools
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
Has the project 
resulted in
improved access to 
culturally 
acceptable foods?
Is there evidence of increased 
access to and use of various, 
high quality nutritious and 
culturally-appropriate foods in 
school’s meals? What are the 
barriers to this?
Evidence that schools use 
locally procured food to 
provide diversified school 
meals e.g. menus.
Number of schools using 
diverse menus
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
Quantitative survey 
of school personnel.
65
Evaluation 
questions
Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of 
data analysis
Data availability
Has the project 
resulted in
improved cost￾effectiveness of food 
assistance delivery?
What are the costs of providing 
food assistance to schools –
through HSGMP and through 
other means?
Comparison of the price of 
school meals of the HGSMP 
and the in-kind modality 
being used in Turkana
Cost for procurement, 
distribution and delivery of 
food under the two 
modalities
Endoline to establish 
changes in the cost of food 
assistance provision over
time.
WFP
data
financial Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with 
WFP
Quantitative 
analysis of 
data
data 
WFP
WFP to 
monitoring 
appropriate.
provide 
data as
EFFICIENCY
Determine if the activities outlined in the LRP are likely to result in an efficient programme.
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
assistance?
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
procurement for 
schools?
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
delivery to schools? 
Has the project 
improved the 
timeliness of food 
distribution 
schools?
What is the current 
procurement process for selling 
food commodities to schools? 
What are the barriers to access?
What is the current lead-time 
for procurement? For delivery? 
And for distribution?
How often does LRP face 
pipeline breaks compared with 
other food procurement
modalities (i.e. Turkana)?
Timeliness of food delivery 
to LRP schools (Term 1, 
2018):
• Number of schools 
receiving food prior to 
start of term.
• Dates when funding 
provided to schools.
• Tendering process 
start dates.
• Food delivery dates
• Distribution dates
Frequency and duration of 
pipeline breaks.
Number of school feeding 
days
Quantitative 
survey of key LRP 
stakeholders.
School records (if 
required).
Documentation 
from tender
process of Term 1, 
2018.
Secondary 
document review. 
Qualitative 
interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders
Quantitative data 
analysis of survey 
findings.
Comparison of case 
and control school 
findings.
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field. 
WFP to provide 
monitoring data as 
appropriate
How many schools are 
currently receiving their food 
commodities before the first 
day of school term?
Do stakeholders have
suggestions for improving the 
timeliness of procurement?
Quantitative survey 
of FOs, traders and 
school personnel.
Triangulation of 
quantitative survey 
findings and results 
from key informant 
interviews.
66
Evaluation 
questions
Baseline questions Indicator Main sources of 
information
Data collection 
methods
Main method of 
data analysis
Data availability
IMPACT
Determine if the LRP is likely to have any unintended positive or negative outcomes or impact.
What are the 
possible unintended 
outcomes, either 
positive or negative? 
Is the project taking 
into consideration 
an appropriate 
mitigation strategy?
Can stakeholders identify any 
potential unintended outcomes 
or impacts of the project? And 
identify mitigation measures?
Stakeholder able to identify 
potential negative 
outcomes or impacts.
Potential mitigation 
strategies identified and/or 
already actioned.
LRP project 
documents re
potential risks 
identified during 
design phase and 
mitigation 
measures
undertaken.
Qualitative 
interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant 
interviews and 
quantitative survey 
results.
LRP project 
documents are 
available from WFP. 
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
Do the other assessment 
findings indicate that a change 
to project design is required in 
order to prevent negative
impacts?
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
Qualitative 
interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant 
interviews and 
quantitative survey 
results.
LRP project 
documents are 
available from WFP. 
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
What internal and collected in the field.
external factors are
likely to affect the 
project’s results?
What are the key factors that 
are likely to contribute to the
success or otherwise of the 
LRP?
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
SUSTAINABILITY
Determine if the results of the LRP are likely to be sustainable.
What are the
challenges that 
could affect the 
sustainability of the 
programme?
To what extent is it 
likely that the 
benefits of the 
project will continue
after the end of the 
project?
Are the LPR activities likely to 
produce sustainable results?
Can stakeholders identifyany 
specific barriers to 
sustainability?
What is the involvement of 
the government?
How much input is from WFP 
vs. Government?
Stakeholders believe that 
project will be sustainable.
Evidence of sufficient 
government involvement and 
funding.
Evidence of partnerships and 
leveraging private funding.
Interviews with 
key LRP
stakeholders.
Qualitative 
interviews with key 
LRP stakeholders.
Triangulation of 
results from key 
informant 
interviews and 
quantitative survey 
results.
LRP project 
documents are 
available from WFP. 
Information from 
stakeholders will be 
collected in the field.
What are the key 
factors that are 
likely to affect the 
sustainability of the 
results of the 
project?
Multiple stakeholders 
identify similar factors that 
are likely to affect to 
sustainability of the project.
67
Annex 5: Quantitative survey tools
Local and Regional Procurement Project
Baseline Survey Questionnaire for Traders
Introduction
A. Personal Information
Full Names 
Owner
of Business
Address Mobile/Phone 
No.
Email address
Gender of owner (Tick one)  Male
 Female Age bracket  18-35  36-55  Over 55
County Sub￾County
Trading 
Centre
Educational Qualifications
(Please tick the highest Primary
education level attained)
 Secondary Diploma Degree
B. Business Information
Full Names of Business
Which year did the business 
begin?
No. o
Employees Gender of Employees  Male …………….  Female ………….
Does your business have the 
following licenses?
Valid trade license  Yes  No
A business registration certificate  Yes  No 
Any other related licenses
………………………………………………………………………
INTERVIEW DATE / /
DD MM YY
INTERVIEW START TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
68
C. Grain Trading
1.What staple Cereals Pulses
commodities do 
you trade in?  Maize
 Rice
 Beans
 Peas
 Sorghum  Cowpeas
 Bulgur wheat  Pigeon peas
 Others Cereals  Green grams
………………………………………………  Others Pulses
……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… …………………………………………………………
……………………………………………… ………………………………………………….
2. Please estimate
total volume of
commodities you sell
each year
MT per year
3. From whom do 
you buy most of your 
commodities?
 Small Scale farmers
If yes, please estimate the number of smallholder farmers you purchase 
from each year <50  50-100  >150
 Large Scale farmers
 Farmer Organizations
Please estimate the volume of commodities purchased from FOs
……………. (MT)
 Other traders/middlemen
 Others (specify)
4. When you have to 
transport 
commodities, what 
means of
transportation do 
you usually use?
(multiple answers 
allowed)
 Carried (head or back)
 Bicycle/Motor Cycle
 Pick up
 Lorry
 Public Transport
 None/ Don’t transport
5. What facilities do 
you use for long –
term storage?
Basic earth granaries (traditional storage)
Permanent Owned Warehouse (Belongs to the trader) Capacity in MT
………………
Permanent Rented Warehouse
6. Current volume of 
grains in
KShs./Stock 
(MT/Bags)
KShs
MT
69
7. To whom do you 
sell your
commodities? 
(multiple answers 
allowed)
Households/individuals Retail store
Millers/brewers/processors Other traders
Hospitals Government Food agencies
International Development Agencies Schools
NGOs 
Others…………………………………………………………….………………………………………
………………………......………………………………………………………………………….……
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Did you sell 
commodities to 
schools through a 
competitive tender 
between 2016-2017?
 Yes If yes, were you able to provide all the required food items as ordered 
before the start of school term?  Yes  No If no, why not?
 Order from school came too late
 Unable to locate some required
items
 Delayed due to problems of
transport
 No If no, have you bid but not won?  Yes  No
9. Have you ever 
received any 
training on how to 
prepare bids for 
tender, or any 
similar training?
