Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS)
Decentralized Evaluation
Final evaluation of the World Food Program USDA/McGovern-Dole International
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE 615- 2013/041/00) in Kenya
2014-2016
Evaluation Report
October 2017
Commissioned by the WFP Kenya Country Office
Evaluation Managers: Jennifer Nyanjui and Beatrice Mwongela
Evaluation Team:
Analysis and reporting (Independent Consultants)
Sophia Dunn, Team Leader
John Otsola, Research Specialist
Design and data collection (TNS)
Stephen Aloo, Team Leader & Director, East & Southern Africa, Kantar Public
Bernard Nyauchi, Project Manager & Research Manager
Imelda Ochari, Assistant Project Manager & Research Executive
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making
ii
Acknowledgements
This evaluation report was developed through wide consultation and collation of data
from different partners and stakeholder of the School Meals Program. The evaluators
would like to acknowledge and appreciate the contributions provided by the WFP
Kenya Team, the Government of Kenya through the Ministry of Education, the county 
government officials, and other stakeholders for their contribution towards the 
evaluation. Most importantly, the evaluation team would like to acknowledge all the 
participants in the evaluation process – households, teachers, cooks, and other key 
informants. Without your input, this evaluation would not have been possible.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not
necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the
opinions expressed in this report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this
document does not imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or
constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the
delimitation of frontiers.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
iii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview of the Evaluation Subject........................................................ 1
1.2 Context..................................................................................................4
1.3 Summary of findings from the Mid-Term SMP Evaluation..................... 7
1.4 Evaluation Methodology & Limitations..................................................8
2 Evaluation Findings....................................................................................11
2.1 Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate is the SMP? ...........................11
2.1.1 Appropriateness to needs..................................................................................... 11
2.1.2 Alignment with national policies and strategies ................................................12
2.1.3 Alignment with WFP corporate strategies, policies and normative guidance ...13
2.1.4 Alignment with other development partners .....................................................14
2.1.5 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 1 ...................................................15
2.2 Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the School Meals
Program?...................................................................................................... 16
2.2.1 Thematic area: School performance....................................................................16
2.2.2 Thematic area: Provision of school meals ...........................................................21
2.2.3 Thematic area: Participation in education ......................................................... 27
2.2.4 Thematic area: Food utilization and food safety.................................................31
2.2.5 Thematic area: Increased national capacity....................................................... 36
2.2.6 Thematic area: Efficiency of program delivery ...................................................41
2.2.7 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 2 .................................................. 44
2.3 Evaluation Question 3: How and why did the School Meals Program
produce the results? ..................................................................................... 47
2.3.1 Internal issues affecting the implementation of SMP....................................... 47
2.3.2 External issues affecting the implementation of SMP ......................................48
2.3.3 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 3 .................................................. 50
2.4 Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the School Meals Program?
50
2.4.1 National Government Commitment................................................................... 50
2.4.2 National Government Contribution ....................................................................51
2.4.3 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 4.................................................. 52
3 Conclusions ............................................................................................... 53
4 Recommendations.....................................................................................56
5 Bibliography ..............................................................................................59
6 Annexes .....................................................................................................62
iv
List of Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation Terms of Reference 62
Annex 2: Counties where the USDA-supported SMP is implemented 72
Annex 3: UWEZO 2014 report - school performance rankings for the targeted SMP targeted
counties 73
Annex 4: Recommendations of the SMP Mid-Term Evaluation 74
Annex 5: Evaluation criteria 77
Annex 6: Evaluation Matrix 78
Annex 7: List of key informants 83
Annex 8: Quantitative data collection tools 90
Annex 9: Qualitative data collection tools 142
Annex 10: List of schools selected for field visits 150
Annex 11: Detailed methodology 153
Annex 12: Secondary data on education outcomes in the SMP counties 158
Annex 13: Household survey findings re commuity needs 160
Annex 14: Other development actors working in the SMP locations 161
Annex 15: Additional UWEZO education data (2015) 162
Annex 16: Additional analysis re attentiveness in class 163
Annex 17: Activity indicator – Number of boys and girls receiving school meals (2014-2016)
164
Annex 18: Additional analysis re parental reporting of meals before and after school 165
Annex 19: Activity indicator – Total quantity of commodities provided to SMP as a result of
USDA assistance 166
Annex 20: Parental reporting of whether there were times that meals were not provided at
school, by county 167
Annex 21: Additional analysis re school attendance (students) 168
Annex 22: Additional analysis re school enrolment 170
Annex 23: Percentage of households able to name benefits of education, by county 172
Annex 24: Additional analysis re WFP provided training on food preparation and storage
practices 173
Annex 25: Additional analysis re food preparation and hygiene 175
Annex 26: Additional data re sanitation (toilet) facilities in surveyed schools 176
Annex 27: Activity indicator – Capacity building: local, regional and national level 177
Annex 28: Additional data re reported security threats by county 178
Annex 29: Additional data re locations of households reporting knowledge of the feedback
hotline 179
Annex 30: Updated PMP 180
Annex 31: Additional data - Significance test results 187
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of recommendations - Mid-Term Evaluation of SMP (2015) 7
Table 2: Summary of key results - Evaluation Question 1 15
Table 3: Literacy and numeracy rates during SMP implementation 17
Table 4: Activity indicators: Promotion of teacher attendance 18
Table 5: Results indicator: More consistent teacher attendance 19
Table 6: Results indicator: Improved attentiveness 20
Table 7: Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their teachers 20
Table 8: Results indicator: Increased access to food (school feeding) 22
Table 9: Percent of students in target schools consuming daily meals at school by county 22
Table 10: Results indicator: Reduced short term hunger 23
Table 11: Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal before and
during the school day (as reported by school children) 24
Table 12: Parents reporting of how children ate lunch if meal not provided at school 26
Table 13: Results indicator: Improved student attendance 27
Table 14: Results indicator: Improved student attendance (completion) 29
Table 15: Net enrolment rates 2014-2016 29
Table 16: Results indicator: Increased student enrolment 30
Table 17: Activity indicator: Raising awareness on the importance of education 31
Table 18: Results indicator: Increased community understanding on the benefits of
education 31
Table 19: Results indicator: Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage
practices 33
Table 20: Results indicator: Increased access to requisite food preparation and storage tools
and equipment 33
Table 21: Results indicator: Increased capacity of government institutions 37
Table 22: Results indicator: Improved policy and regulatory framework 37
Table 23: Results indicator: Increased engagement of local organizations and community
groups 38
Table 24: Household reporting of monies requested for school meals 38
Table 25: WFP cross cutting indicators - gender 39
Table 26: Security threats identified at WFP SMP sites 39
Table 27: Household reporting of possible ways they can make complaints 40
Table 28: Planned vs. Actual commodities distributed (2015) 42
Table 29: Hypothetical cost comparison of paper versus technology enabled reporting 43
Table 30: Summary of key results - Evaluation Question 2 44
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Percentage of illiterate and innumerate children in the SMP targeted counties
(2015) 17
Figure 2: Reasons for pupil’s inattentiveness in class 20
Figure 3: Total number of students receiving school meals 21
Figure 4: Parental reduction in food portions for school children on weekdays compared to
weekends 24
Figure 5: Total quantity of commodities provided to SMP as a result of USDA assistance 25
Figure 6: Proportion of school days that SMP Meals were provided 25
Figure 7: Primary School Attendance by County 27
Figure 8: Reasons for school absence, by county 28
Figure 9: Number of trainings provided on food preparation and storage techniques 32
Figure 10: Number of teachers trained in food preparation and storage practices 32
Figure 11: Attributes of the SMP school cooks and kitchens 34
Figure 12: Attributes of SMP food stores 35
Figure 13: Number of HGSMP manuals distributed to MoE by WFP 36
Figure 14: Number of MoE officers benefiting from HGSMP manual distribution 36
Figure 15: Proportion of support to non-food inputs, provided by parents 38
Figure 16: Key informant views on SMP implementation efficiency 41
Figure 17: Flow of SMP food provision 42
Figure 18: Government contributions to SMP (2014-2016) 51
vii
List of Acronyms
ASAL Arid and semi-arid lands
CO (WFP) Country Office
CP Country Program
DEO District Education Office
DEQAS (WFP) Decentralized Evaluation and Quality Assurance Standards
DFID (UK) Department of International Development
EB Executive Board (WFP)
ECD Early Childhood Development
EOP End of Project
FFE Food for Education
FTC Feed the Children Kenya
GPE Global Partnership for Education
HGSMP Home Grown School Meals Program
HQ (WFP) Headquarters
IPC Integrated Food Security Classification System
KCPE Kenya Certificate of Primary Education
KES (KSh) Kenyan Shilling (currency)
KESSP Kenya Education Support Sector Program
LESS Logistics Execution Support System
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MGD McGovern-Dole
MoE Ministry of Education
MoH Ministry of Health
MT Metric Tonnes
MTR Mid-term Review
mVAM Mobile Vulnerability, Analysis and Mapping
NESP National Education Sector Program
NSNP National Safety Net Program
OEV Office of Evaluation (WFP)
PCD Partnership for Child Development
PTA Parents-Teachers Association
QASO Quality Assurance and Standards Officer
RB (WFP) Regional Bureau
SCDE Sub-County Director of Education
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SMC School Management Committee
SMP School Meals Program
SNV Netherlands Development Organization
SO Strategic Objective
SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SUN The “Scaling up Nutrition” Movement
TOR Terms of Reference
UK United Kingdom
UN United Nations
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USD United States Dollar (currency)
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WaSH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP (United Nations) World Food Programme
viii
Map 1: Map of Kenya showing location of targeted SMP districts
Source: WFP VAM Unit, Kenya
Acronyms on map:
• SMP: School Meals Program
• HGSMP: Home Grown School Meals Program (national government)
• WFP-CTS: World Food Programme – Cash transfer to schools
ix
Map 2: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification Map – February 2014
Source: IPC Kenya (2014)1
1 http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-countries/ipcinfo-eastern-middle-africa/Kenya
x
Map 3: Integrated Food Security Phase Classification map and forecast –
June 2016
Source: IPC Kenya (2016)2
2 http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-countries/ipcinfo-eastern-middle-africa/Kenya
xi
Executive Summary
1. This report is for the final evaluation of the World Food Programme (WFP)
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme (FFE
615-2013/041/00) in Kenya. The School Meals Program (SMP) is implemented by WFP
in 1,766 schools in ten targeted arid counties and the unplanned settlements of Nairobi,
Kenya. The evaluation covers the period from program design phase (2013) to the time of
the evaluation (September 2016). The purpose of the evaluation was to assess and report
on the performance and results achieved through support from the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the authority of McGovern-Dole Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program.
2. This evaluation was conducted between 8th June and 5th September 2016. It was
designed to compare achieved results against the baseline survey (May-June 2014) and a
mid-term review (May 2015) and uses the internationally agreed criteria of relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. The evaluation focuses on
accountability (against intended results) and learning (for the continuance of the school
feeding in Kenya). The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach and triangulated
information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability of findings. The 
evaluation was designed to answer four key questions:
• Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate is the School Meals Program?
• Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the SMP?
• Evaluation Question 3: How and why did WFP achieve these results?
• Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the SMP?
3. The main expected users of the evaluation report are WFP, the Government of
Kenya, the donors (USDA, Canada/DFATD, Australia, Russia, and private donors), and
other stakeholders in decision-making for program implementation and/or design. This
includes the WFP Kenya Country Office (CO), Regional Bureau (RB) which provides
strategic guidance, program support, and oversight, WFP Headquarters in Rome (HQ) for 
wider organizational learning and accountability and its Office of Evaluation (OEV) to feed 
into evaluation syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive Board. The key 
Government of Kenya line ministries that will be interested in the evaluation findingsare 
the Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry of 
Health, and Treasury, including relevant Ministries at county level. County and Sub￾County Education Officers, School Management Committees are also key, as they are
involved in program implementation and policy support.
4. WFP and the Government of Kenya have been supporting school meals in Kenya
since 1980.3 Traditionally, this has been done through in-kind food assistance, with food
procured largely from outside Kenya. To pursue greater national ownership and
sustainability of the program, the Government of Kenya started implementing a national
Home-Grown School Meals Program (HGSMP) in 2009. HGSMP is now implemented in
semi-arid counties that were previously served by WFP. While the Government and WFP
work to gradually expand the coverage of the HGSMP, WFP continues to support children 
in all public schools in the arid lands and in targeted schools in the informal settlements of 
Nairobi, where food insecurity continues to be widespread, and education indicators are 
below the national average.
3 Langinger, N. (2011) School Feeding Programs in Kenya: Transitioning to a Home-grown Approach. Stanford Journal of
International Relations. Fall 2011.
xii
5. The objectives of the SMP include improving primary student enrolment,
attendance, literacy and attentiveness, reducing short term hunger and improving access
to food for school children. The project also aims to enhance teacher attendance, spread
awareness on the benefits of education among the community, engage local organizations
and community groups, increase knowledge about safe food preparation and storage and
provide equipment for this purpose. Gender issues have been mainstreamed through the
program including an emphasis on the need for gender balance in schools Board of
Management, and improving sanitation facilities in schools to provide a more gender￾sensitive school environment that encouraged girls to consistently attend school, even
during menstruation. Finally, to ensure sustainability, the objectives include building
government capacity and improving the policy and regulatory framework in support of
child health and nutrition.
Methodology
6. Qualitative key informant interviews were conducted with 160 people with either
local, county or national level roles in the program. Key informants included WFP, MoE
and other government representatives, donors, national partners, and parents. Field visits
were also conducted in 79 randomly selected schools. In each school, the evaluation team
completed quantitative surveys with Head Teachers, School Cooks, Storekeepers, parents,
and school children. Observations on the quality of school facilities were also conducted 
in each of the visited schools, including the kitchen, food preparation and storage areas.
Key Findings
7. The key findings of the evaluation team are summarised below, structured
according to the four evaluation questions.
Evaluation question 1: How appropriate is the SMP?
8. The long-term objective of the SMP is to promote universal primary education of
socio-economically disadvantaged and nutritionally vulnerable children, especially girls,
within the primary schools in targeted areas. The relevance and importance of this
objective was confirmed by key informant interviews with multiple Government officials
at all levels: national, county and district. At the time of the SMP design, all ten targeted
counties were behind the national average education figures – enrolment, attendance and
literacy and numeracy, indicating that educational support programs were appropriate.
9. The SMP aligns well with Government of Kenya policies and strategies, with WFP’s 
own corporate guidance, and aligns well with the work of other development actors. WFP
also coordinates with others to ensure that their targeted communities receive 
complementary assistance that WFP cannot provide. Overall, this EoP evaluation found 
the design of the SMP to be appropriate to the education, food security, and gendercontext, 
and coherent to the policy framework of the Government of Kenya as well as WFP
corporate guidance.
Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the SMP?
10. The evaluation finds that overall, the SMP has been well implemented and effective 
at meeting program results and targets. The SMP has been very effective at improving the 
capacity of the MoE to implement SMP and transition to HGSMP. WFP has contributed 
to Kenya’s education policy direction, supporting the development of multiple government 
policies and strategies. WFP has also provided numerous trainings for teachers and MoE 
officials, and supported the distribution of HGSMP and National School Health
Guidelines.
xiii
11. The provision of school meals has been implemented as planned, with both targets
and actual delivery decreasing annually, as counties transition to the government’s
HGSMP. The evaluation found that only half (53.4%) the surveyed children eat a meal at
home before coming to school, highlighting the importance of the school meal in reducing 
short term hunger. Parents were asked if and how the children ate lunch when school meals 
were not provided. Although many children would go home for lunch and return to school, 
30 percent would not eat lunch, and more than ten percent of children (12.5%) would go 
home for lunch but then not return to school. This indicates the role that the SMP plays
not only in food security, but in keeping children in school all day.
12. The presence of SMP has also contributed to improving school enrolment, and has
been critical for improving student attentiveness in class. Although inattentiveness has
numerous causes, teachers identified hunger as the primary reason. Attendance rates have 
been high (>80%) since baseline, with no significant change over the course of this period 
of implementation. All school level key informants reported that when food is not available, 
student attendance reduces, so there is clearly a link between the SMP and attendance. 
This makes it even more important that meals are available every school day. The 
evaluation found that school meals were provided only 65-70% of school days over the 
course of the program in part due to funding constraints from other (non-USDA) donors
and pipeline delays, as well as occasional insufficient firewood and water provision by the
communities. This is likely to have reduced potential education outcomes.
13. Despite the role of SMP in improving enrolment, attentiveness of students and
keeping them in school all day, the intended school performance outcome – reading
comprehension/literacy - has not improved. The evaluation found that literacy is poor
throughout Kenya, and that the Government is taking steps to address this.
14. The capacity development support that WFP has provided to train school personnel 
in appropriate food storage and food preparation practices has been effective, with 82% of 
schools now having dedicated kitchen facilities and 80% having dedicated food storage 
facilities. These results are also testament to the effective model of parental engagement
employed by the program, as these facilities are supported in part by parental 
contributions. WFP’s participatory approach has also improved gender equality in SMP 
management with most schools now having equal representation of men and women on 
the School Management Committee (SMC).
15. The evaluation found that some counties performed poorly on multiple indicators
including school attendance, children eating meals before school, the percentage of days
that school meals are provided, attentiveness of students, and the presence of energy
efficient stoves. These counties - Baringo, West Pokot, Turkana and Marsabit - will need
tailored support depending on their results, to bring them up to the standard of the other
counties.
Evaluation Question 3: How and why did WFP achieve these results?
16. Despite considerable challenges due to the harsh terrain in the arid counties, the
WFP system of delivering food to schools was efficient. WFP has provided high quality food
commodities, delivered to schools in a timely manner with no complaints, and minimal
loss of food during transportation.
17. A comprehensive monitoring system has been utilized by WFP and the findings and 
analysis from it has contributed to the efficient implementation of the program, and
changes in implementation as required. One area identified for improvement was poor
supervision by MoE staff to the more remote parts of some counties. This was identified
xiv
in multiple areas including Baringo, Samburu, and Garissa counties. The evaluation
recognizes that WFP and MoE are working to improve joint monitoring activities so this
issue may be resolved soon.
18. Although useful for project monitoring, teachers found the paper based system
cumbersome and time consuming, and the evaluation found it to be expensive. The
evaluation also found that the components of the program implemented by the Sub￾County Director of Education (SCDE), including delivery of food to schools introduced
inefficiencies in terms of delays and extra costs for Head Teachers.
Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the SMP?
19. Overall, the evaluation found that the partnership between WFP and the
Government of Kenya is strong and the agreement for transitioning the SMP to the
government’s HGSMP is holding. With ongoing support over the next phase of the
program, the government key informants felt that they would be able to take over all the
school feeding in the country, resulting in a sustainable program. The three arid counties
that have successfully transitioned to the HGSMP during this phase of programming are
testament that a full handover of the program will eventually be possible.
20. At a policy level, the National Government’s commitment to the SMP is
demonstrated by its numerous policies and strategies that include school feeding. These
policies, as well as the transition strategy for the handover of all WFP SMP schools to the
government-led HGSMP require that the national government allocate resources for the
SMP. Sustainability of the SMP can only be achieved through the Government ensuring
allocations commensurate with requirements, increasing year on year to keep up with
market prices and increasing student numbers.
Overall Conclusion
21. The evaluation has found that overall, the SMP is relevant and coherent with
government priorities. There are also many components of the program that have been
effectively implemented. Given that there is a handover strategy to the government in
place, and holding, the evaluation largely recommends a continuation of the program in
its current form so that a full handover to the government will be possible.
Recommendations
22. The findings and conclusions of this evaluation led the evaluation team to make
the following recommendations:
Overall program strategy
Recommendation 1: WFP should continue to implement SMP in the ASAL counties
while supporting the handover of counties to HGSMP as per the current transition plan.
The support recommended for continuation is as follows:
• WFP should continue to support the MoE capacity development. This includes
supporting schools to understand the requirements for implementing SMP through a
cash-based modality. This is coherent with the government’s HGSMP approach.
• WFP should continue to collaborate with other development actors such as World
Vision to support interventions that contribute to increased school attendance,
especially for girls.
• WFP should continue to support the MoE to actively seek partnerships for the provision 
of school infrastructure that WFP currently provides support for, including kitchen
facilities, energy efficient stoves, food storage, and water.
• WFP should continue to invest in public awareness campaigns to encourage school
attendance and improve parents understanding on the benefits of education. This
xv
should be done together with local authorities, church groups or other well-respected
parties.
Priority 1: To be actioned within the next six months
Recommendation 2: In recognition that WFP Kenya has been successfully
implementing mVAM4 in the arid counties, this evaluation recommends that the WFP CO
support the MoE to digitize their School Meals reporting system. This would improve the
timeliness of data delivery and support improved implementation. Use of electronic
reporting that utilizes mobile network for instant uploading of data, in place of the paper
based form (SMP 6, 7 and 8) could be piloted in one county and if successful scaled up to
cover the entire program. Integration with mVAM monitoring system could also be
considered.
The evaluation team recommends that WFP pilot digital monitoring in some or all of the
SMP locations, either as a stand-alone monitoring strategy or combined with SMS, or
paper-based monitoring. Results for the pilot should then be used to identify challenges
before upscaling to areas where connectivity, security or other concerns makes it possible.
Recommendation 3: As per the Mid-Term Evaluation findings, this evaluation
recommends that WFP Kenya and its partners carry out community-level sensitization
on the threats to pupils’ safety. This is due to the high level of threats still reported by
parents in relation to the commute to school. SFP stakeholders should also increase
awareness on these topics during the program implementation. Strategic partnerships with 
agencies focusing on Child Protection (i.e. UNICEF, Plan International, Save the Children
etc.) would be an added value in helping reinforcing synergies and complementarity with
the SFP.
Recommendation 4: WFP Kenya, with support from the Regional Bureau as needed,
should implement additional awareness campaigns on the presence and purpose of
programme feedback mechanisms, especially the new feedback hotline. The evaluation
found that less than half the surveyed households were aware of any feedback mechanism, 
and only 14 households mentioned the possibility of using the hotline.
Recommendation 5: WFP Kenya should ensure that all cooks and storekeepers in SMP
schools provided with training on safe food preparation and appropriate food storage.
More work is needed to ensure that all school kitchens have a valid health certificate, and
that pest/insect control measures are adequately carried out, as the evaluation found 
evidence of presence of rodents or presence of insects in almost half the stores.
Recommendation 6: WFP Kenya should assess why Baringo, West Pokot, Turkana and 
Marsabit counties have consistently achieved poorer results on several indicators than 
other counties. The specific indicators include school attendance, children eating meals 
before school, the percentage of days that school meals are provided, attentiveness of 
students, and the presence of energy efficient stoves. Each county has different areas of
weakness, so WFP Kenya should ensure that each county receive tailored, additional
support on the areas where they are weak, to bring them up to the standard of the other
4 This project was launched in 2013, and uses mobile technology to track food security trends in real time, providing high frequency data 
that supports humanitarian decision-making. In order to achieve high performance, data collection methods are tailored to the needs 
of the country in which the project operates.
xvi
counties, and ensure that they will eventually be able to successfully transition to the
HGSMP.
Priority 2: To be actioned within the next one year
Recommendation 7: WFP Kenya, with support from the Regional Bureau as needed,
should conduct a gender and protection assessment to identify and contextualise issues
related to school feeding in the ASALs. The assessment should provide recommendations
for implementing targeted measures to improve gender parity in school participation as
latest figures show that girls enrolment in all the targeted counties is still below 50%, while
boys enrolment is 51-63%.5
Priority 2: To be actioned on an ongoing basis until full handover of the SMP
to the HGSMP
Recommendation 8: Based on the financial challenges of the MoE, this evaluation
recommends that WFP Kenya continue to support the Government of Kenya to find
solutions to improve the management of financial resources for the SMP. This should
include the following:
• Helping to identify ways to advocate for, and allocate a sufficient, and annually indexed
budget to the HGSMP. The budget should include sufficient funds for procurement,
transportation, storage and preparation of school meals each school day.
• Helping to identify ways to ensure existing SMP funding is not reallocated, while
helping to secure additional funds.
• Providing technical support to improve the efficiency of financial allocations to the
schools.
5 MoEYS/WFP (2017) School Meals Programme – Verification of school enrolment in arid counties. Report, September 2017.
1
1 Introduction
23. This report is for the final evaluation of the World Food Programme (WFP) Mc
Govern-Dole (MGD) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme
(FFE 615-2013/041/00) in Kenya. The School Meals Program (SMP) is implemented by
WFP in 1,766 schools in ten targeted arid counties and the unplanned settlements of
Nairobi, Kenya. The evaluation covers the period from program design phase (2013) to the 
time of the evaluation (September 2016). The purpose of the evaluation is to assess and 
report on the performance and results achieved through support from the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the authority of McGovern-Dole Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program. WFP Kenya was awarded a total of US$20.2
million for the period 2013–2015 and more recently, a grant of US$28 million for a further
five years (2016-2020).
24. The grant agreement between WFP and MGD/USDA incorporates 12 specific
performance indicators and 21 results indicators against which performance of the
program is measured. In the evaluation plan agreed between with USDA, WFP commits to
conducting a final evaluation to measure performance of the program for accountability 
and learning purposes. The full Terms of Reference for the evaluation can be found in
Annex 1.
25. It should be noted that the SMP is a multi-donor project costing almost US$45.3
million over the 2014-2016 period, and the USDA contribution is 47% of the total funding
received. Therefore, although this is the evaluation of the use of USDA-MGD funds, it is
difficult to attribute results to specific donor contributions. The report should therefore
be seen as the result of multiple donor efforts. Other program donors include the
Governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the Russian Federation, as well
as private donors.
1.1 Overview of the Evaluation Subject
26. The subject of this evaluation is the School Meals Program (SMP) implemented by
WFP in 1,766 schools in ten targeted arid counties of Kenya (Map 1) and the unplanned
settlements of Nairobi. Annex 2 provides a table showing the counties and the number of
schools SMP is implemented in. WFP planned to provide school meals to 815,000 school
children in the first year (2014) reducing annually to 450,000 in 2016 as counties
transitioned to the Home-Grown School Meals Programme (HGSMP).
27. The evaluation covers the period from program design phase (2013), to the time of
the evaluation (September 2016). The agreement between USDA and WFP was signed in
September 2013 but the food commodities (mainly bulgur wheat) only arrived between
February–March 2014. Distribution to schools could therefore not commence until Term
2, 2014. The project end date was September 2016 and has been implemented with no
changes to the initial agreement.
28. To ensure effective implementation of the project in schools, WFP works in
partnership with the Government of Kenya’s Ministry of Education (MoE) both at national 
and county levels. Other partners include UNICEF, UNDAF thematic working groups, the
Education Sector Development Partners, The World Bank, The Kenya Ministry of 
Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, The Ministry of Health; The National Treasury 
including relevant Ministries at county level, Feed the Children Kenya (FTC), Partnership
for Child Development (PCD) and the Netherlands Development Organization (SNV).
2
29. The objectives of the SMP include improving primary student enrolment,
attendance, literacy and attentiveness, reducing short term hunger and guaranteeing
access to food for school children. The project also aims to enhance teacher attendance,
increase community awareness on the benefits of education, engage parents and local
businesses in SMP implementation, increase knowledge about safe food preparation and
storage and provide equipment for this purpose. Finally, to ensure sustainability, the
objectives include building government capacity and improving the policy and regulatory
framework to support school feeding, and child health and nutrition in general.
30. WFP provides food commodities as direct in-kind assistance to the targeted schools.
Over the evaluation period, three counties have transitioned to the national government
HGSMP: Isiolo in 2014, Samburu in 2015, and Tana River in 2016. Transitioning schools 
to HGSMP involves a period of changeover as schools move from in-kind assistance to cash 
transfers. WFP supports this process by providing a period of transitional cash transfer.
Under the HGSMP, WFP no longer has any role in the provision of school meals. Food
assistance is provided through a direct cash transfer from the national government to each
school. Schools are then responsible for the tendering, procurement and storage of food 
commodities and preparation of the school meals.
31. In total, the SMP has utilized a total of 52,794 MT of food from various donors over 
the 2014-2016 period, with USDA providing 19,260 MT (36.5% of total). The food
commodities provided by MGD/WFP only partly cover the requirements for providing a
hot lunch to primary school children each school day, other donors make up the
difference.6 In addition, other donors supported pre-primary children to receive a daily
ration of 40 grams per child per day of Corn Soy Blend (CSB) as a mid-morning snack until
January 2016. WFP’s provision of CSB was then discontinued in line with the transition 
strategy where county governments are responsible for pre-schools and the national 
government for primary school children. The meals are designed to provide 30 percent of
the recommended daily energy intake.
• Mid-morning snack: 40 grams of SuperCereal (corn soya blend with micronutrients
added), prepared as porridge
• Lunch: 150 grams of cereals, 40 grams of pulses and 5 grams of vegetable oil. WFP
uses funds from other donors to also provide 3 grams of iodized salt per child in all
targeted schools.
32. Given the remoteness and long distances to the schools, WFP and the MoE pre￾position the food in government warehouses at Sub-County Director of Education (SCDE) 
level during the school holidays to ensure its availability when the schools open. The SCDEs 
then moves food to schools based on enrolment figures, number of feeding days and ration 
sizes. Head teachers and members of the School Board of Managements (BOMs) receive
the food at the schools and ensure it is appropriately stored.
33. The SMP requires all targeted primary schools to have store rooms, kitchens and
cooking utensils. The School Meals Committees (SMCs) are responsible for mobilizing
parents to contribute payment to provide a salary for the cooks, build appropriate kitchen
and storage facilities, provide firewood, water, and cooking and provide serving utensils.
Although the MGD support does not provide financial resources for food preparation or
storage facilities, WFP is able to support the efforts of the MoE and SMCs to improve
6 Other donors include the Governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and the Russian Federation, as well as private donors.
3
their infrastructure though other complementary funding mechanisms. In addition to the
provision of food for the school meals, and support to kitchen and storage infrastructure,
WFP implements activities under the following areas:
• Community sensitization on the importance and benefits of education
• Promote teacher attendance
• Training on safe food preparation and appropriate food storage practices
• Capacity building activities for the MoE to ensure they have the capacity to implement
the HGSMP in the arid counties. WFP also supports national policy development on
school feeding and related topics.
34. Gender issues have been mainstreamed through the program. Specific design
features of the program include an emphasis on the need for gender balance in schools
Board of Management, and improving sanitation facilities in schools to provide a more
gender-sensitive school environment that encourages girls to consistently attend school,
including during menstruation. WFP also trained all project committee members on the
transition to HGSMP, and consistently collect sex disaggregated data during monitoring.
35. It should be noted that one of the MGD objectives is to improve literacy in primary
school pupils. The evaluation recognizes that the SMP is not the only factor that affects this 
outcome, as education outcomes fall largely under the responsibility of the MoE. However,
activities implemented under SMP are designed to directly contribute to improved
attendance and student attentiveness. As a result, achievement of WFP’s intermediate
results contributes to improved literacy. The evaluation has relied on secondary data –
particularly Twaweza’s Uwezo7 literacy and numeracy reports, to determine if literacy
performance is changing.
36. The main expected users of the evaluation report are WFP, the Government of
Kenya, the donors (USDA, the Governments of Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and
the Russian Federation, as well as private donors), and other stakeholders in decision￾making for program implementation and/or design. For WFP, this includes the Kenya
Country Office (CO), the Regional Bureau (RB) which provides strategic guidance,
program support, and oversight, WFP Headquarters in Rome (HQ) for wider
organizational learning and accountability and its Office of Evaluation (OEV) to feed into
evaluation syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive Board. For the CO,
the evaluation findings will be used to guide future program implementation and as an
advocacy tool to strengthen and support the government to maintain their commitment
to their HGSMP.