 Yes If yes, please provide details of which agency and year oftraining.
 No
10. What are the
main barriers to you
purchasing higher
volumes of food
commodities from
smallholder 
farmers?
 Volume of commodities produced by each farmer
 Purchase price
 Transportation of commodities-
 Other
11. What are the
major challenges
encountered in
grain trading?
Please rate between
1(least)-5(major)s
Lack of finances
Lack of proper equipment
Limited market/market information
High transport costs
Any other major challenges
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION
70
Local and Regional Procurement Project 
Baseline Survey Questionnaire for Farmer
Organizations
Introduction
My name is and I am working for the World Food Programme
/Partner Agency. Thank you [name of organization] 
for making time to meet with us. We are conducting a survey offarmers’ organizations andwould like 
to get information about groups’ governance, production, assets, marketing of its members’ 
commodities, financial management, trainings and sustainability.
The World Food Programme (WFP)is theUnitedNations frontline agency mandated to combat global 
hunger. WFP uses food assistance to save lives, address nutritional needs oftarget population and to 
help communities rebuild their shattered lives.
Wewouldliketotalkwithyoutounderstandthegroupbetter sothatwecanplanandsupportyou 
in a more informed way. The survey is voluntary and we shall not use the information for any other 
reason than aforementioned.
Do you have any questions?
Questionnaire number
Name of the interviewer
71
Background Information
County:
Sub-county:
Village name:
Urban/Rural:
Name of farmers’ organization
Contact Person
Mobile Number
Name of respondent
Position in the farmers’ organization
Date of interview
| | | | | | 20| | |
Day Month Year
Section A. Group Governance
A1. In what year was this farmer’s organization established? | || || || |
A1.1Inwhatyearwas this farmer’sorganizationlegallyregistered? | || || || |
A2. How many registered 
members does the 
organization have?
How many have paid their 
annual membership fee to 
date?
How many elected leaders (committee 
members) does the organization have?
A B C
1 Men | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2 Women | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
A3. How many members of the organization are transitioned from food
assistance Men Women
| | | | | | | | | | | |
A 3.1 No 
education
Formal Primary education Secondary 
education
Post-Secondary 
education
Howmanyofthecommitteemembershave?
A4. Is there clear division ofresponsibility forthe committee 
members? (Each committee member’s role should be 
clearly defined and also executed)
(Probe)
1 =
2 =
Yes 
No
A5. Are executive committee members held accountable for 
management of thegroup?
1 =
2 =
Yes 
No
A6. Is there an incentive to be a committee member? 
(Payments to committee members depending on 
amount ofresponsibility and this should be document)
1 =
2 =
Yes 
No
A7. How many group members are active?
A8. Type offarmer organization/group?(Circle the answer)
1 = Self Help Group
2 = Community Based Organization (CBO) 
3 = Cooperative/FO with trading company 
4 = Other(specify)
A9. How often does your organization hold elections? (Circle 
the answer)
1 = Every year
2 = Every two years 
3 = Every threeyears 
4= Other(specify)
A10. Were elections done as per the constitution? 1 = Elections done as per the constitution stipulations
2 = Elections not done as per the constitution stipulations
72
A11.Howoften does the organization holdmeetings for all 
members? (Circle theanswer)
1 = Weekly 2 = Monthly 3 = Bimonthly
4 = Quarterly 5 = Annually 6= Never meet
A12.Is thefrequencyofmeetingsdoneaspertheconstitution? 1 = Done as per the constitution stipulations
2 = Not done as per the constitution stipulations
A13. What kind of records does the organization keep? 
(Circle all answers applicable)
Verify the records by seeing them
1 = Minutes of meetings 
2 = Membership register 
3 = List of assets
4 = Store inventory for food commodities and other assets 
5 = Invoices, delivery notes and receipt books
6 = Bank Statements or Deposit and withdrawal slips
7 = Financial statements and Monthly, Annual Income /Expenditure 
Account,
8= Member contribution records 
9 = Training records
10= Other(specify)
A14. How many employees does the organization have Men | | |Women | | | If none move to sectionB
A15.1 Type of employee (for the different types of employees 
indicate numbers under casual or permanent, or otherwise zero)
Type of employee Contract type 
Casual
Contract 
Permanent
type
a) Manager
b) Accountant
c) Clerk
d) Watchman
e) Others(Specify)
Section B. Production
B1. Total area actually planted by members in acres?
B2. Type of crop grown?
1. Sorghum 5. Green grams
2. Pigeonpeas 6. Maize
3. Cow peas 7. Vegetables
4. Beans 8. Fruits
9. Other (specify)
B3. Seasons? mm/yy –mm-yy (to capture all seasons)
B4.Howmanymembersofthegrouphavetheir soilqualitytested 
before planting?
B5.Besidescropproductionwhatotheragriculturalactivitiesare 
undertaken by the group?
1. Poultry farming
2. Bee keeping
3. Cattle farming
4. DairyFarming
5. Fish Farming
6. Goatfarming 
7.
Other (specify)
B6.Howmanymembersofthegroupusecertified/recommended
inputs? f)
73
B6.1 Which are the certified/recommended inputs used?
1. Seeds
2. Fertilizer
3. Agrochemicals
4. Feeds
5. Other (specify)
B7.Does theorganizationhavestrategies inplacewhichmakethe 
members lessvulnerabletoweather-relatedrisksornatural 
disasters? If none skip to B8
1 = Yes
2 = No
B7.1 If yes, what type of strategies are in place?
1 = Insurance
2 =Irrigation
3=cropdiversificationandintercropping 
4 = mixed farming
5= Other(specify)
B8.Does theorganizationhavestrategies inplacewhichmakethe
members less vulnerable to biological and environmental 
risks? If none skip to B9
1 = Yes
2 = No
B8.1 If yes, what type of strategies are in place?
1 = drought/pest resistant varieties
2 = Adequate production and harvesting techniques
3=Adequatepost-harvestingtechniquesandtechnology 
4 = Food safety and Quality management
5=cropdiversificationandintercropping 
6 = improved farm hygiene
7 = Other (specify)
B9.Does thisorganizationcollectivelyaccess/purchaseinputs? If 
no, move to question B18,If access, move to question 
B15
1 = Purchases
2 = Access
2 = No
B10. How many of your registered members purchase inputs 
through the organization? Men | | || | : Women | | || |
B11. Where (which traders) has the organization bought inputs 
frominthepastoneyear?(Tick/circleall thatapply)
1= Seed companies
2 = Pest/Disease control companies 
3= NCPB
4 = Inputtraders 
5 = Retailers
6 = Other (specify)
B12. Did the organization sign any contract with the traders
above?
1 = Yes
2 = No
B13.Who determines the prices?
1 = Supplier
2 = Farmer Organization 
3 = Government
4 = Other (specify)
B14. Where are most of your traders located?
1 = Within the ward
2=Withinthecountybutoutsidetheward 
3 = Outside thecounty
4 = Outside the country
74
B15. Did you receive the following 
types of assistance?
(Prompt as necessary) Who provided the assistance?
1 = Yes
2 = No See codes below
a b
1 Subsidized or free seeds | | | |
2 Subsidized or free fertilizer | | | |
3 Subsidizedorfreefarmingimplements (tools) | | | |
4 Subsidized or free pesticides/herbicides | | | |
5 Providing or rehabilitating storage facilities | | | |
6 Loans of agricultural tools or work animals | | | |
B15 b: Assistance provider codes
1 = Government
2 = International/national NGO
3 = International development agencies (UN, USAID, GTZ, etc.) 