37. The key Government of Kenya line Ministries that will be interested in the
evaluation findings are the MoE, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry 
of Health, and Treasury including relevant Ministries at county level. County and Sub￾County Education Officers, School Management Committees are also key, as they are 
involved in program implementation and policy support. The Government of Kenya has a 
direct interest at both county and national levels 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.
7 Twaweza is a non-government organization working on enabling children to learn, citizens to exercise agency, and governments to be 
more open and responsive to addressing literacy and numeracy. Twaweza implements the Uwezo Initiative: a five-year program to
improve competencies in literacy and numeracy among children aged 6-16 years old in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.
http://www.twaweza.org/go/what-is-twaweza.
4
38. CO management will be responsible to respond to the evaluation recommendations
by providing actions that will be taken to address eachrecommendation and estimated 
timelines for taking those actions. The CO should also ensure that the final evaluation 
report is shared with all relevant stakeholders. The final evaluation report will also be 
published on the WFP public website, and findings will be disseminated and lessons
incorporated into other relevant lesson sharing systems.
1.2 Context
39. Kenya ranks 145 out of 187 on the Human Development Index.8 The country has a
population of 46.5 million, approximately 74 percent of whom live in rural areas and rely
almost totally on agriculture.9 It also has the largest, most diversified economy in East
Africa, with a Gross Income per Capita of USD 2,762 per annum.10 Most of the land area of 
Kenya (over 80%) is classified as Arid and Semi-Arid Land (ASAL), and these areas are
home to more than 4 million people.11
40. In September 2014, The World Bank reclassified Kenya's economy as lower- middle
income. However, poverty, food insecurity, under-nutrition and income inequality remain 
high12 and nearly half the country's population live below the poverty line or are unable to 
meet their daily nutritional requirements. The most severe poverty isexperienced in the 
arid and peri-urban settlements.13
41. Kenya is a food-deficit country, relying on imports to meet the gap between food
production and food requirements. Although more than 75 percent of Kenyan households
produce some of their food, most Kenyans rely on markets for some or all their food
needs.14 A large part of household food security is therefore determined by household
income. In times of crisis such as lean seasons or droughts, poor households may be forced
to resort to negative coping mechanisms to access food. These include withdrawing 
children from school (to reduce expenditure) and selling productive assets (to increase
household income).15 These coping strategies come at the long-term detriment of the 
household as keeping children in school, or holding onto the productive assets would have 
positive long-term impacts. Most of the SMP counties are regularly classified as “stressed” 
on the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC). In 2014, the food security in 
parts of Turkana and Marsabit counties deteriorated and were classified as IPC category 3: 
crisis (Map 2). As a result of ongoing food security concerns in the ASALs, there are several 
other development agencies working in the same counties where the SMP is implemented.
42. Food insecurity contributes to malnutrition, particularly in children. At the national
level, 35 percent of children under five years are stunted, 16 percent are underweight, and
7 percent are wasted.16Micronutrient deficiencies are also high, particularly iron deficiency
anaemia, and vitamin A and zinc deficiencies, with the highest rates being among young 
children. Micronutrient deficiencies are largely a result of lack of dietary diversity, and
low intake of fruit and vegetables. The stunting, wasting
8 Based on 2014 data. United Nations Development Program (2015) Human Development Report Office. http://report.hdr.undp.org 9 World Bank (2016) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS & Unknown author/date. Kenya: Situation analysis to
transform nutrition. http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02742.pdf 10 United Nations Development Program (2015) Human Development Report Office. http://report.hdr.undp.org 11 Key statistics on the dry lands of Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia, REGLAP Secretariat, October 2012 12 UNICEF (2014) UNICEF Annual Report 2014 – Kenya. 13 United Nations Development Program (2015) Human Development Report Office. 14 Feed the Future: https://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/kenya 15 United Nations Development Program (2014) “Human Development Report 2015” 16 Kimani, E (2014) The nutrition paradox in Kenya: What are we doing? Global Nutrition Report.
5
and iron deficiency anaemia prevalence rates have remained high in Kenya over the last
twenty years.
Arid lands of Kenya
43. The USDA supported SMP is largely implemented in the arid counties of Kenya.
These are concentrated points of vulnerability and poverty in the country. The arid
counties are characterised by lack of water, poor infrastructure, poor network coverage,
and increased risk of insecurity. They are also a considerable distance from Nairobi and
other large urban centres.
44. The dominant production system in the arid counties is pastoralism, and nomadic
pastoralists are a majority or significant minority in these counties. There are significant
inequalities between the arid lands and the rest of Kenya in access to services and
investment, not primarily due to the region’s ecology, but due to a long history of political
marginalization. The Government of Kenya is now seeking to redress some of those long￾standing issues through their Vision 2030 Development Strategy. 17
45. Within Kenya’s Vision 2030 is a social protection objective to invest in vulnerable
groups. The Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP) focuses cash-support to drought￾affected people in the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) as part of the national Ending
Drought Emergencies (EDE) framework that sits within the National Disaster
Management Authority (NDMA).
Education
46. Since the turn of the century, there have been significant changes in the Kenyan
national educational policy. The Government introduced free primary education in 2003,
and by 2006 school enrolment had increased from 6.1 million children to 7.6 million, and
the net enrolment rate increased from 77 percent in 2002 to 87 percent in 2006.18 The
Kenya Education Sector Support Program (KESSP) 2005-201019 then provided the blue
print for a comprehensive development program in education, including school feeding,
health, and nutrition programs. The government also joined the Global Partnership of
Education (GPE)20 and established national programs such as Tusome21 and Uwezo, to
directly address literacy and numeracy. Since then, net enrolment figures for primary
school and pre-school have continued to increase.22
47. At the time of the SMP design (2013), the national net primary enrolment was 83.5% 
for boys, and 84.5% for girls,23 with national primary school completion figures of 96.1%.
Despite these high national figures, in the ASAL counties, primary school enrolment rates 
were lower than the national average. In 2013, the net enrolment in the ASALs was 40
percent with 35 percent completion. Completion rates had also been declining due to 
economic hardship and food insecurity.24 It is also estimated that there are nearly a million
children of primary age who are not in school, concentrated largely in
17 Republic of Kenya (2011) Vision 2030 Development Strategy for Northern Kenya and other Arid Lands. August 2011. 18 WFP CP Kenya Approved Project document 19 Government of Kenya (2005) Kenya Education Sector Support Program (KESSP) 2005-2010. Delivering quality education and
training to all Kenyans. Ministry of Education,25 July 2005. 20 GPE is a multi-stakeholder partnership and funding platform established in 2002 that aims to strengthen education systems in
developing countries in order to dramatically increase the number of children who are in school and learning. 21 In 2015, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) joined with the UK Department for International Development
(DFID) to fund a program known as the Tusome Early Grade Reading Activity. Tusome is designed to dramatically improve primary
literacy outcomes for approximately 7 million Kenyan children in grades 1–3. 22 Uwezo (2014) Literacy and numeracy across East Africa: Are our children learning? 23 UNICEF (2013) State of the World’s Children. 2008-2012 data 24United Nations Development Program (2014), “Human Development Report 2015”
6
the arid and semi-arid districts as well as in the informal settlements in large urban centres
including Nairobi, Mombasa and Kisumu.25
48. In the last decade, Kenya has covered significant ground in ensuring gender parity
in both primary and secondary education. Nationally, the ratio of boys and girls sitting
national examinations is almost at par. In 2016, the ratio of boys to girls sitting theKenya 
Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) stood at 53% boys, 47% girls. At the primary
level, the figures are even more impressive; in 2015, almost equal number of boys and girls 
sat the Kenya Certificate of Primary Education (KCPE) exams – 50.4% girls, 50.6 % boys. 
However, there are gender disparities according to geography – with the ASALs having 
lower percentage of girls sitting the national examinations. In 2015, girls accounted for 
only 29% of KCSE candidates in Garissa County, and 28% in Wajir County. The figures are
more or less the same in other ASAL counties.26
49. School performance in Kenya is below international standards, and even lower in
the ASALs. Although Kenyan children outperformed Ugandan and Tanzanian children,
only 68% of Kenyan school children passed the standard numeracy test, 78% the literacy
test, and 64% combined.27 In the ASALs these figures are worse. The Uwezo reports from
the 2009-2014 show all the targeted SMP counties in the bottom 25% of rankings, with
Mandera West and Central districts ranked the lowest in the whole country (155 and 154
respectively) (Annex 3). The exception is Nairobi which is the highest-ranking county in
terms of literacy, numeracy and school achievement. Similarly, although at a national level, 
gender parity in enrolment has been achieved (albeit with regional disparities), in the arid 
counties, gender parity still remains elusive due to cultural practices, traditional values and 
poverty. Children from poor households also consistently show lower levels of learning.
School feeding
50. WFP and the Government of Kenya have been supporting school meals in Kenya
since 1980.28 Traditionally, this has been done through in-kind food assistance, with food
procured largely from outside Kenya. WFP currently provides in-kind food assistance in
all the USDA supported primary schools in the arid northern counties of Kenya, as well in
the informal settlements in Nairobi. WFPs support to the arid areas reduces each year, as
WFP hands over schools to the government’s HGSMP.
51. To pursue greater national ownership and sustainability of the program, MoE
established the HGSMP. Since 2009, the Government of Kenya has implemented the
national HGSMP in semi-arid lands that were previously served by WFP. The HGSMP
provides funding directly to schools that then purchase food locally, creating a market for
agricultural producers and traders. After all semi-arid counties had been handed over, in
2014 WFP started handing over school feeding in arid counties beginning with Isiolo
County. While the Government and WFP work to gradually expand the coverage of the
HGSMP, WFP continues to support children in public schools that are yet to be handed
over and in targeted schools in the informal settlements of Nairobi, where food insecurity
continues to be widespread, and education indicators are below the national average.
25 United Nations Development Program (2014), “Human Development Report 2015” 26 Education Development Trust (2016) https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/en-GB/news-and-blogs/news/2016/barriers￾to-girls-education-kenya 27 Uwezo (2014) Literacy and numeracy across East Africa: Are our children learning? 28 Langinger, N. (2011) School Feeding Programs in Kenya: Transitioning to a Home-grown Approach. Stanford Journal of
International Relations. Fall 2011.
Program’s support (2013-2015) in Kenya from September 2013 to December 2014. Final report. October 2015
7
Gender
52. Gender equality and empowerment is a major social issue in Kenya. Women are
underrepresented in decision-making positions, and they have less access to education,
land, and employment. Those living in rural areas spend long hours collecting water and
firewood, leaving them with little time to earn money or engage in other productive
activities. Only 29 percent of people earning a formal wage throughout the country are
women, leaving a huge percentage of women to work in the informal sector without any
federal support. The effect is severe— although nearly 40 percent of households are run
solely by women and because of a lack of fair income, nearly all these homes suffer from
poverty or extreme poverty.29
53. Kenya’s Gini coefficient30 is 0.477, meaning that approximately half the people in
the country control most of the resources. An example of this inequality is the Kenyan
agriculture industry. Agriculture creates over 80 percent of Kenya's jobs and 60 percent
of income.31 Currently, women in Kenya do the vast majority of agricultural work and
produce/market the majority of food, yet they earn only a fraction of the income generated 
and own a nominal percentage of assets. Girls are also raised to contribute the household
from an early age, including collecting water and firewood.
1.3 Summary of findings from the Mid-Term SMP Evaluation
54. This EoP Evaluation follows a baseline survey (May-June 2014) and a Mid-Term
Evaluation (May 2015) conducted by other evaluation teams. The Mid-Term Evaluation32
mainly focused on identifying process level changes and did not focus on the achievement
of all program outcomes. The Mid-Term Evaluation provided a generally positive review
of the program and made recommendations in six thematic areas (Table 1). Each of these
recommendations has been accepted and actioned by the WFP Kenya management. This
EoP evaluation has noted throughout the report of whether the identified
recommendations were adequately addressed. More details on the recommendations from 
the Mid-Term Evaluation can be found in Annex 4.
Table 1: Summary of recommendations - Mid-Term Evaluation of SMP
(2015)
Thematic area Key Recommendation
Immediate and short-term recommendations
Food access
Consider providing SMP meal one or two hours earlier to address short term
hunger
Threats to
children’s safety Carry out community level sensitization on the threats to pupil’s safety.
National
Capacity
WFP and GoK should consider implementing a national, independent entity to
manage SFP.
GoK should ring-fence the SFP budget line to ensure allocation of funds.
Food distribution Provide a unified scoop measure to all supported schools.
School Continue to synergise and support activities that improve the quality of
29 FSD International: http://www.fsdinternational.org/devsubject/womensempowerment/kenya 30 The Gini coefficient measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption expenditure among individuals or
households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. Equal distribution receives a score of zero, while the most
unequal distribution (one person having all resources) is represented by a score of one. 31 FSD International: http://www.fsdinternational.org/devsubject/womensempowerment/kenya 32 Braidotti, F (2015) A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFP’s USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program’s support (2013-2015) in Kenya from September 2013 to December 2014. Final report. October 2015
8
performance education and teaching.
Medium to long-term recommendations
Government
coordination Strengthen county level school committees
Source: Compiled by evaluation team from the Mid-Term Evaluation report33
1.4 Evaluation Methodology & Limitations
55. The evaluation was designed to answer four key questions:
• Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate was the School Meals Program?
• Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the SMP?
• Evaluation Question 3: How and why did WFP achieve these results?
• Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the SMP?
56. The evaluation was designed to compare achieved results against the baseline
survey34 and the mid-term evaluation35 and uses the internationally agreed evaluation
criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency, and sustainability (Annex 5). The
evaluation focuses on accountability (against intended results) and learning (for the
continuance of the school feeding in Kenya).
57. To ensure validity and reliability of data, the evaluation questionnaires were
designed using an evaluation matrix (Annex 6). This helped ensured that all aspects of the 
ToR were included. The evaluation also used an independent team of enumerators, who 
collected data from a random sample of SMP schools. The evaluation used a mixed￾methods approach and triangulated information from different methods and sources to
enhance the reliability of findings.
58. Strict ethical considerations were used to inform the evaluation methodology. All
enumerators underwent training on research ethics offered by the National Institute of
Health prior to conducting the surveys. Participation was voluntary and participants were
informed about the risks and benefits of participating in the research, confidentiality and 
use of the data. All information received from the interviews was anonymous so it could 
not be referred to directly. It was also made clear to respondents that there would be no
personally identifiable information collected. The evaluation adopted additional
procedures for obtaining consent for school-aged children to be interviewed. Head
Teachers signed a guardian consent form that students could participate in the evaluation.
Additional consent was obtained from class teachers, and the evaluation was explained to 
children before starting each interview. As above, the children were told that participation
was voluntary, and that all results would be anonymous. School children were randomly
sampled across the classes with equal numbers of boys and girls participating. Girls were
then interviewed by female enumerators, and boys interviewed by male enumerators.
33 Braidotti, F (2015) A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFP’s USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program’s support (2013-2015) in Kenya from September 2013 to December 2014. Final report. October 2015 34 WFP (2014) Baseline survey for the USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s
Support (2013-2015) to WFP Kenya Country Program. 35Braidotti, F (2015) A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFP’s USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
9
59. The key data collection methods were as follows:
• Field visits were conducted in 79 randomly selected schools. In each school, the
following activities were conducted: quantitative survey with teachers (n=552),
quantitative survey of School Cooks (n=87), quantitative survey of Storekeepers
(n=85), quantitative survey of households/parents (n=1,124), quantitative survey of
school children (n=1,119)36, as well as observation of school facilities including kitchen,
food preparation and storage areas.
• Qualitative key informant interviews were conducted by a team of twenty-seven
enumerators (12 female and 15 male Key informant interviews were done with 159
people at national, county or local roles in the program. These included WFP, MoE and 
other government representatives, donors, national partners, as well as parents and 
school children. Key informants were purposively selected based on the role they played
in the program. The full list of key informants can be found in Annex 7.