4 = Buyers
5 = National/Umbrella Farmers’ Association 
6 = Other (specify)
B16. What is the most common way the organization gets inputs from the traders? | |
B16: Delivery method codes
1 = Organization collects inputs from traders
2 = Traders deliver to the organization
B17. What is the most common way the organization gets inputs to its members? | |
B17. Delivery method codes
1 = Members collect inputs from farmer organization
2 = Farmer organization delivers inputs to its members
B18.Howdomembershandletheircommodityduring/after 
harvest?
1. Timely harvest
2. Conduct sorting forthe produce after harvesting
3. Placingproduceonopen/baregroundduring 
harvesting and drying
4. Use oftarpaulins during harvesting/drying
Additional comments
B19. How does the organization support members on post￾harvest management?
1. Provide drying facilities
2. Provision of sieves
3. Provision of transport facilities to farmers
4. Provision of Storagefacilities
5. Post-harvest information sharing/educationto 
members
6. Other
Additional comments
B20. Whatis the estimated quantity of commodity produce 
expected from all members? (list per commodity)
1. Commodity one | || || || |mts
2. Commodity two | || || || |mts
75
3. Commodity three | || || || |mts
B21. What percentage of commodity is consumed by 
members at the household level?
B22. Please estimate the total value (USD) of commodities 
sold to WFP per year?
KShs per year
TURKANA ONLY
B23. Does this FO have any forward delivery contracts 
signed with WFP?
Yes 
No
Comments
Section C. Group Assets
C1. Does this organization have access to storage facilities? 1 =
2 =
Yes
No (If no skip to C4)
C2. If yes, what are the terms of use
1 = Leased/loaned temporarily
2 = Long term lease/own temporary store
3 = Own permanent store
C3. Whatis the capacity of the store in 90 kg bags? (Record in 
MT= No of bags* 90/1000)
C4.Doestheorganizationhaveanyofthefollowingequipment? 1 = Yes
2 = No
C4.1 If yes, for each equipment list the following?
Type/Name Number Ownership(ownedor shared)
Current Condition
1. In goodcondition
2. In need of service
3. Broken down
4. Never Used
1. Sieve
2. Drier
3. Tarpaulin
4. Sheller
5. Moisture meter
6. Any other
g)
h)
C5. Does the organization own land? 1 = Yes
2 = No
C6.1 If yes record the size in acres | | || || | || |
Comments
Section D: Marketing
D1. Does this organization have a business plan? 1 = Yes
2 = No
D1.1 Has the organization followed through on the business plan 1 = Yes
76
2 = No
D1.2 What is the strength of the business plan (strength measured by: SMART
objectives,marketanalysis,projectionofvolumes tobeaggregated)-ensure 
you review the copy of the business plan
1= Considered weak
2= Considered average 
3 = Considered strong
D1.3 Is there clear systemof monitoring business plan (are the respondents able to 
explain the system) list a few aspects of the system
1 = Yes
2 = No
D2. Does this organization have a marketing plan? 1 = Yes
2 = No
D2.2 Has the organization followed through on the marketing plan 1 = Yes
2 = No
D3.Does theorganizationmonitormarkettrends/requirements relatedtoproduct 
quality and market demand?
1 = Yes
2 = No
D4. Does this organization aggregate and market members’ food commodities? If
no, move to question D16
1 = Yes
2 = No
D5. What percentage oftotal production volume do members sellthrough the 
organization?
D6.Where(whichmarkets)has theorganizationsoldtheir commodities inthepast 
one year? (Tick/circle all that apply)
1= Consumers (individuals) 
2 = Retailer traders
3= Wholesaler traders
4 = Schools
5 = Millers
6 = Hospitals
7 = Brewers
8= WFP
9= NCPB
10 = Other (specify)
D7. In the past one year, what is the total quantity (mt)that the organization has 
sold to different markets? (Record exact value in mt)
D8. Does the organization ensure they aggregate good quality commodity? If no, 
move to question D9
1 = Yes
2 = No
D8.1 How do they ensure the standards are adhered to?
1. By use of certifiedseeds
2. By testing the moisturecontent
3. Ensuring produce is clean and free of any foreign matter
4. Sortingofproduceafterharvest 
5.Any other(specify)
Comments
D9.Didtheorganizationsignanycontractwiththebuyersabove?Ifno,moveto 
question D10 1 = Yes
2 = No
D9.1 If yes, how many contracts did the organization sign | | || |
D9.2 Of the total contracts signed, how many were executed successfully? | | || |
D9.3. Of the total contracts signed, how many were partially defaulted | | || |
D9.4. Of the total contracts signed, how many were totally defaulted | | || |
D10.Who determines the prices?
1 = Buyer
2 = Farmer Organization 
3 = Government
4 = Other (specify)
D11. Where are most of your buyers located? 1 = Within the ward
77
WFP market is considered outside the county 2=Withinthecountybutoutsidetheward 
3 = Outside thecounty
4 = Outside the country
D12.Onaverage,howmanyofyourregisteredmembersmarkettheir commodities 
through the organization?
D12.1 How many of the members that market commodities through FO are 
women? | | || |
D12.2 If the number in D11 above is less than the total FO 
membership, what are the reasons for members not 
marketingtheircommodities throughtheorganization?
1. Lack of adequateawareness/knowledge
2. Inadequate production
3. Poor FO governance/management
4. Any other reason (specify);
Comments;
D13. Whatis the most common way the organization gets produce from members’to a collection pointfor sale 
or delivery? | |
D13. Delivery method codes
1 = Farmer organization collects produce from members 
2=Membersdelivertheirproducetotheorganization
3 = The buyer collects the produce from individual members
D14. What is the most common way the organization gets members’ produce from the organization’s 
collection point to a market/buyer where you can sell? | |
D14: Delivery method codes
1 = Organization delivers products to buyers 
2 = Buyers collect from organization
D15. What are the three most critical problems your organization faces in selling 
staple commodities on behalf of your members?
a b c
| | | | | |
D15: Problems codes
1= Limitedconsumerdemandforproducts 6 = Government trade restrictions
2 = Limited access to pricing information 8 = Poor transportation infrastructure
3 =Highcostsof collecting andpreparing commodities for 9 = Not able to meet quality demands of buyers 
market 10= Unpredictableprices/pricefluctuations
4 = Limited access to creditto pre-purchase commodities 11 = Other(specify) 
from members
5 = Low volume of staple commodities available from 
members (for example, because of late payment from 
buyers, lack of trust in organization, low production, 
etc.)
D16. What public source of price information have members relied on most often? | |
D16: Public market information sources
1 = Radio/TV
2= Informationboardsatlocalagriculturaloffices 
3 = Newspapers
4 = SMS system/mobile phone 
5 = Other
D17. Does the organization have any value addition enterprise on current produce 1 = Yes
2 = No
D17.1 If yes specify
D18. How can your organization be assisted to market its produce?
78
Section E: Group Financial Management
E1. Does your grouphave a bank account 1 = Yes 2 = No 
E2.Has this organization ever applied for cash loans? 1 = Yes 2 = No
(If “Yes”, go to question E3) 
(If “No”, go to question E6)
E3. Were any credit applications approved and the loans received? 1 = Yes 2 = No
(If “Yes”, go to question E4) 
(If “No”, go to question E5)
E4. Pleasetellmeaboutthecashloans thisorganizationhas receivedinthelastoneyear.
What is
Lender 
a
When did you 
receive the 
loan? (mm/yyyy)
b
Whatamountdidyou 
receive?
c
What is 
the current 
status of 
theloan?
d
Whatis the 
interest rate 
per annum? 
(%)
e
How many members 
benefitted? (Gender 
disaggregated)
Men Women 
f g
the 
repayment 
period (no. 
of months)
h
1 | | |
2 | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |
| | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E4 a: Lender types 5 = Agricultural supply 
companies
E4d: Loan status codes
1 = Fully repaid
1 = Bank
2 = Buyers (forward payment)
3 = Microfinance institution, 
including SACCOS
4 = NGOs, International
development agencies (UN,
USAID, GTZ, etc.)