60. The quantitative and qualitative data collection instruments can be found in
Annexes 8 and 9 respectively. The full list of schools selected for visits can be found in
Annex 10. All evaluation findings were disaggregated by gender and where possible, the
evaluation has reflected any gender differences in the results. Analysis of the quantitative
data was done using SPSS, STATA and Microsoft Excel software. All results are reported
against the Performance Monitoring Plan agreed by MGD and WFP in their grant
agreement.
Evaluation challenges and timeline
61. This evaluation has faced several challenges that have resulted in the timing for the 
final reporting being significantly later than the initial plan.
62. The evaluation was originally conducted between 8th June and 5th September 2016
by TNS RMS East Africa, and managed by WFP Kenya. Data collection was carried out as
per the detailed methodology and sampling methodology in Annex 11. However, once data 
had been collected, the original evaluation team faced internal staff performance issues 
which affected delivery of a quality report. In January 2017, TNS therefore hired an 
Independent Consultant to revise the report. This process was managed by TNS and the 
report revision was done based on the information provided by TNS personnel and the 
survey enumerators. The report was finalized in March 2017.
63. During WFP’s report review process however, it was noted that there was
inadequate qualitative data in the report and that some quantitative data had not been
included. This limited the data triangulation and resulted in inconsistent findings across
related variables. As a result, WFP Kenya and USDA agreed to have WFP directly contract 
Independent team leader and a Research Specialist/Statistics Expert in August 2017. The 
duo was tasked to check and verify the reliability of the quantitative data, collect additional 
qualitative data and revise the report accordingly. Additional data was also provided by
TNS and WFP Kenya.
64. The final drafting of the evaluation report included a period of data review where all
datasets were re-assessed, cleaned and tested for reliability. Once complete, additional 
analyses of the data were carried out including One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test, 
One-Sample Test, One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Spearman's rank- order
correlation, multiple regression analyses, and sign test for one median was
36 552 boys and 567 girls
10
conducted on the data. This process was managed by a WFP evaluation manager and both 
the internal committee and reference group member involved appropriately. Quality
assurance was done by the WFP Evaluation Manager using WFP’s corporate Decentralized
Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS).
Limitations of the evaluation
65. The limitations of the evaluation were as follows:
• Measurement of the literacy indicators has been affected by a change in approach taken 
by Uwezo in 2015. This limited the evaluation’s ability to draw comparison to baseline 
and midline surveys that relied on yearly outcomes. Also, the 2016 Uwezo data used 
different literacy and numeracy indicators to previous years, making direct comparison 
impossible. Data was also not collected in Samburu North due to security concerns, and
Garissa and Marsabit data had to be removed due to quality challenges.
• The evaluation questionnaires did not contain adequate gender specific variables to
enable comprehensive discussion of the differences in results for boys and girls.
• The ability to compute and model variance is dependent on comparison of endline data 
to the baseline quantitative data sets. Given that there was no comparison group of 
schools at baseline, the evaluation can only assess performance using before-and- after
comparisons using cross-sectional approaches of statistically representative samples
and qualitative methods. The data sets also do not have homogeneous identifiers across 
the three windows of data collection that can facilitate of a merged data set.
• The input of other actors in the same locations makes it impossible to attribute changes 
specifically to the WFP SMP without robust a priori variables to control for the 
confounding.
• The baseline, midline and endline surveys were conducted in random (and different)
samples of schools, therefore the cohort is not identical. This makes it difficult to make
direct comparisons at the school or student level.
11
2 Evaluation Findings
2.1 Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate is the SMP?
66. In assessing the appropriateness of the SMP, the evaluators examined the extent to 
which the objectives, targeting, choice of activities, and modalities of transfer were
appropriate to the needs of the population, aligned with government and WFP corporate
policies and strategies, and coherent with the work of other development actors.
2.1.1 Appropriateness to needs
67. The long-term objective of the SMP is to promote universal primary education of
socio-economically disadvantaged and nutritionally vulnerable children, especially girls,
within the primary schools in targeted areas. The relevance and importance of this
objective was confirmed during key informant interviews with Government officials at all
levels: national, county and district.
68. At the time of the SMP design, all ten targeted arid counties had amongst the lowest
educational outcomes in Kenya (Annex 12). The targeted counties education achievements: 
enrolment, attendance, completion and school performance, were also below the national
average, indicating that educational support programs were appropriate. Although Nairobi 
County has the highest national educational ranking, the SMP supported only the informal 
settlements due to high food insecurity in the area. In addition, despite improvements in 
food security in Kenya, the population in the ASALs, and particularly in the arid lands 
remains largely food insecure compared with the rest of the country.37 The inclusion of the
ten targeted counties for SMP was therefore appropriate, as the program could also support
household food security.
69. The evaluation found that WFP and the Government of Kenya have a strong
transition strategy in place, to handover all the WFP counties to the HGSMP. This includes 
a phase of capacity building and ensuring infrastructure and procedures are in place for a 
cash-based approach. USDA’s McGovern Dole program provides for in-kind commodity
contributions and monetary assistance for the implementation of comprehensive school
meals projects. Provision of cash-based assistance in the year before each school
transitions to HGSMP is then provided by other donors. The evaluation finds that this is 
appropriate, and notes that WFP Kenya has successfully implemented three transitions
during this program phase.
70. In addition to the capacity building support to the government, the SMP includes
activities that are designed to address specific areas of concern in the targeted areas: poor
teacher attendance, student short-term hunger and the resulting lack of attentiveness in
class, poor enrolment and attendance rates. WFP has also supported the improvement of
sanitation facilities in schools to provide a more gender-sensitive environment. All these
activities are highly appropriate to the context.
71. Through key informant interviews and focus group discussions, teachers, parents,
and other community stakeholders explained the needs of and challenges faced by their
communities. The challenges reported most frequently were hunger, and food insecurity
(Annex 13). Key informants also emphasized poor health care and water shortages as
occurring frequently with poor health care having the most negative impact. Other issues
37 Analysis of Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) data shows that since 2013 all the counties have, at a minimum been
classified as “stressed.” The north-western parts of Marsabit County, and parts of Turkana were classified as “Crisis” in 2013/2014. The
most recent IPC map (Map 3) shows the forecast for all the SMP counties is ‘stressed”.
12
included gender exclusion, unemployment, malnutrition and illiteracy. Issues around
education were not mentioned by parents. Although the SMP does not have an explicit food 
security objective, it does address short-term hunger of school children. Global evidence 
indicates that SMP functions as a safety net, particularly for poor households and supports 
household food security. The evaluation team therefore find that the SMP appropriately
meets some of the priority needs of the targeted communities.
2.1.2 Alignment with national policies and strategies
72. At the time of SMP design, the Government of Kenya had multiple policies that were 
relevant to the SMP implementation. These include the National School Health Policy
(2009), the National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011), the National Social 
Protection Policy (2011) and the Basic Education Act (2013). In addition, the right to 
nutrition is included in the Constitution of Kenya (2010). The Constitution expressly
guarantees all Kenyans their economic, social and cultural rights including basic rights to
health, education, food and decent livelihoods.38
• National School Health Policy (2009)39: Currently being revised, this policy
recommends provision of balanced school meals in all Kenyan schools. This policy was 
developed jointly by MoE and Ministry of Health. The policy recognizes children’sright
to health and nutrition services, water and sanitation, and to education as guiding
principles. This is a highly relevant government policy as it places food,nutrition 
security and free education, among the key priorities for the Government, in the 
Medium-Term Plan 2013-2017.
• National School Health, Nutrition and Meals Program Strategy (draft
2011)40: This strategy aims to bring the existing policies and guidelines a step closer
to implementation. This strategy was revised in 2016 but was not yet endorsed at the
time of the evaluation. The 2016 draft highlights the need to mainstream SMP into
national policies and frameworks, and recognizes the need for capacity building
initiatives.41
• Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011)42: Recognizes that school meals
contribute to reduced hunger, which helps children to concentrate on their studies, and 
addresses specific micronutrient deficiencies in school age children, particularly iodine 
and iron, which directly affect cognition and can affect school performance. In this 
policy, the Government commits to enhance school meals program by, among other 
things, establishing standards and regulations for school meals initiatives that cover 
storage, preparation, handling and quantity of food served to students; improve the
quality of and expand the school meals program to include pre-schools and boarding
schools in collaboration with local communities.
• Kenya National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2012)43: Expresses the
Government’s commitment to the eradication of hunger, and has a component
addressing school meals and health and nutrition education in schools. The policy aims 
to improve nutrition, ensure that adequate food is accessible and affordable, andprotect 
vulnerable populations through safety nets, linked to long-term development.
38 Government of Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya – Chapter 4: The Bill of Rights.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=207673
39 Government of Kenya (2009). National School Health Policy. 40 Government of Kenya (2011). National School Health Strategy Implementation Plan (2011-2015). Ministry of Public Health &
Sanitation, and the Ministry of Education. 41 Ibid.
42 Government of Kenya (2011). Food and Nutrition Security Policy. 43 Ibid.
13
• Social-Protection Policy (2012)44: Recognizes school meals as an important safety 
net for school children and their families. SMP contributes to the wider goal of poverty
alleviation and promoting quality education.45
• The National Nutrition Action Plan (2012-2017)46 :The seventh Strategic
Objective is to “promote appropriate nutrition for school children and adolescents.”
73. All the above policies and strategies require that the Government of Kenya set aside
resources for school meals. This demonstrates that SMP is a priority for the government. 
The Government has also committed to adopting a holistic approach to ensure the 
provision of water and sanitation in schools, immunize and de-worm children regularly.47
2.1.3 Alignment with WFP corporate strategies, policies and normative
guidance
74. In addition to the Government of Kenya policies and strategies mentioned above,
the SMP is guided by several of WFP’s own corporate policies and strategies.
• WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017)48: The SMP contributes to Strategic Objective 4
– to reduce under-nutrition and break the intergenerational cycle of hunger. The
Strategic Plan specifies that school feeding programs contribute to this goal by
providing quality food, and contributing to addressing micronutrient deficiencies. The 
second goal of the Strategic Plan is to increase access to education and health services.
• The WFP Updated School Feeding Policy (2013)49 specifies that WFP will focus
increasingly on helping countries establish and maintain nationally owned programs
linked to local agricultural production. The policy states that WFP will implement
school feeding programs with clear hand-over strategies, where appropriate, and will
engage in policy dialogue and provide technical assistance. WFP should also assess the
cost-effectiveness of school feeding models, and ensure that school feeding programs
address micronutrient deficiencies among schoolchildren. The primary delivery
mechanism will continue to be through multi-fortified foods where foods with high
micronutrient contents are not readily available or are unaffordable.
• The WFP Gender Policy (2012)50 provides guidance to ensure that WFP’s
programs promote a gender equality and women’s empowerment.
75. In addition to these key policies and strategies, a World Bank and WFP paper51
highlights that the transition to sustainable national programs depend on mainstreaming
school feeding into national policies and plans, especially education sector plans. The
research aligns with WFPs systematic handover of the SMP to the Government’s HGSMP.
44Government of Kenya (2011) Kenya National Social Protection Policy. Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. 45 Social Safety Nets; A collection of services provided by the state or other institutions such as friendly societies including welfare, un
employment benefit, universal health care, homeless shelters, and sometimes subsidized services such as public transport which prevent 
individuals from falling into poverty beyond a certain level. 46Government of Kenya (2012) The National Nutrition Action Plan (2012-2017). Ministry of Public Health and Sanitation 47 Government of Kenya (2016) School nutrition and meals strategy for Kenya. Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, and the
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries. Draft – February 2016. 48WFP (2014) WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) https://www.wfp.org/about/strategic-plan 49 WFP (2013) WFP Updated School Feeding Policy https://www.wfp.org/content/school-feeding-policy 50WFP (2009) Gender policy: promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women in addressing food and nutrition challenges.
WFP/EB.1/2009/5-A/Rev.1 51 Bundy, D (2009) “Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector
14
2.1.4 Alignment with other development partners
76. The SMP aligns closely with the work of other development actors working in the
ASALs. WFP coordinates or partners with UNICEF, Feed the Children Kenya (FTC),
Partnership for Child Development (PCD) and the Netherlands Development Organization 
(SNV) to ensure that the targeted counties have water, good nutrition, and livelihood
opportunities not directly supported through WFP’s SMP intervention.
• SNV supports the HGSMP in the areas of procurement and governance.It also supports 
farmers in accessing school markets, ensuring that procurement procedures are 
farmer-friendly and the community is engaged. SNV is also one of the members of the 
national level Technical School Feeding Committee, along with WFP and other
partners.
• PCD is also part of the Technical School Feeding Committee, playing an advisory role
and working with WFP and other partners to provide capacity building and support to
the program. PCD was also a strong partner in the development of the National School
Health Policy.
• FTC is the only cooperating partner used in the informal settlements in Nairobi, and
WFP uses non-USDA funds52 for this collaboration. WFP also used FTC warehouses for 
food storage before distribution in Nairobi in the early stages of the program being
evaluated, but changed Nairobi schools to cash in 2015 thus eliminating the need for
the facilities.
• UNICEF is active within both the Education and Water, Sanitation and Health (WaSH) 
sectors. Within the Education sector, UNICEF works in close collaboration with the
government at policy level and works in synergy with WFP within the UNDAF 
framework. UNICEF also works with the government to update the current national
curriculum, to improve the quality of teaching and pupils’ learning experience. WFP is 
supporting this process and providing inputs to the review of the national curriculum. 
UNICEF also aims to increase enrolment, through awareness campaigns sensitizing 
communities about the importance of education and increasingliteracy.
77. In addition to the major partners, WFP collaborates or coordinates with other
agencies in WFP’s SMP operational areas. In particular, WFP attends and collaborates with 
Education Donor Coordination Partners and the Education in Emergencies working group.
Each SMP county also has different development partners and faith-based organization 
working in the same or similar geographic locations. These include World Vision, the 
Kenya Red Cross, and various Catholic Diocese, who implement a range of activities that 
complement the SMP (Annex 14) including agriculture, construction of school gardens, 
provision of water, and provision of educational items such as books and pens. Evidence 
Action53 also works in many of the targeted SMP counties providing de- worming support
to schools.
78. The SMP program was also originally aligned to the global Millennium
Development Goals (MDG) 1 “Eradicate extreme Poverty and Hunger” and 2 “Achieve
universal primary education”. With the development of the Sustainable Development
Goals (SDG) in 2015, the SMP now aligns to SDGs 2: Zero hunger, SDG 4: Quality
education, and SDG 5: Gender equality.
52 Funding for FTC partnership is from the Australian Government. 53 Evidence Action implements the Deworm the World Initiative, scaling up school-based deworming programs to improve children’s
health, education, and long-term development.
15
2.1.5 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 1
79. Table 2 provides a short summary of the main evaluation findings relevant to the
first evaluation question – How appropriate is the School Meals Program. The key findings 
are colour-coded, as they are throughout the report for ease of reading and clarity.
Findings key:
Achievement of objective
Within 10% of achieving target
Objective or target has not been met
Table 2: Summary of key results - Evaluation Question 1
Program elements Appropriateness
Objectives
The objectives of the SMP to improve educational achievement are coherent
with national policies. The objectives are strongly aligned with recent WFP
strategies, policies and guidance.
Targeting of
intervention area
The targeted arid counties all have low education outcomes, and chronic food
security. The unplanned settlements in Nairobi have high food insecurity.
Choice of modality
WFP provides direct in-kind food assistance and in counties preparing for
transition to HGSMP, cash. The Government provides food assistance through
cash transfers so it is appropriate to transition to cash before handover. WFP and
the MoE are jointly implementing a transition strategy through which all the
targeted SMP counties will become part of HGSMP.
Choice of activities
The core activity of school meals provision increased school enrolment and
addressed short term hunger. Training to improve teacher attendance, better
food storage and transition to HGSMP all address identified needs.
Alignment with
national policies
The SMP is coherent with key Government of Kenya policies and strategies.
The SMP is also implemented closely with MoE and other ministries.