6 = Affiliated farmers’ 
organization
7 = Government fund 
8 = Other (specify)
2 = Payments up to date but 
not fully paid off
3 = Payments not yetdue 
4 = In default
E8e: Type of loan
1 = Normal
2 = Emergency
3 = Other (specify)
E5. Whatwas themainreasonthefarmers’organization 
did not receive theloan?
(Go to question D7)
| |
1 = Had other outstanding loans
2 = Could not provide business plan
3=Didnotmeetthequalificationcriteria 
4 = Could not provide requested collateral 
5 = Lack of credit history
6 = Other (specify)
79
E6. Why has the organization never applied for 
credit? | |
1 = Did not need credit
2 = Lack of consensus in the organization 
3 = No credit providers in our area
4= Creditprovidersdonotgivecredittofarmers 
5 = Rates are too high
6 = Do not have the required collateral
7 = Lack of knowledge about access to loans
8 = Other
80
E7.Doesthisgroupoffercreditservicestoitsmembers?
E9)
1 = Yes 2 = No (If “No”, go to question
E8. If yes, please tell me about the cash loans this organization has given to its members in the last one year.
Howmuchwasdisbursedto 
members?
What is the interest rate 
per annum? (%)
How many members benefitted? (Gender
disaggregated)
Men Women Type of loan
a b c d e
1 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
E9.Does the organizationpaymembers fortheir commoditybefore
the buyers make payment
1 = Yes
2 = No
E10. Are incoming funds from sale of commodities shared between all 
members or only those who contribute?
1 = All members
2 = Only those who contribute
E11 Doestheorganizationsetasidesomefundstofacilitateproduction 
and marketing activities
1 = Yes
2 = No
E12. Does the organization ensure a financial strategy and planning?
(makes budgets,financial projections, allocationoffunds and monitoring 
use)
1 = Yes
2 = No
E13 Does the organization retain reserves for use in times of financial
distress? (savings, profits, membership fees and others)
1 = Yes
2 = No
Section F: Training
F1: Has any of your committee members been trained in the past year? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If “No”, go to question 
F2)
F1.1 If yes, how many were trained on?
TOPIC YES NO Number of 
committee 
Members trained
Training provider e.g. Cereal 
Growers Association, Ministry of 
Agriculture and Irrigation
Male Female
a. Group dynamics(governance)
b. Organizational behaviour
c. Leadership Skills
d. Other (specify)
e. Other (specify)
F2:Has any of your members been trained in the past year? 1 = Yes 2 = No (If “No”, go to question F3)
F2.1 If yes, how many were trained on?
TOPIC YES NO Number of 
Members trained
Training provider e.g. Cereal 
Growers Association, Ministry of 
Agriculture and Irrigation Male Female
a. Good agronomic practices
b. Conservation agriculture
b. Post-harvest handling
c. Entrepreneurship
d. Gender in agribusiness
e. Setting prices for produce
81
f. Procurement processes e.g. filling
tenders
in
g. Record keeping
h. Aflatoxin awareness
i. Financial Management/literacy
k. Other (specify)
F3. Does the organization offer services to its members
comments section)
(If “No”, go to 1 = Yes
2 = No
F4. If yes, what types of services do they provide
1=Trainingsandothertechnicalassistance 
2 = Quality control and inspection
3 = Market research
4 = Other
Comments: How has the organization applied the skills obtained during the trainings?
Comments: What is the impact of the trainings on the activities of the organization?
Comments: What other areas do your members need training in the next year?
Comments: What other services are provided by NGOs and government that have not been covered during this session?
Section G: Sustainability
G1. Does the group have good relations with organizations who can assist them in building 
their group capacities?
1 = Yes
2 = No
G2. Can the group operate and function independently from organizations that assistin 
building group capacities?
1 = Yes
2 = No
G3.Does thegrouphaveagoodrelationshipwiththelocalcommunities itisoperatingin? 1 = Yes
2 = No
G4. Does the group have adequate technical support from the line ministries? 1 = Yes
2 = No
G5. What other support does the group feel it is required but not addressed by the current enablers?
GPS coordinates (record in decimal 
degrees)………………………… Latitude (N/S) Longitude East
82
Local and Regional Procurement Project 
Baseline Survey Questionnaire for Teacher responsible for
school meals and/or School Meal Committee Members
Introduction
INTERVIEW DATE / /
DD MM YY
INTERVIEW START TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
/
HH MM
County:
Sub-county:
ID and name of school: | || || |
Type of school | | Day school | | Boarding school | | Both day and boarding school
Case or control school: | | Case (LRP targeted):
| | Control
Number of students as at
Term 1, 2018 (Excluding 
ECD)
Contact Person
Mobile Number
Provision of school lunch
1. How does your school currently 
provide school lunch?
| | Directly provided by WFP
| | Through WFP funding (cash) (Cash to Schools)
| | Through MoE funding (HGSMP)
| | Directly provided by the government
2. Other than the source above, 
does your school also get 
food for lunch from any of the
following sources?
YES
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
NO
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The county government 
School’s farm
The church
The parents teachers association
Direct contributions from parents 
Other NGOs
3. For Term 1, 2018 was food for 
lunch delivered before the 
school term began? (tick 
the appropriate cell).
| | Yes
| | No
4. How many days after start of 
Term 1, 2018 did the lunch 
food delivery arrive?
days
(If delivered before start of term enter zero)
5. Did your school experience 
any of the following problems 
with the lunch
YES
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
NO
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Bags arrived in poor condition (e.g. open/torn) 
Food was infested
Incorrect amount arrived (i.e. not as ordered) 
Supplier refused to bring food directly to school
Other
83
food supplied during Term 
1, 2018?
(specify)
6. During term 1 of 2018, how many Number of days
days was the school NOT able to | | | No food available
provide lunch due to the following | | | No one to prepare meals
reasons? | | || Not enough water
| | | Not enough firewood
| | || Food cannot be prepared when it rains due to poor condition of kitchen
| | || Other (please
specify)
7. In total how many days during 
Term 1, 2018 did you NOT 
provide school lunch?
days
8. For Term 1, 2018 was the lunch | | Yes
food procurement process | | No
completed before the start of the | | WFP procured the food
term? | | Central government procured the food
9. How many traders did your school 
utilize for school lunch provision 
during Term 1, 2018?
| |
84
10. What was the total volume for 
each commodity your school 
procured for lunch during Term 
1, 2018 (in KG)?
| | Sorghum
| | Rice
| | CSB
| | MSB
| | Bulgur Wheat
| | Beans
| | Yellow split peas
| | Green gram
| | Maize
| | Oil
| | Salt
| | Cowpeas
| | Vegetables
| | Fruits
| |Tomatoes
| | Onions
| | Other 1 (specify)
| | Other 2 (specify)
| | Other 3 (specify)
| | Other 4 (specify)
11. What was the total value of 
commodities procured for school 
lunch during Term 1, 2018?
KShs
12. How much did the | | Food transport
school/teachers’ have to pay | | Food storage
during Term 1, 2018 for | | Food unloading
additional lunch food | | Other (specify)
transportation or any other costs Please estimate the total additional monies spent during Term 1, 2018?
not included in the tender value? | |
(e.g. storage,, unloading etc.).
85
School menus
13. What meals do you serve for lunch 
on the following days?
Monday: | | | | | | | | 
Tuesday: | | | | | | | | 
Wednesday: | | | | | | | | 
Thursday: | | | | | | | |
Friday: | | | | | | | |
Codes:
1: Sorghum
2: Rice
3: CSB
4. MSB 
5: Wheat 
6: Beans
7. Yellow split peas 
8: Green gram
9: Maize
10: Oil
11. Salt
12: Cowpeas
13: Vegetables
14: Fruits 
15:Tomatoes 
16:Onions
18: Other 1 (specify)
19: Other 2 (specify)
14. How many of those meals does the 
school have written nutrient 
profiles for? | |
15. Has your school done any work 
with WFP during the last two 
years to revise your school lunch 
menus?
| | Yes we are in discussion
| | Yes we changed our menus
| | No
16. Does your school currently do any 
activities to promote consumption 
of a wide variety of foods (dietary 
diversity) for lunch?
YES NO
| | | | Use drought tolerant crops for school meals (including sorghum, millet 
or cowpeas)
| | | | Provide more than one type of school meal for lunch
| | | | Nutrition education for the children talking about the benefit of eating a 
wide variety of foods
| | | | School personnel received training from WFP or MoE on improving 
dietary diversity of school meals
| | | | Use food from a school garden in school meals
| | | | Other (please
specify)
Capacity building
17. Did any of the following staff 
members receive training in the 
last two years on the Home-Grown 
School Meal Programme 
(HGSMP) from WFP/MoE?
YES NO
| | | | Head Teacher
| | | | Teachers (Deputy head teacher, senior teacher, any other teacher)
| | | | School meals committee members
| | | | School chairman
| | | | Other (please 
specify)
18. Did any of the following staff 
member receive training in the last 
two years on tendering processes 
for procuring food from local
YES NO
| | | | Head Teacher
| | | | Teachers (Deputy head teacher, senior teacher, any other teacher)
| | | | School meals committee members
| | | | School chairman
86
traders for school meals from 
WFP/MoE?
| | | | Other (please 
specify)
19. How many full time cooks does 
your school have?
| |
20. Other than the full time cooks, 
how many other teachers/ 
members of staff /other people 
help in preparing school lunch?
| |
21. How many cooks/members of 
staff/teachers that help prepare 
lunch were trained in the last two 
years on good nutrition and 
menus?
| | Cooks
| | School meal teacher
| | School meal committee member
Observation:
1. Has the school received their food delivery for Term 2? | | Yes | | No
If yes, when was it received? (specify date) / / 2018
If no are you still able to serve school meals | | Yes | | No
2. Ask to see the nutrient profiles of any meals. How many meals have written profiles? | |
3. Please take a photograph of any nutrient profiles that schools have.
4. Please ask if you can see the school’s food store.
5. Please take a photograph of the food store ensuring that we can see how the food is stored on the 
ground.
INTERVIEW END TIME: INTERVIEW END TIME:
/
HH MM
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
GPS Coordinate
87
Annex 6: List of surveyed schools
Baringo County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Tangulbei Primary School Bartabwa Primary School
2 Lomuge Primary School Chemogoch Primary School
3 Chepkalacha Primary School Chemoinoi
4 Koipapich Primary Chepnyorgin Primary School
5 Koloa Primary Chesongo Primary School
6 Ngoron Emining
7 Tukomoi Primary Kabilany Primary School
8 Kaisakat Primary School Kaboron Primary
9 Chemayes Primary School Kalabata Primary School
10 Ptikii Primary School Kamweton Primary School
11 Loiwat Primary School Kapkelelwa Primary School
12 Dira Primary School Kaptara Primary School
13 Nalukumong'in Katunoi Primary School
14 Cheptunoyo Primary Kimose
15 Kositei Primary School Kipkaren
16 Chemolingot Boarding School Kipsoit Primary School
17 Tamkal Primary School Kures Primary School
18 Meuto Primary School Lomanira Primary
19 Barpello Primary Lombagishu Primary School
20 Maaron Primary School Molo Sirwa Primary
21 Nginyang Boarding Primary School Nato Primary
22 Aic Chemoril Primary School Ngurubeti Primary
23 Chesacam Primary School Noiwet Primary
24 Chepturu Primary School Radad Primary School
25 Tilingwa Primary School Rosoga Primary
26 Kapunyany Primary School Sosion Primary School
27 Chepelow Primary Tebei Primary School
28 Plesian Primary Terik Primary School
29 Churo Primary School Tiloi Primary School
Turkana County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Namalteny Lotiira Primary
2 Nakuse Primary Maggies Akatuman Primary
3 Lomunyenakwan Primary Kawarnaparan Primary
4 Agape Primary Kotela Primary
5 Nakukulas Primary Kotaruk Primary
6 Lochwaa Angikamatak Primary Nagis Primary
7 Arumrum Kanukurudio Primary
8 Nakwasinyen Primary Namoruputh Primary
9 Kalodicha Nataparkakono Primary
10 Kangitit Primary St.Teresa Nakwamor Primary
11 Kanaodon Primary Lokangae Primary
12 Aic Nadoto Primary Katiko Primary
13 Naregaekamar Nakoriogora Primary
14 St.Emmaculate Ngimuriae Primary
15 Lorogon Primary Kodopa
16 Abururu Naremit Primary
17 Naoyaregae Kabokorit Primary
18 Namorutunga Primary St. Cosmas Napopongoit
19 Lokorkor Lorengipi Primary
20 Kangimanyin Nameyana Primary
88
21 Nakatongwa Kalopiria Primary
22 St. Teresa Kimabur Kalokol Girls Primay
23 Loyapat Katula Primary
24 Kalapata Kabulokor Primary
25 Kakoel Lokamarinyang Primary
26 Kidewa St. Bakhita Teremkus
27 Kaaruko Longech Primary
28 Kangakipur Nanyangakipi
29 Kakong Loturerei
30 Kadam Lolupe Primary
31 Kaibole Napuu Primary
32 Lomonyang Primary School Kangagetei Primary
33 Namakat Kangirisae
34 Nayanaekaton Kaikir
West Pokot County
# LRP schools Non-LRP schools
1 Kapkewa Primary School Runo Primary School
2 Kasei Primary Chemaley Primary School
3 Timale Primary School Wakor Primary School
4 Kiwawa Primary Koposes Primary
5 Mbaru Primary Katimoril Primary
6 Kauriong Primary Sigor Girls Primary School
7 Cherangan Primary School Kapsimatia Primary School
8 Konyao Dorcas Primary School Chepserum Primary School
9 Konyao Arid Primary Ipeet Primary School
10 Nakwapuo Primary School Rukey Primary School
11 Kopulio Primary School Chepkukui Primary School
12 St Joseph Ack Nakwijit Primary School Tindar Primary School
13 Ngotut Primary School Lodupup
14 Kodera Primary School Kochar Primary School
15 Korpu Saya Primary School
16 Aic Asilong Primary School Ortum Boys Primary School
17 Kamketo Primary School Ortum Girls Primary School
18 Naruoro Primary School Kangisha Primary School
19 Kacheliba Primary School Ptulungwo Primary School
20 Tiyenei Primary School Pserum Primary School
21 Nakwoilal Primary School Sebit Primary School
22 Chepkinah Primary School Loklochoi/Nachecheyat
23 Natemeri Primary School Chepkobegh Primary School
24 Chelopoy Primary School Sokka Primary School
25 Aic Akiriamet Sobukwo Primary School
26 Lokichar Primary School Murpus Primary School
27 Sincholol Primary School Seretow Primary School
28 Aic Kameris Parek Primary School
29 Nauyapong Mixed Boarding Primary School March Pass Primary
30 Korkou Primaryschool Sangat Primary School
31 Kapterema Primaryschool Cheposekek
32 Takar Primary School Miskwony Primary School
33 Kasaka Primary School Tunoyo Primary School
89
Annex 7: Detailed description of the sampling methodology
A total sample of 192 schools were used (96 LRP schools and 96 non-LRP schools).
a) There are 382 LRP schools and 613 non LRP schools totalling 995 schools.
b) Schools with similar characteristics were clustered using the silhouette measure of cohesion 
and separation. The model converged at 0.7. The most cohesive cluster had skewness of 0.098 
returning a universe population of 354 LRP and non LRP schools
c) A population of 354 LRP and non-LRP schools were matched using the Silhouette measure 
of cohesion and separation that was utilized to define and validate the consistency of matching 
and clustering of LRP and non-LRP schools. This technique was used to match LRP and non 
LRP schools with similar spatial and demographic attributes. The matching and clustering 
process was validated by the model strength. The model converged at a silhouette value of 0.7. 