Alignment with
WFP strategies
The SMP is coherent with key WFP corporate policies.
Alignment with
other development
actors
The activities under the SMP complement other interventions with no
duplication.
Aligned with partner
UN agencies and
donor policies
The SMP objective is coherent with the partner UN agencies and other
donor policies that are embedded within the SDGs.
Summary of key findings
Evaluation question 1 - How appropriate is the SMP?
The evaluation finds the design of the SMP to be appropriate.
• The SMP targets counties with poor education outcomes, and chronic food insecurity.
• The SMP aligns well with Government of Kenya policies and strategies, and with WFP’s
own corporate guidance.
• Provision of food through direct in-kind assistance is appropriate in the targeted counties
despite the government providing food assistance in their HGSMP through cash transfers.
The evaluation team understands that ongoing in-kind assistance is temporary while the
SMP counties transition to cash transfers (through the HGSMP).
• The SMP aligns with other development actors, and WFP coordinates to ensure that their
targeted communities receive other needed assistance that WFP cannot directly provide.
16
2.2 Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the School Meals
Program?
80. The long-term objective of the SMP is to promote universal primary education of
socio-economically disadvantaged and nutritionally vulnerable children, especially girls,
within the primary schools in targeted areas.
• To contribute to Feed the Future
• To improve literacy of school-age children
• To increase access to food (school feeding)
• To achieve more consistent teacher attendance
• To improve student attentiveness
• To reduce short term hunger
• To increase student enrolment
• To increase knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices
• To increase access to requisite food preparation and storage tools and equipment
• To increase the use of health and dietary practices (food storage)
• To increase capacity of government institutions
• To improve policy and regulatory framework
• To increase engagement of local organizations and community groups
• To increase community understanding on the benefits of education.
81. This section evaluates the SMP 2014-2016 program performance on the
achievement of these results based on performance indicators jointly identified by WFP
and USDA. Where possible, the performance at the end of project is compared to the
baseline and midline.
2.2.1 Thematic area: School performance
2.2.1.1.1 MGD Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school aged children
82. Within school performance, the first MGD strategic objective for the SMP is to
improve literacy rates among school-aged children. WFP contributes to this objective
through the provision of school meals, and activities to improve teacher attendance. There
are no explicit literacy-based activities within the programme.
83. Although neither WFP nor the mid-term or EoP evaluation have collected primary
data on literacy or numeracy, there is sufficient secondary data for evaluation purposes
available from Twaweza’s annual Uwezo reports. However, as noted earlier, in 2016 Uwezo 
reports changed format and the report no longer provides county level data on thetwo 
indicators used at baseline.54 This makes it impossible to assess whether there has been 
any change in literacy and numeracy rates in the SMP county schools since baseline.The 
closest indicators are Pupils in Grade 3 who can do Class 2 work, by subject (Maths and
Kiswahili).
84. Table 3 shows the literacy and numeracy rates per Uwezo reports in 2014 (baseline) 
and 2016 (EoP). Although the low rate of literacy and numeracy in the targetedSMP
counties underscores the relevance of the SMP in selecting the counties as intervention 
areas, there is currently no relationship between school feeding and changes in literacy
rates. Without the inclusion of specific literacy-related activities within the
54 Pupils in Class 2 who can read and understand a grade level text, and Pupils in Class 3 who can do Class 2 work. Rather, they have
used a combined indicator of literacy and numeracy.
17
programme, school feeding cannot improve school performance as the responsibility for
achieving education outcomes lies largely with the Ministry of Education (MoE).
Nationally, literacy and numeracy rates have shown little progress over the course of the
SMP, and the Government of Kenya is engaging in several initiatives to improve this.
Table 3: Literacy and numeracy rates during SMP implementation
Baseline (2014) EoP Kenya
Average (2016)
Literacy Pupils in Class 2 who can
read and understand a
grade level text (Kiswahili)55
48.8 46.156
Numeracy Pupils who can do Class 2
work.
Ranges between 33.8%
(Samburu) and 62.6%
(Baringo)
47.157
85. Overall, both the Uwezo 2015 and 2016 reports indicate that most of the targeted
SMP counties are yet to attain the national average in numeracy and literacy (Figure 1).58
This is not surprising given that Uwezo assessment results indicate that literacy and
numeracy rates have not changed significantly since 2009. The 2016 Uwezo report also
indicates that all the targeted arid counties are still below the Kenyan average (30%) of the 
percentage of children in Class 3 who can do Class 2 work59. For this indicator, the SMP
counties range from 24.5% in Marsabit, to 9.9% in Wajir (Annex 15).
Figure 1: Percentage of illiterate and innumerate60 children in the SMP
targeted counties (2015)
Source: UWEZO 201561
Note: Nairobi figures include all schools not just the unplanned settlements.
55 Data taken from Uwezo reports, not collected directly from the baseline or EoP Evaluation 56 Uwezo (2016) Are our children learning (2016)? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report. December 2016. Pupils in Grade 3
who can do Class 2 work, by subject – Kiswahili (p.11) 57 Ibid. Pupils in Grade 3 who can do Class 2 work, by subject – Maths (p.11) 58 Note that the Nairobi data includes all schools, not just the unplanned settlements. 59 Defined as the proportion of school children aged 10-16 years who cannot read letters 60 Illiterate and innumerate defined as a child who cannot read any letters, or recognize any numbers. School readiness indicators.
Uwezo (2015): Are Our Children Learning? The State of Education in Kenya in 2015 and Beyond. Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa. p.40 61 Uwezo (2015): Are Our Children Learning? The State of Education in Kenya in 2015 and Beyond. Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa
Illiterate Innumerate
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
National Nairobi Tana Baringo Isiolo Marsabit Garissa West Mandera Samburu Wajir Turkana
Average River Pokot
Percentage of children
18
2.2.1.1.2 MGD SO 1.1: More consistent teacher attendance
86. The lack of improvement in literacy and numeracy rates, highlights the need for
qualified and experienced teachers for achieving good educational outcomes. Research has
shown that teacher certification and academic qualifications are particularly important in
determining student performance.62 Researchers have also found that teacher’s
qualifications, experience and amount of education and knowledge are significantly 
associated with students’ achievements.63 Qualified teachers are therefore a necessary
precondition for good student performance.
87. Key informant interviews indicate that in many parts of Kenya, and particularly in
the ASALs, it is difficult to attract qualified teachers. This is due to several factors including
low payment for their work, insecurity in some locations, as well as long working hours
and high levels of responsibility. In many parts of the county, pupil- teacher ratios are 
high64, which further adds pressure on the teachers. The 2016 Uwezo report shows that 
both the counties with the worst teacher to classroom (stream) ratio were SMP counties:
Mandera and Garissa with only 6 teachers per school of 10 classrooms (streams).65 In 
addition, most of the targeted SMP counties are considered to be hardship posts due to the 
distance from Nairobi and services in general. As a result, teachers assigned to schools in 
the targeted counties are sometimes unwilling to move to the area, especially when
accommodation is not provided.
88. WFP provides technical support to the MoE to enhance the capacity of the County
Directors of Education and Quality Assurance and Standards Officers (QASOs) in targeted 
districts to monitor and supervise teachers. UNICEF and other stakeholders alsosupport 
the MoE to engage with communities through School Meals Committees (SMCs) and 
Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) to increase their participation in the hiring and
supervision of teachers. WFP also conducted training for MoE officers on how to promote
teacher attendance. Table 4 shows that over the course of the SMP, WFP conducted 42
trainings (almost double the target), attended by 584 MoE officials, achieving 97% of their
target of number of officers trained.
Table 4: Activity indicators: Promotion of teacher attendance
Indicator Target
Achievement
Total
2014 2015 2016
Number of MoE officers trained in promoting
consistent teacher attendance 600 200 295 89 584
Number of trainings in promoting teacher attendance
conducted for MoE Officers 23 12 15 15 42
89. Results from the EoP school-based survey showed that 88% of teachers were
present in school on the day of the EoP survey. This is the same figure found at midline
62 For example: Hopkins, D. (1997) powerful learning, powerful school. London Chapman; Guthric J.W (1970) A survey of school
effectiveness. In do Teachers make a difference? Washington D.C Department of health, Education and Welfare 63 Goe, L (2008) Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. TQ Research and Policy Brief.
National Comprehensive Centre for Teacher Quality. Washington DC. 64 Average number of pupils per teacher (MoE, 2014): Garissa 46.5, Marsabit 37.4, Nairobi 36.2, Tana River 36.6, Turkana 71.7, West
Pokot 37.2.
65 Uwezo 2016
19
in 2015, and consistent with the Uwezo 2016 findings (87.8%)66. The EoP evaluation found 
the mean attendance for the teachers is 89.7%67 of scheduled school days in a year. Based
on the one sample test with a test value of 90, this is 0.3 percentage point below the 
target of 90%. However, the difference is statistically insignificant (p>0.05). In this regard,
the target was attained (Table 5).
Table 5: Results indicator: More consistent teacher attendance
Indicator Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach
school at least 90% of scheduled school days per year 90 51 74.8 89.7
90. It should be noted that during the project period, Kenya experienced several formal 
teachers strikes with teachers protesting the conditions under which they are expected to 
work. For example, during Term Three68 2015, a national teacher's strike over a pay
dispute interrupted school for 25 days.69
2.2.1.1.3 MGD SO 1.2: Improved attentiveness
91. In order to meet the MGD Strategic Objective of improving school performance, the 
SMP aimed to reduce short-term hunger by providing a meal at school. This was expected 
to improve children’s attention in class, enabling them to better concentrate on their
studies. Literature confirms that hunger is a key cause of inattentiveness.70
92. The baseline and midline measured student attentiveness solely through an
interview with teachers. At EoP, the same process was used. However, since this is
subjective per each teacher’s meaning of ‘inattention”, the findings were highly skewed71.
Although teachers reported a mean percentage of inattentive students of 21%, which is
consistent with both baseline and midline findings (Table 6), the skewness of the data
means it is more appropriate to use the median. The median result was 15%, indicating a
positive change from the baseline and midline figures. In addition, the EoP evaluation
collected data to enable the compilation of a more objective composite indicator of
attentiveness, created from other variables.72 When the composite indicator is used, the
proportion of inattentive students reduces to 7.1%. This is a significant regression from the 
baseline73 (Annex 16).
66 Uwezo (2016) Are our children learning (2016)? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report. December 2016. 67 Test value + Mean Difference of a one sample test 68 September – December 2015 69 WFP Kenya 2015 Standard Program Report 70 Hincks Dellcrest Centre - The Child with Attention Problems - The Inattentive Child.
https://www.hincksdellcrest.org/ABC/Teacher-Resource/The-Child-with-Attention-Problems/The-Inattentive-Child.aspx 71 Skewness = 1.5; Standard Deviation = 19.7; Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test p = 0.000 72 Composite indicator created from results of the following variables: student asks questions or contributes to discussions in class, student seeks
advice from academic staff, student makes class presentation, student uses library resources in school, student comes to class having completed
readings or assignments, student keeps up to date with studies, student works with other students on projects during class, student works with other
students outside class to prepare assignments, and student is attentive in class. 73 Variance = 84.5%, r = 1
20
Table 6: Results indicator: Improved attentiveness
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by
their teachers
≤20 20 20.1 15
93. When the attentiveness data is disaggregated by county (Table 7), it is clear that all
counties except Baringo have achieved the target of having ≤20 percent of students
inattentive in class.
Table 7: Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their
teachers
County N Median
Nairobi 68 5
Isiolo 47 14
Turkana 57 15
West Pokot 38 15
Marsabit 61 15
Garissa 49 16
Tana River 128 20
Samburu 62 20
Baringo 42 30
94. Although inattentiveness has numerous causes, teachers identified hunger as the
primary reason (cited by 38% of teachers) (Figure 2). Other causes include tiredness from
domestic or income-generating work (22%), the perceived unimportance of education,
sickness, or reasons other than those mentioned in Figure 2 (22%). In counties where
parents reported that food was sometimes not provided at school, teachers were more 
likely to report that hunger was the main cause of inattention. In those schools, lack of
school meals account for 70.7% of the variance in student inattentiveness (r2 = 0.707, p < 
0.01). This indicates that school meals play a critical role in attentiveness of students.
Figure 2: Reasons for pupil’s inattentiveness in class
Hunger
Sickness
Other (specify)
Tiredness from domestic or income-generating work
Perceived unimportance of primary education
22%
38%
11%
7%
22%
21
95. To improve attention in class, the EoP evaluation agrees with the recommendation
of the Mid-Term Evaluation, that is important to provide children with the school meal as
early as possible in the school day. This would mean the SMP has a contribution to
improved cognitive function. The evaluation team recognises that WFP has had
discussions with the MoE on this issue but have encountered difficulties in adopting the
recommendation. This is because schools operate on a national timetable, and meal times
cannot be changed only for some schools. At a minimum, this means the programme
should ensure meals are ready at the designated meal times.
2.2.2 Thematic area: Provision of school meals
96. WFP planned to provide school meals to 815,000 school children in the first year
(2014) reducing annually to 450,000 in 2016 as counties transitioned to the HGSMP.
Figure 3 shows that WFP have reduced their beneficiaries over the three years as planned. 
In 2016, WFP reached 430,409 children, a decrease of 46% from 2014 figures Annex 17.74,75
Figure 3: Total number of students receiving school meals
Source: WFP Kenya, program monitoring data
97. The median number of beneficiaries benefiting directly from USDA-funded
interventions is 763,490 which is within the target (Table 8).76 In addition to the direct
beneficiaries of the SMP (school children), the program has provided some benefits,
indirectly, to the children’s family members. These benefits include the value transfer
element of the program, saving households from providing food for their children, as well
74 2014 actual = 796,116; 2015 actual = 586,100; 2016 actual = 430,409. Total = 1,812, 625 children 75 Number of students receiving school meals as a result of USDA assistance: Baseline 767,108; MTR 753,139, EoP 430,409 76 There is a slow (p =0.102) regression of the total individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions. The variance
change is within the set target given that p > 0.05.
Boys Girls Total
1,000,000
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual
2014 2015 2016
Number of students
Summary of results on school performance:
• The targeted arid SMP counties were all below the national average of literacy and numeracy
at the start of the program period, and remain so in 2016. Nationally, literacy and numeracy
rates have shown little progress over the course of the SMP.
• School feeding alone cannot improve school performance and that the responsibility for
achieving education outcomes falls largely under the Ministry of Education (MoE).
• Teachers reported that hunger was the main cause of inattention in class (38%) although the
measurement of “inattentiveness” is a subjective measure per each teacher’s opinion. When a
more objective, composite indicator of the result of children’s attention is used, the number of
inattentive children falls considerably, and shows significant improvement since baseline.
Baringo County was the only county that has not achieved the ≤20 percent target. Regression
analysis shows that school meals play a critical role in attentiveness of students.
22
as the unintended benefit of children bringing food home for their siblings (described in
more detail ahead). The median number of beneficiaries benefiting indirectly from USDA￾funded interventions is 777,373 which is also within the target of <1,135,467.77 The total 
number of indirect beneficiaries at the time of the EoP was 527,98478 (Table 8). In total,
this means that almost 1.3 million79 people benefitted from USDA support in 2016.
Table 8: Results indicator: Increased access to food (school feeding)
Target BL MTR EoP
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from
USDA-funded interventions <1,020,483 767,108 - 763,490
Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from
USDA-funded interventions <1,135,467 536,758 - 527,984
Percent of students in target schools consuming daily
meals at school 100 100 100 91.5
98. The baseline and midline surveys both found the percentage of students who
reported eating a meal at school the day before the survey was 100 percent. At EoP, the
evaluation found a figure of 91.5 percent (Table 8).80 Table 9 shows that while no county
has met the 100 percent target, most counties, except for West Pokot and Turkana are
within 10 percent. The p-value of Levene’s Test81 (p>0.05) indicates that both girls and
boys received meals, as the variance in meal consumption between girls and boys is
statistically insignificant.82 It is also noteworthy that all three counties that transitioned
to HGSMP during the evaluation period (Isiolo, Samburu and Tana River) are all among
those counties within 10 percent of the target. This is a good indication that the counties
transitioned after appropriate training, and procedures were put in place.