The silhouette value is a measure of cohesion of study cases which included LRP and non LRP 
schools. The silhouette ranges from −1 to +1, where a high value indicates that the clustered 
study cases are well matched.
d) The actual sample was determined by the formula below:
n = z² x (p) x (1-p)
m²
n = sample size
z = confidence level at 95% (standard value of 1.96) 
p = percentage picking choice (0.5)
m = margin of error at 5% (standard value of 0.05)
Correcting for finite population (N = 354)
n
n = 1 + n - 1
N
n = required sample 
n = old sample size 
N = population
Sample distribution by county
County
Matched 
Weight LRP Schools
Non LRP 
Schools
Baringo 30.2 29 29
Turkana 35.4 34 34
West Pokot 34.4 33 33
Total 100 96 96
BASELINE SAMPLE SIZE
School sample = 192
Sample size for treatment schools = 96 
Sample size for control schools = 96
90
Replacement of Schools.
Schools that were impossible to access during data collection were replaced. The access 
barriers included insecurity, flood-affected roads and bridges, and distance (for instance, it 
was not feasible to travel for a whole day to track one school within limited resources available 
for the study). Such schools were replaced by schools in the same silhouette cluster or 
overlapping schools in the contiguous cluster.
The impact model:
Where:
Impact = Score at T1 relative to T0
FTO = Farmer and Trader Organization Index/ranking 
Schools = Selected Schools impact score
Group = Exposure Variable
RE = Covariates (Both direct outcomes and the confounding) 
E = Model Estimation/Error Terms
LT = Latent Variables
At baseline, the study team computed score indices for the key outcomes, namely cost￾effectiveness, timeliness, nutrition scores and the overall impact benchmarking score. These 
measures will be computed again at the endline phase and the variance computed while 
controlling for random effects using multivariate analyses.
Both men and women have an equal chance of participation as respondents for the FOs and 
school committees in both the baseline and evaluation as outlined in WFP’s evaluation 
principle of gender equality.
91
Annex 8: Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation
Silhouette measure of cohesion and separation was used to define and validate the consistency 
of matching and clustering of LRP and non-LRP schools. This technique was used to match 
control and treatment schools with similar spatial and demographic attributes. The matching 
and clustering process is validated by the model strength. The model converged at a silhouette 
value of 0.7 as shown in the figure below. The silhouette value is a measure of cohesion of 
study cases which included control and treatment schools. The silhouette ranges from −1 to
+1, where a high value indicates that the clustered study cases are well matched.
The mean enrolment of 288.65 was validated by the grouped median of the initial unmatched 
population of 229.67. The grouped median is a trimmed median that mitigates all the outliers 
in both the LRP and non-LRP schools.
92
Annex 9: Qualitative survey tools
5.1.1 Semi-structured interview guides
• How were counties/sub-counties selected?
• How were traders and FOs selected?
• How were schools selected?
• To what extent are government authorities (national, county, sub-county) involved in the 
LRP?
• How does the LRP relate to key government policies/strategies?
• Have any WFP policies specifically been included in the design?
• Does the LRP relate to any work by other agencies?
• Explain transition from SMP to HGSMP in the three LRP counties:
• Timing of transition
• Specific challenges encountered per county
• Explain previous work with targeted FOs/ traders if any.
• Specific activities implemented
• What are the key challenges you foresee for the LRP?
• Has there been any specific consideration of gender issues? How have they been 
incorporated?
Check monitoring of the following indicators:
Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded intervention
Number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA assistance
Value of public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of
development as a result of USDA assistance
Quantity of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Cost of transport, storage and handling of commodity procured as a result of USDA assistance
Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA 
assistance
Number of individuals who have received short-term agricultural sector productivity or food security
training as a result of USDA assistance
• What is/going to be the role of the MoE in the LRP?
o Check any specific roles for national and county/sub-county MoE.
• Please comment on co-operation and information sharing between the MoE andWFP?
• What do you feel are going to be the main challenges for the MoE in implementing 
HGSMP?
o Any challenges related to LRP?
1. WFP personnel (LRP and/or market access team)
2. MoE personnel (government representatives)
93
Check monitoring of the following indicators:
Number of policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages of 
development as a result of USDA assistance
Knowledge of LRP
3. What do you know about the new WFP LRP project? What are they hoping to achieve?
4. How many traders did your school utilize for SM provision during SY 2016/17?
5. Did you have any problems with any of the tenders?
a. Elaborate
Purchase of local food commodities for provision of school meals
6. Experience purchasing through tenders.
a. What have been the best aspects of purchasing through tender instead of having 
food provided by WFP?
b. What have been the most difficult aspects of local purchase?
c. Comment on the current procurement process.
d. Have you experienced any issues re timeliness with local procurement?
e. How can procurement process be improved?
7. Approximately how many traders do you use to purchase the stock for the school meals 
programme?
8. Was your school able to provide school meals every school day during SY 2016/2017. If 
no, why not? Any reason related to insufficient food?
9. Discuss cost-effectiveness of procurement
10. Discuss timeliness of tender process and timeliness of delivery
a. Check timing of completing tender
b. Check timing of delivery of commodities (preferably before start of schoolterm)
11. Volume of commodities procured locally during SY 2016/17?
12. Main commodities purchased.
13. Value of commodities procured for school meals during 2016/17
14. Value of any additional monies spent on transport or any other costs related to food 
(transport, storage, loading, unloading etc.).
Capacity building
• Did your school administrator receive training during 2016/17 on HGSMP?
• Did any of your School Board of Management members receive training during 2016/17 
on HGSMP?
• Has your school administrator received training during 2017/18 on buying food from 
local traders? Tender process?
• Did any of your School Board of Management members receive training during 2017/18 
on buying food from local traders? Tender process?
• Have any of your cooks been trained on menus, hygiene and food handling procedures?
Yes No
• If yes, how many were trained during SY 2017/18?
3. School Meals Committee members
94
School menus
15. How many menus (per month) does your school currently follow for school meals?
16. Does your school have any nutrient profiles for the meals being provided?
a. Yes No (If yes, how many meals have profiles? )
17. Has your school done any work with WFP during SY2017/18 to revise your school 
menus?
18. If yes, are you currently using revised menus?
Suggestions and complaints
19. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the project? Make it sustainable?
20. Have you received any complaints about food purchased locally during SY 2016/17 or 
about WFP?
a. Any issues with working with WFP or their partner agencies? (Programmatic or 
financial)
Check monitoring of the following indicators:
Percentage of LRP schools procuring food before beginning of term
Percentage of schools where food is delivered to schools before term begins
Percentage of schools using diversified menus
Turkana only: Cost of distribution in schools in LRP areas compared to non-LRP areas
• How familiar are you with the tender process?
• What is your relationship with local small holder farmers?
• How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools?
• What do you find most difficult about the tender process? What is the easiest aspect? Do 
you have any suggestion for improving the tender process?
• What foods have the school meal committees most regularly purchased from you?
• Were you given any guidance about the type of food that can be purchased? Or the 
quality of food that is required? Elaborate
• Where are your suppliers based?
• Where are your buyers based?
• Do you supply to clients outside of XX County? Elaborate how far they trade.
• Have you made any changes to your business or business practices as a result of this 
project or due to the transition to CTS/HGSMP?
• Have there been any positive impacts of this project on your business?Elaborate
• Have there been any negative impacts of this project on your business? Elaborate
Check monitoring of the following indicators:
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
4. Grain traders
94
• The LRP is a project that will help farmers be more prepared for tendering processes and 
access a new market opportunity (school meals).
o Has this FO ever directly applied for school meals or other large tenders?
o If yes, what have you found to be the main challenges in the tendering process?
• What are the main challenges you face in participating in local tenders?
• How familiar are you with the tender process?
• What is your relationship with local traders?
• How can WFP better support the use of local food commodities into schools?
Check monitoring of the following indicators:
Volume of sales by project beneficiaries
Volume of commodities sold by project beneficiaries
5. Farmer Organizations
95
Annex 11: Evaluation timeline
2018
Feb March April May June
Week starting 26 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 30 7 14 21 28 4 11 18 25
Preparation of 
Inception Report by
Baseline Team.
Agreement on baseline 
design, matrix and 
tools and finalization
of Inception Report.
Review of Inception
Report by WFP and 
USDA/FAS
Finalization of 
Inception Report
Easter Break and
school holidays
Quantitative data 
collection – FOs and
traders (by WFP)
Training of
enumerators on school 
survey and finalization 
of the relevant tools 
and data entry
templates.
Quantitative data
collection - schools 
(by baseline team)
Qualitative data
collection (by baseline 
team
Data analysis and 
reporting
Submission of draft
report
96
Annex 12: Description of the calculation of the baseline scores
1. Cost-effectiveness score
Validation of the Cost-effectiveness Score
There is no statistical difference between the ATA (Actual total cost of commodities) and the cost 
effectiveness score, p > 0.05.
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
t df Sig. (2-
Mean Std. tailed)
Deviation
Std. Error 
Mean
95% Confidence Interval 
of the Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 
1
ATA -
CS 20753.7 277762.9 28497.9 -35829.5 77336.9 .728 94 .468
Assumptions
• The cost effectiveness is computed using the direct cost of food items only.
2. Timeliness score
Assumptions and justification
• The maximum term days are 70.
• The maximum delayed delivery days are 70.
• The maximum days for missing lunch is 70.
• Some of the “delayed” delivery is voluntary given the surplus food in the school store. 
We control for ‘voluntary delay” by including actual days lunch was not served in the 
schools.
• The outcome index is a percentage (maximum is 100 percent where delay days are 0 and 
actual days lunch was not served in the schools is 0.
Cost-effectiveness Score (CS) = GMC*VPCD
• GMC = ATA/ATV
• VPCT = ATV/#Children
• VPCD = VPCT/DLS
Where:
GMC = Actual grouped median cost 
ATA = Actual total cost of commodities
ATV = Actual total volume of commodities 
VCPT = Volume per child per term
VCPD = Volume per child per day
DLS = Days lunch served
Timeliness Score (TS) = (FD-DD-ML)/ (FD)*100
Where:
FD = Full Days (Maximum term days + maximum delayed delivery days + maximum lunch missed 
days)
DD = Actual delayed delivery days 
ML = Actual missed lunch days
97
• The extraction method is mean score to mitigate exclusion of the decimal performing 
schools from contributing to the overall score.
3. Nutrition score
Assumptions and justification
• The maximum cereals consumed in a day is 150 grams.
• The maximum pulses consumed in a day is 40 grams.
• The maximum oil consumed in a day is 5 grams.
• The maximum salt consumed in a day is 2 grams.
• The maximum actual days lunch was provided is 70
• The maximum menu item diversity value is 5 representing unique combinations in a 
week of 5 days.
4. Impact Benchmarking Score
Assumptions
• The maximum Timeliness Score is 100%
• The maximum Nutrition Score is 100%
• The observed cost effectiveness score is 13
• The desired situation is to spend a maximum of 13 KES per child per day while providing 
the most nutrition food every single day and in a timely manner.
Nutrition Score (NS) = Av ((TVCD/150), (TVPD/40), (TVOD/5), (TVCS/2))*W1/3, (DLS/70)* W1/3, 
(MEN/3)* W1/3
Where:
Av = Average
TVCD = Total volume of cereals per child per day fed 
TVPD = Total volume of pulses per child per day fed 
TVOD = Total volume of oil per child per day fed 
TVSD = Total volume of salt per child per day fed 
DLS = Actual days lunch was provided
MEN = Menu items diversity
W1/3 = 1/3 weighting
Impact Score = (TS + NS - CS)/187*(100)
Where:
TS = Timeliness Score 
NS = Nutrition Score
CS = Cost Effectiveness Score
98
Annex 13: Additional data from the trader survey
• Age breakdown of surveyed traders
Baringo West Pokot Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
18-35 years 2 4 11 11 13 15
36-55 years 5 2 11 8 16 10
Total 7 6 22 19 29 25
13 41 54
• Educational qualifications of surveyed traders
Baringo West Pokot Total
Male Female Male Female Male Female
Primary 1 0 12 7 13 7
Secondary 6 1 7 8 13 9
Diploma 0 3 0 3 0 6
Degree 0 2 3 1 3 3
Total 7 6 22 19 29 25
13 41 54
• Main source of commodities
Baringo West Pokot
Small scale farmers 61.5 63.4
Large scale farmers 0.0 24.4
Farmer Organizations 0.0 0.0
Other traders/middlemen 23.1 12.2
Other 15.4 (wholesalers) 0.0
• Main mode of commodity transportation
Baringo West Pokot
Carried by hand 0.0 4.9
Bicycle or motorcycle 7.7 24.4
Pick up 69.2 17.1
Lorry 53.8 63.4
Public transport 7.7 0.0
None/Don’t transport 0.0 4.9
99
• Main type of grain storage by traders
Baringo West Pokot
Basic earth granaries 15.4 7.3
Permanently owned warehouse 7.7 39.0
Permanently rented warehouse 76.9 53.7
• Percentage of traders reporting sales to the 
following buyers
Baringo West Pokot
Households 92.3 90.2
Retail store 69.2 43.9
Millers/brewers 46.2 26.8
Other traders 61.5 29.3
Hospitals 15.4 2.4
Government food agencies 7.7 0.0
International development agencies 7.7 0.0
Schools 76.9 31.7
NGOs 0.0 4.9
Others 0.0 0.0
100
Annex 14: Additional data from FO survey
• Length of time surveyed FOs have been established, by county
Length of time Baringo Turkana West Pokot
No. years 
established
<= 5 years 45.7% 13.9% 81.3%
6-10 years 28.3% 19.4% 12.5%
11-15 years 17.4% 8.3% 6.3%
16 – 20 years 2.2% 5.6% 0%
21+ years 6.5% 52.8% 0%
• Main source of assistance received by surveyed FOs (% receiving)
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
Subsidized or free seeds 100.0%
Government
85.7%
Government
92.3%
Government
Subsidized or free fertilizer 92.9%
Government
0% 50.0% 
NGO &
Government
Subsidized or free farming 
implements (tools)
100%
Government
50%
Government
100% 
NGO
Subsidized or free 
pesticides/herbicides
50%
Government
0% 100% 
NGO
Providing or rehabilitating 
storage facilities
100%
Government
60%
International 
Development Agencies
100% 
NGO
Loans of agricultural tools or
work animals
60%
Government
0% 100%
NGO
• Location of FOs suppliers
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Within the ward 73.9 5.6 18.8 39.8