Table 9: Percent of students consuming daily meals at school by county
County Percentage of students who consumed a meal at school
the day before the survey
Samburu 98.5
Baringo 97.0
Marsabit 96.7
Nairobi 94.4
Isiolo 93.7
Garissa 93.2
Tana River 92.8
West Pokot 80.9
Turkana 72.0
Total 91.5
77 There is a slow (p =0.180) regression of the total individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions. The variance
change is within the set target given that p > 0.05. 78 Calculated using method applied during the baseline and midline survey: Interviews with parents determined the average number
of children per HH going to school. HH average size is will be computed say X. Number of HHs= direct beneficiaries/the number of
children per HH going to school. Number of indirect beneficiaries = number of HHs * (X- number of children per HH going to school). 79 763,490 + 527,984 = 1,291,474 80 Primary data collected from questionnaire with school children. 81 Levene’s Test of Equality of Variance 82 Percentage of students reporting eating a meal at school on the day before the survey: Girls 91%, Boys 92%.
23
99. Key informant interviews indicate that in most schools the school meals are
consumed by additional beneficiaries, including teachers and other school personnel,
children who are not in school, and the younger children from Early Childhood
Development (ECD). Children were also observed by the evaluation team keeping part of
their ration in order to take it home to share it with other household members.
“… the [WFP] policy is that they do not allow anyone else who is not a student to eat the food. But if you
go there … the teachers give us many challenges and say when this food gets to school and when it’s time
to store it, the locals come and they want the food. This is one of the challenges that teachers face.”
Baringo key informant interviews
2.2.2.1.1 MGD Strategic Objective 1.2.1: Reduced short term hunger
100. To assess short term hunger, WFP has monitored the proportion of students
consuming a meal before attending school, and the proportion consuming a meal in school.
101. Eating a meal before school: It is clear that hunger is an issue among school
children, with only half the students (53.4%) reporting regularly (every day of the last five
days) consuming a meal at home before attending school (Table 10). If the definition of
“regularly” was reduced to “at least three of the last five school days” this figure increases
considerably, to 76 percent.
Table 10: Results indicator: Reduced short term hunger
Target BL MTR EoP
Percent of students in target schools who regularly
consume a meal before the school day 80 41 59.1 53.4
Percent of students in target schools who regularly
consume a meal during the school day 100 70 68.1 66.9
102. In the 3+ days definition of regularly, the p-value from Levene’s Test (p>0.05)
indicates that the variance in meal consumption between girls and boys is statistically
insignificant. However, the 5-day definition shows a statistical difference, with girls more
likely to be eating breakfast, than boys.83, 84
103. The finding that only half (53.4%) the surveyed students reported eating a meal
before school every day, highlights the importance of the SMP as a food security
intervention, particularly in the arid areas. It may also reflect a lack of parental
understanding on the importance of breakfast. Despite not achieving the targets on either
of these indicators, both indicators show a great improvement from the baseline.
104. Eating a meal during school: Table 10 shows that 66.9 percent of children reported
regularly eating a meal at school during the school day. This result is not statistically
different from the 70 percent reported at baseline (variance = 2.3; Standard Deviation =
1.5; Skewness < 1). This is consistent with the finding that school meals were provided 65
percent of the time (described ahead in Figure 6). This is due to the inconsistent pipeline
caused by insufficient resources.
105. The EoP evaluation found that within the targeted counties, the lowest proportions 
of children consuming food before school were found in Baringo, Turkana and Marsabit.
This is consistent with the high levels of food insecurity experienced in the
83 Consuming meal during school: 5 days a week = Girls – 68.1%, Boys – 65.8%. 3 or more days a week = Girls – 88.7%, Boys – 87.3% 84 Consuming meal before school: 5 days a week = Girls – 55.7%, Boys – 51.1%. 3 or more days a week = Girls – 77.1%, Boys – 74.8%
24
region at the time. Marsabit, Baringo and West Pokot had the lowest proportions of
students reporting consuming a meal during the school day. Samburu is the only county at 
EoP that met the targets (or within 10%) for both children eating a meal before, and during
the school day regardless of the definition of “regularly” (Table 11).
Table 11: Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal
before and during the school day (as reported by school children)
Before school During school
County Meal consumed
every day of the
last 5 days
Meal consumed at
least 3 days out of
last 5
Meal consumed
every day of the
last 5 days
Meal consumed
at least 3 days
out of last 5
Samburu 87.7 97.7 90 100
Isiolo 73.9 88.7 81.7 95.1
Nairobi 68.5 81.5 87 97.2
Garissa 66 93.2 72.8 89.3
Tana River 56.3 82.6 67.1 95.8
West Pokot 50 76.6 62.8 84.0
Baringo 26.1 61.9 38.8 75.4
Turkana 25.4 31.4 81.4 88.1
Marsabit 25.2 67.5 22.8 64.2
Average 53.4 76.0 66.9 88.0
106. To verify the above data re percentage of children eating a meal before school, as
reported by the school children, parents were also asked if their children ate a meal before 
school. The evaluation found no significant difference between what the school children
reported, and what their parents reported (Annex 18).
107. Eating a meal after school: Parents were also asked if a meal was provided to
school children after school. The evaluation found that 66 percent of parents provided a
meal to their children every school day (5 days a week), and 87 percent at least three days
a week (Annex 18). In addition, parents were asked if they reduced the portion of food
provided to their school children during the weekdays because of the school meals
program. Overall, 29% of parents reported that they reduced the portion of food on the
weekdays (school days) compared to the weekends. Most of these households reported
reducing the food portion served to their school children, by 25 percent (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Parental reduction in food portions for school children on weekdays
compared to weekends
25% 50% 75% Linear (25%) Linear (50%) Linear (75%)
Ba ri n g o Ga riss a
C o u n t y C o u n t y
N a ir o b i S am b u r u T a n a Ri v e r T u r k a n a We st P o k o t
C o u n t y C o u n t y C o u n t y C o u n t y C o u n t y C o u n t y
50.0%
47.1%
2.9%
67.7%
25.8%
6.5%
78.0%
19.5%
2.4%
18.9%
56.8%
24.3%
46.8%
46.8%
6.4%
68.4%
23.7%
7.9%
78.9%
21.1%
0.0%
68.4%
31.6%
0.0%
75.0%
25.0%
0.0%
25
2.2.2.1.2 MGD 1.2.1.1: Increased access to food (school feeding)
108. To provide the school meals, WFP has delivered 52,794 MT of food commodities to 
targeted SMP schools, including 19,260 MT from USDA. Although USDA has provided all 
that commodities that were included in the agreement, overall the project was under￾resourced, and provided 71.5% of the targeted volume (Figure 5). Commodities included
wheat, oil, pulses, maize, rice, SuperCereal, micronutrient powder, and iodized salt (Annex 
19). The reduction in commodity provision over the course of the programme is due to the
gradual handover of counties to the Government’s HGSMP.
Figure 5: Total quantity of commodities provided to SMP from all sources
Source: WFP monitoring data
109. The evaluation found that overall, WFP had delivered high quality food, including
minimal loss of food during transportation. Complaints relating to food contamination
because of poor food storage were few, and Public Health Officers reported only one
incident in Langata (Nairobi) where maize was confiscated due to contamination. No other
incidents were reported in Langata after the school started using wooden pallets.
110. Although WFP delivered food to the SCDE storage, the evaluation found that based 
on school register data, school meals were provided only 65% of school days in 2016. This 
is a lower figure, but not statistically different from the Mid-Term Evaluation (Figure 6). 
Findings that school meals were not provided each day is consistent with the household 
interviews (Annex 20) findings that 37 percent of parents reported that there were times 
when meals were not provided at school. This figure was even higher in Baringo at 61.4%. 
Similarly, the number of students reporting regularly (every day of the last five school days)
consuming a meal during the school day, was 66.9 percent. However, using the 3+ day 
definition of “regularly”, the figure increases considerably, to 88 percent. This figure is 
more consistent with the figure in Table 5 of 91.5% reporting eating a meal at school the 
day before the survey. From this, it seems that many schools are providing meals 3-4 days
per week, rather than on every school day.
Figure 6: Proportion of school days that SMP Meals were provided
Source: Evaluation team - Collation of data from SMP 6 form, EOPE 2016
111. Pipeline breaks as a result of under-resourcing, contributed to the low proportion
of days when meals were provided in school. For example, in Term 2, 2015 (May–
Planned Achieved
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2014 2015 2016 Total
Metric tonnes (MT)
Endline
Midline
Baseline
0% 20% 40%
Endline, 65%
Midline , 68%
Baseline, 70%
60% 80% 100%
26
August), meals were provided on 50 out of 70 school days. Similarly, in Term 3, 2015
(September to November), resources were available to feed children for 40 out for 55
school days. Key informants also mentioned other factors that reduced the number of days 
when schools served meals including delays in receiving food from the SCDE stores,
insufficient firewood and insufficient water.
112. A similar situation was noted by the mid-term evaluation. When SuperCereal was
being provided for pre-primary children (2014) through other donors it was only available 
on 38% of school days. The main reason for this is explained by the lower quantity of CSB 
received85 by WFP (due to insufficient funding) compared to the quantityplanned. To 
compensate for the low volume of food delivered, some schools reduced the size of rations 
per child. Some schools reduced even further to accommodate additional rations for the 
pre-primary school children and children from the neighbourhood who were not in school
during meal times.
113. Parents were asked if and how the children ate lunch when school meals were not
provided. Almost half the surveyed parents (42.9%) reported that children would go home 
for lunch and return to school (Table 12). However, 30 percent would not eat lunch, and 
more than ten percent of children (12.5%) would go home for lunch but then not return to 
school. It is clear that the program therefore also plays a role in school children’s food 
security. However, as 29% of parents reported reducing the portion of food served to their 
children after school because they had received the school meal, it reduces the benefit of
the school meals as a food security intervention.
Table 12: Parents reporting of how children ate lunch if meal not provided at
school
Frequency Percent
Child brought own food and eat at school 19 6.8
Gave cash to child to buy lunch 10 3.6
Child came home for lunch and then went back to school 120 42.9
Child remained home and eat at home 35 12.5
No lunch 84 30.0
Other (Specify) 12 4.3
Total 280 100
85 WFP received 591 MT of CSB but received and distributed only 388 MT (66 percent of the planned quantity). 86 2014 actual = 796,116; 2015 actual = 586,100; 2016 actual = 430,409. Total = 1,812, 625 children
Summary of results on the provision of school meals
• Over the three-year program implementation, WFP has provided meals to almost 2 million
children.86
• The evaluation found that school meals have been provided 65-70% of school days over the
course of the program, in part due to funding constraints and pipeline delays as well as
insufficient firewood and water provision by the communities.
• Around half the students consume a meal before attending school, so the SMP is a significant
contribution to the food security of the children. However, if parents reduce meals after school, 
the food security contribution of SMP reduces. Parents also reported that if school meals were 
not provided at school, 30 percent of children would not eat lunch, and 12.5 percent of children
would go home for lunch but then not return to school.
27
2.2.3 Thematic area: Participation in education
114. One of the major objectives of the SMP is to increase enrolment rates in primary
school. This was later revised to include multiple indicators of participation in education
including increased enrolment, stabilized attendance, and improved completion rates.
2.2.3.1.1 MGD SO 1.3: Improved student attendance
115. In Kenya, the national net attendance in primary education is 87 percent87, which is 
consistent with the EoP evaluation findings (86.4%)88. Since baseline, there has not been 
a significant change in this indicator (Table 13). The target of 95 percent of children
regularly attendance primary school has therefore not been achieved, although the EoP
result is within 10 percent of the target.
Table 13: Results indicator: Improved student attendance
Target Baseline MTR EoP
TOTAL students regularly attending USDA supported
classrooms/schools 95 85.6 88 86.4
Source: Assessment of school registers EOPE, 2016
116. A county level assessment by the evaluation team, found that pupil attendance
changed over the SMP implementation period in almost all the targeted counties (Figure
7) albeit with inconsistent results. Overall, only three counties: Baringo, Garissa and West 
Pokot improved since the baseline. Baringo and Garissa had the lowest attendance at
baseline.
Figure 7: Primary School Attendance by County
Source: Evaluation team - Assessment of school registers
117. Key informant interviews indicate that the presence of the SMP plays a significant
role in participation in education. Teachers believe that school attendance would drop
considerably if meals were no longer provided. They also reported that school meals have
improved retention rates although that is not one of the program results indicators so could
not be verified.
(The school feeding program) “is very, very important. If the food is not there, this is not a matter of
saying probably; the children would not come to school. Here the children look for the smoke (from the
87 UNICEF – State of the World’s Children – 2015: 2014 data 88 Computation based on the following figures: Total registered students = 26,234, attrition rate (2008-2015) = 5.7%  adjusted
denominator = 24,739. Total attendance = 21374. Completion rate = attendance/enrolment (21,374/24739*100) = 86.4%.
2014 2015 2016
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Baringo Garissa Mandera Marsabit Tana River Turkana Wajir West Pokot Nairobi
Primary school
attendance rate
28
kitchen) when they are at their homes. If they don’t see the smoke, then they would not come to school. If
they see the smoke, they just come. That is how important the SFP is to education in this county! Actually,
if you don’t feed children in this county for one year, then you can as well say goodbye to education in this
county.”
Samburu key informant interviews
118. Household interviews indicate multiple reasons for student absence, with family
events and sickness accounting for 99.7% of absenteeism (r2 = 0.997, p < 0.001) (Annex
21). In Nairobi, Isiolo and Marsabit, school closures (because of the teacher’s strike) was
also a significant reason (Figure 8). Key informant interviews confirm that in some
locations, student absence increases during particular times of the year, as children engage 
in household tasks such as working on the farm or livestock migration (mainly in Baringo,
Samburu and Tana River). Insecurity in some locations is also a concern (Baringo, 
Turkana, Garissa and Tana River) or cultural activities such as ceremonies (Baringo, Tana 
River and Samburu).
Figure 8: Reasons for school absence, by county
119. There are several other development actors implementing complementary projects
in the SMP targeted counties to improve school attendance, particularly for girls. The MoE 
together with World Vision implement the “Wasichana Tusome” initiative that aimsto
keep girls in school throughout the month by providing sanitary pads. Research indicates
that menstrual hygiene management among school-going girls reduced absenteeism.89
Welthungerhilfe is also implementing a water project that brings water closer to
communities, reducing water collection time. Research indicates that a 15- minute 
reduction in water collection time increases the proportion of girls attending school by 8-
12 percent.90 The combination of these complementary efforts from other actors, and the
school meals provided by WFP are all likely to have contributed to keeping the students
(mostly girls) in school.
“… we used to have a lot of absenteeism especially by girls during their time [menses], but now that the
government has intervened through that program of sanitation, now there is not much absenteeism”
Garissa key informant interviews
89 Scott, L., Dopson, S., Montgomery, P., Dolan, C., Ryus, C., 2009. Impact of Providing Sanitary Pads to Poor Girls in Africa. Working
Paper. SAID Business School, University of Oxford. 90 Nauges, C. & Strand, J. (2007) “Estimation of Non-Tap Water Demand in Central American Cities”. Resource and Energy
Economics 29: 165-182.
School Closure
Looking after siblings or domestic work
Insecurity
Working on farm or livestock tending
Lack of food
Sickness
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Baringo Garissa Isiolo Marsabit Nairobi Samburu Tana River Turkana West
Percentage
Pokot
of all days absent
29
120. The other indicator for attendance is primary school completion. Uwezo (2015)
found a national primary school completion figures of 96.1 percent.91 This is significantly
higher than the baseline, MTR or EoP found in the SMP targeted counties. Table 14 shows 
that the EoP found a completion rate of 54.4 percent, well below the 80 percent target, and 
consistent with the findings from the mid-term review. The Uwezo Kenya assessment 
report of 201692 does not indicate completion rates, focusing instead on other learning 
outcomes. It is therefore difficult to determine why completion rates are falling in the SMP 
counties. Interviews with school personnel indicate this may be partly due to incomplete 
records and/or inaccuracy of the student’s records in some schools, as well as frequent 
transfer of pupils from one school to another. Other factors include drop-out due to 
cultural practices such as early marriage, and household migration in search of pasture and
water for their livestock.
Table 14: Results indicator: Improved student attendance (completion)
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of students in target schools who start grade one
and complete their last grade of primary school 80 76.2 56.4 54.4
2.2.3.1.2 MGD SO 1.4: Increased student enrolment
121. Nationally, primary school enrolment in Kenya has been high with Uwezo
describing rates of more than 90% each year between 2009-2012.93 Secondary data
indicates that net enrolment is increasing (Annex 22), and this is supported by The World 
Bank, which found enrolment rates of around 90% between 2013-2015.94At the time of the 
SMP design (2013), the national net primary enrolment was 83.5% for boys, and 84.5% for 
girls (Table 15).95 Gender parity in enrolment has been achieved across the country,
however the Uwezo 2016 report specifically mentions the ASALs as an exception, where 
more boys are enrolled than girls.96
Table 15: Net enrolment rates 2014-2016
Baseline MTR EoP
National net primary school enrolment rates 83.5 boys, 84.5 girls 84.2 76.2
Average net primary school enrolment rates, SMP counties 61.7 84.5
122. At the mid-term evaluation, the average net enrolment rate in the SMP counties was
61.7 percent97, much lower than the national average. In 2016, the national net enrolment 
rate fell to 76.2%,98 while in the SMP counties it improved, with the latest enrolment rates
average 84.5%. This is confirmed by school assessment data from the EoP evaluation,
which found significant improvement99 in enrolment rates since the midline of 3.8 percent
for boys, and 6.1 percent for girls, both above the 4 percent target
91 Uwezo (2015): Are Our Children Learning? The State of Education in Kenya in 2015 and Beyond. Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa. 92 Uwezo (2016) Are our children learning (2016)? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report. December 2016. 93 Uwezo (2015): Are Our Children Learning? The State of Education in Kenya in 2015 and Beyond. Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa. 94 The World Bank (2016) https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.NENR 95 UNICEF (2015) State of the World’s Children: 2014 data 96 Uwezo (2016) Are our children learning (2016)? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report. December 2016. 97 At MTR, Garissa and Turkana counties performing particularly poorly with 39.9 percent and 54.4 percent respectively 98 http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=142
99 The significance testing on the enrolment results can be found in Annex 31.
30
(Table 16). A MoEYS/WFP verification exercise in September 2017 found that girl’s
enrolment in all the targeted counties is still below 50%, while boys enrolment is 51-
63%.100 This gender disparity is notable and largely explained by cultural practises such as 
girl’s early marriages, and community preference to take boys to school rather than girls. 
This finding highlights the importance of community education on the importance of
education (discussed ahead), and the need for incentivizing girl’s participation in
education.
Table 16: Results indicator: Increased student enrolment
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percentage increase in boys enrolled in school because of
USDA assistance 4 3 9.2 3.8
Percentage increase in girls enrolled in school because of
USDA assistance 4 3 7.7 6.1
123. Provision of food commodities to schools for the SMP is based on school enrolment 
numbers. WFP has therefore put in several verification procedures to ensure these 
numbers are accurate. WFP’s Field Officers make impromptu visits to the SMP schools to 
verify such information. This is done by comparing class attendance registers for the 
specific days against the quantity of food commodities that storekeepers provide for
preparation on that given day. Despite this, the evaluation found instances of exaggerated
enrolment numbers albeit often for well-intended reasons. For example, in Turkana 
County it was noted that the Head Teacher or teachers in-charge of the SMP had
exaggerated the number of pupils so that they are able to provide school meals to the ECD
children as well.
124. The evaluation notes that both WFP and the MoE are well aware of this issue. The
MoE is planning to address this by using biometrics and working towards a National
Integrated Information System (NIEMIS) to help provide clearer enrolment numbers. The 
NIEMIS will be launched in 2017. In the interim, WFP does a complete verification of
school enrolment in every county under the transition to the HGSMP, and will be doing a
verification in all remaining counties at the start of the next round of funding.
2.2.3.1.3 MGD SO 1.3.5: Increased community understanding of the benefits of
education
125. Key informants indicate that many households in the arid counties have low
recognition of the benefits of education. As described above under the student enrolment
findings, households often prioritize pastoralism, and cultural practices such as early
marriage and female genital mutilation that stop children (particularly girls) from
accessing or completing their education. WFP supports the MoE to sensitize the PTAs and
SMCs on the importance of education for both boys and girls.
126. WFP worked with partners to develop messages to be shared with members of PTAs 
and SMCs during organized trainings. The messages aimed to encourage parents and the 
community to embrace school enrolment, retention and completion for both boysand girls. 
Over the course of the SMP, 119 events including County Education Days, radio spots and 
advertising campaigns were held, well above the target of 44. These campaigns have
reached 170 percent of the targeted number of beneficiaries (Table 17). Although it
100 MoEYS/WFP (2017) School Meals Programme – Verification of school enrolment in arid counties. Report, September 2017.
31
is not possible to attribute the improvements in enrolment to these campaigns, key
informants rated them highly and encouraged WFP to implement such activities on a
regular basis.
Table 17: Activity indicator: Raising awareness on the importance of
education
Indicator Target Achievement Total
2014 2015 2016
Number of events, radio spots, advertising
campaigns held
44 20 81 18 119
Number of community members benefiting from
events, radio spots, add campaigns held
78,800 29,426 70,000 35,000 134,426
127. The EoP evaluation found that Garissa, Baringo and Samburu counties had
achieved the target of 80 percent of parents being able to name three benefits of education 
(Annex 23) however, on average, only 68 percent of parents could name at least three 
benefits (Table 18). Ongoing campaigns are therefore necessary to ensure the messages are 
consolidated. Key informant findings indicate that the MoE is also engagingsupport from 
local chiefs and church groups to spread a message of the importance of education (and
particularly for girls), and this is to be encouraged and continued.
Table 18: Results indicator: Increased community understanding on the
benefits of education
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of parents in target communities who can name at
least three benefits of primary education 80 66 88101 68
2.2.4 Thematic area: Food utilization and food safety
2.2.4.1.1 MGD Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices
128. An important component of this project is the emphasis on hygienic food
preparation and appropriate food storage. Having appropriate food storage in place not
only improves the life of the SMP food but also gives the schools a good grounding in
appropriate food storage so they will be well prepared to transition to the HGSMP. For
101 Data from Garissa was excluded due to enumerator error.
Summary of results on the participation in education
• Enrolment rates in the targeted arid counties were well below the national average, but have
improved over the course of this program. The community sensitization campaigns on the
importance of education, particularly for girls may have contributed to this.
• No significant change was noted in attendance rates, which were already high (86%) atbaseline.
Key informant interviews provide multiple reasons for school absences, of which sickness it the
main reason.
• Both the MoE and WFP have engaged support from local chiefs and church groups, but more
work is needed to enable parents to better understand the benefits of education.
• Primary school completion rates remain low (54%).
32
schools to be able to appropriately store and prepare the food provided by WFP, the SMP
provides training to teachers on food preparation and storage practices. The objectives of
which is to encourage schools to store the WFP food off the ground, and prepare it in
hygienic conditions.
129. WFP provided two trainings a year (first and third terms) in all the targeted districts 
and in all the SMP schools. At the district level, the training targeted SCDEs, School 
Feeding Program Officers and QASOs to increase their capacity to conduct on- the-job
training for teachers during routine monitoring. At the school level, WFP provided 
trainings to teachers, cooks and storekeepers. This training covered aspects of reporting 
and commodity management with more emphasis on accountability at the school level.
130. Figures 9 and 10 shows that WFP has exceeded its targets on the number of
trainings provided (390%) and the number of teachers trained in food preparation and
storage practices (272%) (Annex 24).
Figure 9: Number of trainings provided on food preparation and storage
techniques
Figure 10: Number of teachers trained in food preparation and storage
practices
131. Despite all trainees passing the training, Table 19 shows that only 76.5 percent of
schools stored the food off the ground at EoP. Only in one county, Isiolo, did all surveyed
schools store food off the ground. Three other counties - Garissa, Baringo and Samburu
were within 10 percent of achieving the target for this indicator. Clearly, there are other
factors involved in the decision of how to store food, not just a lack of knowledge of
appropriate practices. Annex 24 shows the dataset of school having dedicated storerooms, 
by county, and also provides some photos of substandard food storage noted by the
evaluation team during school visits.
Planned Achieved
100
80
60
40
20
0
2014 2015 2016 Total
Planned Achieved
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
2014 2015 2016 Total
Number of trainings
provided
Number of teachers
trained
33
Table 19: Results indicator: Increased knowledge of safe food preparation
and storage practices
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of food preparers at target schools who achieve a
passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage 100 87 97.9 100102
Percent of schools in target communities that store food off
the ground 100 67 96 76.5
2.2.4.1.2 MGD Strategic Objective 2.6: Increased access to requisite food preparation
and storage tools and equipment
132. It is important to note that although the SMP provides training to storekeepers and
cooks on food preparation and storage, the program does not provide financial resources 
for food preparation or storage tools and equipment. Instead, WFP supports the MoE to 
improve their infrastructure though other sources of funding. WFP also has a
complementary project supporting schools to acquire modern energy-efficient stoves
(jikos). In total 400 energy-saving jikos have been installed in SMP schools between 2014-
2016.
133. The evaluation finds that this component of the SMP has been well implemented,
with great improvements in the number of schools having dedicated kitchens and
storerooms by the EoP and both results indicators have been reached (Table 20).103 All
counties except West Pokot and Garissa, have met the 80 percent target. School without
dedicated kitchen facilities prepared food in open spaces. Annex 25 shows some photos
of substandard kitchen, and provides the data set of schools having dedicated kitchens,
by county.
Table 20: Results indicator: Increased access to requisite food preparation
and storage tools and equipment
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of target schools with
improved preparation and storage
equipment
Dedicated kitchen 80 60 81 82
Dedicated storeroom 80 67 80 80
Food preparation equipment
134. The evaluation found that although most schools (82%) had dedicated kitchens,
only half (53%) used energy saving stoves (Figure 11). Evaluation findings presented in
Annex 25 shows that while all surveyed schools (100%) in Nairobi and Isiolo had energy
efficient stoves, none were found in West Pokot or Baringo. Although WFP did provide
102 The EoP survey assessed only 10 attributes out of the initial 16 at baseline. These constitute of 62.5% of the attributes. 50% of the
62.5 gives a threshold score of 31.3%. If a 50% passing mark of the 10 attributes is used, the proportion of food preparers who achieved
a passing score comes down to 87.4%. 103 One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicate that the number of schools having dedicated kitchens and storerooms by the EoP
attained the program targets (kitchens p = 1.000; storerooms p =0.317). In both cases, the observed median percentage was not
significantly different from the projected median percent change.
34
stoves to West Pokot, financial constraints meant that Baringo did not receive any energy￾efficient stoves.
Figure 11: Attributes of the SMP school cooks and kitchens
135. The evaluation also found that although 82 percent of kitchens were clean, only 29
percent of cooks reported having training in safe food preparation and storage, and less
than half (46%) had a valid health certificate. In addition, only 37 percent of cooks reported 
having a uniform or apron, and the evaluation team found only 64 percent of cooks to be 
clean and well-groomed. Almost all cooks (99%) reported that children washed their hands
before meals (99%).
136. Key informants in schools without dedicated kitchens reported the main reasonfor 
not having such as space was competing priorities for limited financial resources. Schools 
without dedicated kitchen facilities said that parents and community lacked the financial
means to support construction of a kitchen.In those schools, the cooks prepared the meals 
on a fire. The lack of modern facilities was reported as an inefficiency in meal preparation 
as a greater quantity of fuel (firewood) was used, and the cooking time was greatly
increased, sometimes delaying meals.
Storage tools
137. The evaluation notes that while the two main storage indicators have been met,
several food storage issues were identified. Figure 12 shows that while most surveyed
storerooms were lockable (95.2%) and properly ventilated (79.8%) only around half the
surveyed storekeepers (58.3%) have been trained in safe food preparation and storage
practices. This may account for the high proportion of surveyed schools where evidenceof
presence of rodents (44%) or presence of insects (50%) was noted, despite most schools 
reporting carrying out pest/insect control measures (69%). Evidence of spillage or leakage 
was found in 19 percent of surveyed schools. Mould and excess humidity were not major
issues (7.1%).
100
80
60
40
20
0
Cook is Cook is clean Cook has a
trained in safe and well uniform or
food
preparation
and storage
groomed apron
Kitchen is Kitchen has a Kitchen has Children wash
clean valid health an energy hands before
certificate efficient stove meals
Percentage of cooks
and kitchens
35
Figure 12: Attributes of SMP food stores
138. Key informants indicate that for the relatively few schools that lacked lockable food 
storage, the storage and security of the food is a challenge. Some schools used classrooms 
or offices to store food, particularly when there were no classes. This means that multiple 
people had access and the appropriate food storage conditions cannot be met.
“… another one of the key challenges is storage; for example, in our school we have only three rooms, we
have four classes. We are using part of our classes as a store. That is a challenge because I believe it is
making a class looks like a shop.”
West Pokot key informant interviews
139. The evaluation also collected data on the sanitation (toilet) infrastructure in the
SMP schools. The findings indicate that all schools have toilet facilities, with 87 percent of
schools providing separate toilets for girls and boys (Annex 26).
100
80
60
40
20
0
Storekeeper Food store is Food store is Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Use of School carries
trained in safe lockable
food
preparation
and storage
practices
properly presence of presence of mould and
ventilated rodents in the insects excess of
spillage or
leakage
improvised out
raised pallets pest/insect
store humidity for control
commodities measures
storage
Percentage of schools
Summary of results on food utilization and food safety:
• WFP provided two trainings a year on food preparation and storage in all the targeted districts 
and in all the SMP schools. In total, 86 trainings were provided, to more than 7,000 teachers.
• The USDA program does not provide the financial resources for food preparation or storage
tools and equipment. Instead, WFP supports the MoE to improve their infrastructure though
other complementary funding mechanisms.
Kitchens
• Most SMP schools have dedicated kitchens, which is a considerable achievement from the
baseline. Schools without dedicated kitchen facilities reported inefficiencies in program
implementation, including longer cooking times, and greater use of firewood.
• Half the schools (53%) use energy-efficient stoves. Although all surveyed schools (100%) in
Nairobi and Isiolo had energy efficient stoves, none were found in West Pokot or Baringo.
• The evaluation found that although 82 percent of kitchens were clean, more work needs to be
done to ensure that cooks have adequate training, and all kitchens have a valid health
certificate.
Storerooms
• Most SMP schools have dedicated storerooms, and store their food off the ground. More work
is required to ensure that pest/insect control measures are adequately carried out, as evidence
of presence of rodents or presence of insects was found in almost half the stores.
36
2.2.5 Thematic area: Increased national capacity
2.2.5.1.1 MGD Strategic Objective 1.4.1: Increased capacity of government institutions
140. WFP supports capacity building activities for the MoE at county, district, and school 
level to ensure that appropriate procedures are in place for a transition to the HGSMP. This 
includes supporting the MoE in the production and distribution of two manuals: the
HGSMP and the National School Health Guidelines.
• The HGSMP manual contains information related to carrying out a successful school
feeding program. This includes meal planning, budgeting, warehousing and storage,
reporting and monitoring, procurement and government policy.
• The National School Health guidelines cover aspects of safe food preparation, handling
and storage practices.
141. Over the course of the SMP, WFP has distributed more than 16,000 manuals to over 
8,000 MoE staff (Figures 13 & 14). This has exceeded WFPs targets (188% and 129%
respectively) (Annex 26). The intention of distributing the manuals is to enable schools to
set up appropriate food procurement and distribution procedures, and help ensure that
appropriate infrastructure is put in place.