Within the county but outside the ward 21.7 11.1 12.5 16.3
Outside the county 4.3 2.8 75.0 15.3
Outside the country 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
No external suppliers reported 0.0 80.6 0.0 29.6
• Location of FOs buyers
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
Within the ward 76 14 31 45.9
Within the county but outside the ward 20 14 25 18.4
Outside the county 4 0 44 9.2
Outside the country 0 0 0 0.0
No buyers reported 72 26.5
• Percentage of FOs reporting members receiving training
• Number of FOs reporting barriers to selling their members products
103
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
60
40
Good agronomic Conservation Post-harvest Entrepreneurship Gender in Setting prices for Procurement Record keeping Aflatoxin 
practices agriculture handling agribusiness produce processes awareness
Financial Other
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
80
70
60
50
40
30
Limited consumer Limited access to High cost of Limited access to
demand price information collecting/
preparing 
commodities for 
market
credit
Low volume of Government trade Poor transport 
commodities restrictions infrastructure 
available from
members
Not able to meet 
quality demands prices
Other
Number of times problems 
mentioned
104
Annex 15: Additional data from school survey
• Percentage of schools reporting completion of food procurement process before 
start of Term 1, 2018
Completed 
procurement
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Yes 6.9% 58.6% 0 91.2% 3% 75.8% 3.1% 76%
No 34.5% 0 8.8% 27.3% 24.2% 9.4% 21.9%
N/A (food was 
provided)
93.1% 6.9% 100% 0 69.7% 0 87.5% 2.1%
• Schools reporting a delay in food delivery for Term 1, 2018
**All Schools (Average)
LRP Schools Non LRP-Schools
Baringo 21.3 8.6
Turkana 3.1 0.8
West Pokot 23.5 9.2
Total 15.6 6
**Only schools that reported a delay (Average)
LRP Schools Non LRP-Schools
Baringo 21.3 12.5
Turkana 5.8 7
West Pokot 25.9 17.2
Total 19.5 13.9
• Number of suppliers utilized by the school
Number of suppliers 
used
Baringo Turkana West Pokot
LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non- LRP
Mean 1 1 1 1 2 1
Range 2 0 2 2 2 1
Minimum 1 1 1 1 1 0
Maximum 3 1 3 3 3 1
Grouped median 1 1 1 1 2 1
105
• Percentage of schools reporting using these food commodities for their school 
lunches during Term 1, 2018
School Type Food Item N Percent of Cases
LRP School Rice 93 96.9%
Wheat 45 46.9%
Beans 62 64.6%
Yellow split peas 34 35.4%
Oil 96 100.0%
Salt 94 97.9%
Vegetables 1 1.0%
Onions 1 1.0%
Non LRP School MSB 1 1.1%
Beans 95 100.0%
Maize 95 100.0%
Oil 95 100.0%
Salt 95 100.0%
Onions 1 1.1%
• Total volume for each commodity your school procured for lunch during Term1,
2018
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Sorghum -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Rice 2900.0 -- 1480.0 -- 3150.0 -- 1875 --
CSB -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
MSB -- 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
Wheat 114.7 -- 1525.0 -- -- -- 83 --
Beans 630.0 657.0 -- 705.6 835.0 450.0 433 665
Yellow split peas -- -- 780.0 -- -- -- 53 --
Green gram -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Maize -- 2484.0 -- 2766.7 -- 2000.0 -- 2610
Oil 97.5 60.8 88.8 90.0 84.0 62.7 89 78
Salt 48.8 49.0 62.1 35.6 47.0 40.0 50 40
Cowpeas -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Vegetables -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Fruits -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Tomatoes -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Onions 0.3 0.3 -- -- -- -- -- --
106
• Number of schools reporting receiving food from other sources
Secondary 
sources of food
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non- LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
County
Government 1 1 2 1 3 2
School 
garden/farm 1 2 2 2 3
Church 1 2 1 2 5 1
PTA 1 3 1 4 1
Direct 
contribution from
parents
1 3 1 3 1
NGOs 6 1 3 3 7 6
9 1 3 6 12 8 24 14
10 9 20 38
• Number of school cooks and training – (Grouped median)
Personnel
Baringo Turkana West Pokot Total
LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP LRP Non￾LRP
Cooks 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
Cooks 
trained 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
Teachers
trained 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
SMC
members
trained
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
107
Annex 16: Project monitoring results - 1 October 2017 to 31 March 2018
LRP – World Food Programme - Kenya Targets
Baseline values 
# October 1, 2017 - March 31, 2018 Standard/ 
Custom # Result Performance Indicator
Year 1 Year 2
Life of 
project 1 Oct 2017 –
30 Sept 2018
1 Oct 2018 –
30 Sept 2019
1
Standard 
#1
LRP 
SO 1
Number of individuals benefiting directly 
from USDA-funded intervention
31,150 31,150 31,150 721
2
Standard 
#2
LRP 
SO 1
Number of individuals benefiting indirectly 
from USDA-funded intervention
61,000 61,000 61,000 0
582,524 597,087 1,179,612 Baringo: Total value = KES
16,974,366/ USD 169,744; Median
value per FO = KES 127,333/ USD 
1,273
3
Standard 
#3
LRP 
1.3.2.2 Value of sales by project beneficiaries
Turkana: Total value = KES
14,707,250/ USD 147,073; Median
value per FO = KES 390,000/ USD 
3,900
West Pokot: Total value = KES 
24,433,00/ USD 244,433; Median
value per FO = KES 612,500/ USD 
6,125
4
Standard 
#4
LRP 
1.3.2.1
Volume of commodities (metric tons) sold 
by project beneficiaries
415 150 565 Baringo: Total volume = 2020.4MT; 
Median volume per FO = 38.9MT 
Turkana: Total volume = 176MT; 
Median volume per FO = 9.3MT
West Pokot: Total volume =
9,334.3MT; Median volume per FO = 
19.1MT.
5
Standard 
#5
LRP 
1.4.3/
1.4.4
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed as a result of USDA assistance
220 220 220 9
108
6 Standard 
#6
L
RP 
1.4.3
/
1.4.
4
Value of public and private sector 
investments leveraged as a result of USDA 
assistance
5
8
2
,
5
2
4 597,087 1,179,612
0
8 Standard 
#8
L
RP 
1.4.1/
1.4.
2
Number of policies, regulations and/or 
administrative procedures in each of the 
following stages of development as a result 
of USDA assistance
1
2
3
1
9
Standard 
#9
L
RP 
1.
3
Quantity of commodity procured (MT) as a
result of USDA assistance (by commodity 
and source country)
365
0 365
0
10
Sta
ndard 
#
1
0
L
RP 
1.
3
Cost of commodity procured as a result of 
USDA assistance (by commodity and 
source country)
165,12
0
0 165,12
0
0
12
Standard #12
L
RP 
1.1
/ 1.
2
Cost of transport, storage, and handling of 
commodity procured as a result of USDA 
assistance (by commodity)
100,30
1
0 100,30
1
0
13
Sta
ndard 
#
1
3
L
RP 
S
O
1
Number of social assistance beneficiaries 
participating in productive safety nets as a
result of USDA assistance
30,000 30,000 30,000
0
14
Sta
ndard 
#
1
4
L
RP 
1.3.
2
Number of individuals who have received 
short
-term agricultural sector productivity 
or food security training as
a result of USDA 
assistance
200 200 400 2,535
#1 Custom N/A Cost of distribution in schools in LRP areas 
compared to non LRP areas
TBD TBD TBD
#2 Custom N/A Percentage of LRP schools procuring food 
before beginning of the term
80% 90% 90% N/A
#3 Custom N/A
Percentage of schools where food is 
delivered to schools before school term 
begins
80% 90% 90% 19.8
%
#4 Custom N/A Percentage of schools using diversified
school meals menus
50% 10
0
% 10
0
% 0%