Figure 13: Number of HGSMP manuals distributed to MoE by WFP
Figure 14: Number of MoE officers benefiting from HGSMP manual
distribution
142. Table 21 shows that all (100%) of the targeted schools currently have these in place
including a system of record keeping and monthly physical inventory records in place at
the county level.
Planned Achieved
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2014 2015 2016 Total
Planned Achieved
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2014 2015 2016 Total
37
Table 21: Results indicator: Increased capacity of government institutions
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percent of districts in which food procurement and
distribution procedures and infrastructure are in place
100 85.4 100 100
2.2.5.1.2 MGD 1.4.2: Improved policy and regulatory framework
143. Another component of WFP’s capacity building work is supporting the development 
of relevant national policies, regulations and procedures. During this phase of 
implementation, WFP has supported a total of five Government policies or procedures
(Table 22). WFP supported the development of the National School Health Policy and the 
School Meals and Nutrition Strategy, which are both at Stage 2 – they have been drafted 
and presented for public/stakeholder consultation. The HGSMP Implementation
Guidelines are now at Stage 4 – passed/approved after being supported during a previous 
phase of the SMP (in 2011). Other policies passed in 2014 and 2015 with WFP’s support 
include the Basic Education Act (2014), and the Kenya Health Policy 2012-2030.
Table 22: Results indicator: Improved policy and regulatory framework
Target Baseline EoP
Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations
and/or administrative procedures in each of the following stages
of development as a result of USDA assistance
3 3 5
144. Overall, the evaluation found that WFP plays a key support role to the MoE and
other relevant ministries on policy development. Key informants provided overwhelmingly
positive feedback on WFP’s capacity building work, reflecting the importance of the
program in the ASALs. Key informants recognized WFP as an authority on food 
procurement, distribution and storage, and were pleased with activities that shared some 
of their experience such as the trainings for teachers, and distributionof manuals.
145. WFP’s indicator of national capacity for this program is the School Feeding National
Capacity Index. This is a subjective indicator based on the five Systems Approach for Better 
Education Results (SABER) policy goals104 and calculated by WFP and MoE together. The 
Index improved from 13 at baseline to 14 at latest follow up (December 2015). Although
this does not meet the target of 18, there is some improvement.
2.2.5.1.3 MGD SO 1.4.4: Increased engagement of local organizations and community
groups
146. WFP uses a participatory approach to the implementation of SMP, by engaging with 
district and school level MoE officers, and encouraging community engagement through 
PTAs and SMCs. Table 23 shows that more than 80 percent of schools reported that their 
PTAs and SMCs contribute to their school. However, the evaluation also notes that when 
surveyed, only 60 percent of households reported being aware of the existence of the SMC.
104 World Bank/WFP (2013) Systems Approach for Better Education Results: School Health and School Feeding
38
Table 23: Results indicator: Increased engagement of local organizations
and community groups
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Percentage of PTAs and SMCs contributing to
their school as a result of USDA assistance
80 70 PTAs: 93.8
SMCs: 66.7
PTAs: 82
SMCs: 81
147. The school data above was confirmed by the household interviews which indicates
that most households provide 5-30 KES per day as a contribution to the SMP (Table 24).
Household interviews and key informant interviews confirmed that in addition to the
financial support, parents were heavily involved in the non-food, supportive activities
required for the implementation of the SMP (Figure 15). On average, parents provide more
than 80 percent of the water, firewood, cooking and eating utensils, cleaning products and 
cook’s salary. Some key informant interviews noted that in many cases, parents ask their
children to collect the water and firewood on the way to school. Teachers noted that this 
often adversely affects attendance, with students coming late to school. In the unplanned
settlements of Nairobi, parents have also initiated income generating activities such as 
greenhouse farming, fishponds which acts as a food and income source.
Table 24: Household reporting of monies provided for school meals
County Minimum provided Maximum provided Median provided
Tana River County 2 40 5
Isiolo County 2 25 5
Nairobi County 10 51 20
Samburu County 20 20 20
Turkana County 5 50 25
Garissa County 30 30 30
Marsabit County 30 30 30
Figure 15: Proportion of support to non-food inputs, provided by parents
148. WFP actively encourages women’s participation in SMP decision making, resulting
in equal representation of women within the School Management Committees (SMCs).
Although Table 25 shows that WFP has not achieved the targets in these areas, there has
been considerable improvement since the baseline.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Water Firewood Cooking
utensils
Cleaning
products
Eating utensils Cooks salary Other
Percentage of
households
39
Table 25: WFP cross cutting indicators - gender
Target Baseline Latest
follow up
Proportion of beneficiaries in leadership positions of project
management committees >50 20 30
Proportion of women project management committee
members trained in modalities of food, cash or voucher
distribution
100 20 67
149. In addition to community engagement, the SMP has resulted in the formation of
several public-private partnerships. The WFP Standard Programme Reports over the
2014-2016 period indicate thirteen new public-private partnerships were formed because
of USDA assistance. These include the following organizations: International Paper, DSM,
FEED, Caterpillar, Earth Holdings, Government of Kenya, Unilever, Drew Barrymore,
Princess Haya WPD, IRB, JAWFP, LG Electronics and Goodeed Association. The value 
of these partnerships amounts to US$15,381,303. No additional public-private
partnerships were identified by the EoP evaluation.
2.2.5.1.4 WFP Protection indicator: Proportion of assisted people who experience
threats to safety problems travelling to, from and/or at WFP program site
150. As well as the MGD program performance indicators, in all WFP programs, the
proportion of assisted people who experience safety issues at program sites is monitored.
Table 25 shows the security threats identified by parents at WFP SMP sites. The EoP
evaluation found lower levels of rape, sexual harassment and drug abuse than found at the 
Mid-Term Evaluation. However, the level of robbery, animal attacks and bullying have 
increased considerably. When disaggregated by county, the data shows that the counties 
reporting the highest number of security threats were Marsabit (n=239), Tana River (n = 
205), and Isiolo (n= 133) (Table 26). Both Marsabit and Tana River had high levels of 
animal attacks, while households in Isiolo report robbery and bullying (Annex 28).
Table 26: Security threats identified at WFP SMP sites
Target Baseline MTR EoP
Proportion of assisted
people who
experience threats to
safety problems
travelling to, from
and/or at WFP
program site
0 _ Rape 4.9% Rape 0.2%
Sexual harassment
4.9%
Sexual harassment
0.4%
Robbery 3.7% Robbery 9%
Animal attacks 8.2% Animal attacks 41.5%
Bullying 3.5% Bullying 14.9%
Drug abuse 4.4% Drug abuse 0.7%
151. Annex 28 shows additional findings re whether security threats were related to the
commute to school, or around the school feeding set-up per se. Overall, the majority of
threats (78%) relate to the commute to school.
40
152. In response to a recommendation from the mid-term evaluation, in 2016 WFP
introduced a feedback hotline in all USDA supported counties. This was intended to
improve accountability and enable people to contact WFP and make a complaint or provide 
feedback about the program. The EoP evaluation was conducted just after the hotline was 
rolled out, and it found that only 36.9% of parents were aware that there were any avenues 
through which complaints can be made. Out of the group aware that they could make 
complaints, only 14 households (3.4%) mentioned the hotline (Table27). Most of those 
households were in Isiolo and Turkana Counties (Annex 29). Other reported ways to
provide feedback included meetings with School Administrators (46.7%), or with the SMC 
(39.8%). More work evidently needs to be done on community awareness raising of the 
presence of the hotline, and the possibility to provide feedback. WFP is currently in 
discussion with the MoE to support the introduction of a helpline in government￾supported HGSMP.
Table 27: Household reporting of possible ways they can make complaints
Avenue Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Regular meetings with SMC 165 14.7 39.8
Regular meetings with School Administrators 194 17.3 46.7
Suggestion Box 2 0.2 0.5
Hotline 14 1.2 3.4
Other (specify) 40 3.6 9.6
Total 415 36.9 100
Missing System 709 63.1
Total 1124 100
Summary of results on national capacity:
• WFP provides considerable support to the MoE to build their capacity to implement the
HGSMP after transitioning from SMP. The government key informants provided
overwhelmingly positive feedback on WFP in this regard.
• The MoE recognizes WFP as an authority on food procurement, distribution and storage.
• WFP has contributed to the development of five national policies and strategies and helped the 
MoE produce and distribute two manuals: the HGSMP and the National School Health
Guidelines.
• All (100%) of SMP schools have set up appropriate food procurement and distribution
procedures, including a system of record keeping and monthly physical inventory records in
place at the county level.
• WFP’s indicator of national capacity for this program is the School Feeding National Capacity
Index. The Index improved from 13 at baseline to 14 at latest follow up (December 2015).
• WFP’s participatory approach to SMP implementation has promoted active engagement in the
SMP particularly by the PTA and SMC. The approach has also improved gender equalityas 
there are equal numbers of women and men on the SMCs.
• There has been significant improvement in the inclusion of women in the SMC and the
inclusion of women in leadership positions. However, this figure still remains under target, as
set at the beginning of the project.
• The evaluation found some security threats at WFP SMP sites, including high levels of animal
attacks (41.5% of parents reporting), and bullying (14.9%).
• Only 36.9% of parents were aware that there were any avenues through which complaints can
be made to WFP.
41
2.2.6 Thematic area: Efficiency of program delivery
153. For this evaluation, the efficiency of program delivery has been assessed largely by
qualitative means, asking key informants whether the SMP activities were implemented
in the most efficient way compared to alternatives. The team also assessed whether there
were any internal or external factors influencing the efficiency of the program (attainment 
of the planned outputs, cost factors, logistics and pipeline performance).
2.2.6.1.1 Perceived efficiency of SMP in delivering its outputs
154. Key informants were asked to name issues that affected the efficiency of SMP
implementation – particularly the provision of food to the targeted schools for the
provision of school meals. Figure 16 shows the three areas most frequently positively
identified by key informants were the WFP food delivery system (“transportation by
WFP”), the procurement of cereals, and WFP’s training (of MoE personnel and teachers).
Figure 16: Key informant views on SMP implementation efficiency
155. Less frequently mentioned, but also considered positively, was the community
involvement in supporting the SMP. Key informant interviews with WFP personnel
identified the use of an integrated supply chain management system known as Logistics
Execution Support System (LESS)105 as positively supporting efficiency. The LESS aided
the monitoring and documentation of the supply while ensuring seamless supply ofschool
meals. On the negative side, food transportation by the SCDE was the most frequently 
mentioned issue. Food storage within the schools, insecurity, food loss/theft and the SMP 
reporting systems were also frequently mentioned. SMP schools did not report any major 
issues with WFP transportation of food until pipeline breaks occurred in 2015 due to 
funding constraints from non-USDA donors, including another key donor who was
unexpectedly unable to maintain their commitments
156. Table 28 shows that in 2015 only 52% of planned commodities were distributed.
These pipeline breaks together with the national teachers strike from 31 August to 5
October 2015 account for the low volume of food distributed in 2015 compared to planned.
105 LESS is a project that was developed by WFP in the year 2014 to achieve integrated supply chain management. The project
integrates supply chain, inventory accounting and real-time tracking systems for improved delivery of Logistics Function
Frequency
Transportation by SCDE Training Transportation by WFP
Storage within schools Insecurity
Schools SMP reporting
Procurement of cereals
Food losses
Community provisions
Involvement of local
Untrained teachers adminstration
MoEST supervision
MoH and MoEST
coordination
Overlapping activities
Sale of food
-ve
Pipeline breaks
Intensity +ve
42
Table 28: Planned vs. Actual commodities distributed (2015)
Commodity Planned
distribution (mt)
Actual distribution
(mt)
% Actual vs.
Planned
Beans 260 - -
Bulgur Wheat 4,348 6,382 146.8%
Corn Soya Blend
(CSB)
1,544 595 38.5%
Iodized Salt 447 220 49.1%
Maize 16,095 4,399 27.3%
Rice - 2 -
Split Peas 4,934 2,750 55.7%
Vegetable Oil 746 397 53.3%
TOTAL 28,375 14,744 52%
157. Figure 17 provides a summary of the key activities related to the provision of food
for SMP. Counties implementing SMP identified the storage and transportation by the
SCDEs to the schools, as the weakest link in the pipeline. Interviews with Head Teachers
indicated that relying on the SCDE for transportation of food to schools led to delays in
delivery, reducing the number of days that the schools could provide meals. Head Teachers
also reported occasionally contributing their private funds to pay transporters to deliver 
the food products from the SCDE storage, and sometimes, when funds were low, payment 
was done by offering food products to the transporter instead of paying cash.
Figure 17: Flow of SMP food provision
“At least we should have enough transporters so that the food can be delivered in time, so that schools can
start smoothly without delays”.
Turkana key informant interviews
158. Key informant interviews also identified unclear roles and responsibilities,
especially after transitioning to the HGSMP. The responsibility of meeting the cost of
loading and off-loading the trucks was not clear, with several Head Teachers reported
having to pay for both loading and off-loading. This was observed in almost all the counties 
except Nairobi, especially in the more remote areas. Key informants felt the main reason
behind this was a lack of proper organization in contracting the transport by
Targeting and
School
Selection
Training of the
Schools
Procurement
of Food
Supplies
Warehousing
atthe regional
Offices
Transportation
by WFP to
DEOs
Daily
provisions for
Preparation
Storage at
Schools
Receipt at
Schools
Transportation
by SCDEs to
Schools
Storage by
SCDEs
Preparation of
the food
Serving the
food to the
pupils
School Based Reporting
on SMP 6
KEY
Blue- WFP led processes
Red- SCDE managed processes
Black- School Managed Process
43
the sub county education office, which led to pipeline problems and delays in delivery to
schools.
159. Schools that had already transitioned to the HGSMP also reported reduced number 
of days of school feeding but for different reasons. In the HGSMP schools the delays were 
mainly because of delayed disbursement of funds to schools by the National Treasury.
These delays were more significant, as they delayed the whole food procurement process 
– from the tendering, procurement by traders and delivery of food to the schools. Overall,
the evaluation found that the management by WFP on the provision of food was fit-for￾purpose. WFP has managed the program efficiently, contributing to the successful 
provision of food commodities. Effective planning, control and communication processes
were also found to be in place.
160. At school level, lack of water and firewood for cooking were the two priority issues
identified by key informants, both in SMP and HGSMP schools despite them being rated
positively in Figure 19. The lack of water and cooking fuel (firewood) affects the school’s
ability to provide meals in a timely manner. When combined with a lack of appropriate
kitchen facilities and food storage as previously identified, meal preparation time isgreatly 
extended, often resulting in late meal times in schools. The evaluators also noted
inefficiencies in the time between the completion of program monitoring forms SM6 and
the arrival of the data at WFP, up to 3 months, which greatly reduces the utility of the
information. The evaluation therefore finds that a more efficient way of collecting, collating 
and dispatching the data would be appropriate. A cost comparison (Table 29) shows that
the paper system is approximately four times more expensive than an electronic
alternative.
Table 29: Hypothetical cost comparison of paper versus technology enabled
reporting106
Estimated current cost of paper system Estimated cost of SMP6 reporting using
electronic system
USD USD
Reproduction cost per SMP6
form
0.05 Purchase of tablets and solar
enabled power packs 120
Data entry cost of SMP 6 form
(Per Form)
1 Design of system 2,500
Return transportation costs
per unit
1 Utility cost per month per
school (subscription) 2
Data verification cost per
month
3 Data costs per month per school
3
TOTAL cost $5.05 per
form
Number of Schools 1400 Number of schools 1400
Number of SMP 6 forms per
term (Triplicate)
90 Total one-off cost $170,500
Total recurrent cost per
year
USD$
636,666
Total recurrent cost per
year $63,000
Total cost over life of
project $1,910,000 Total cost over life of
project $359,500
106 This is compared to a paper based approach and uses a customisable Open Data Kit program that runs on mobile devices running
Google’s android operating system.
44
161. The evaluation team understand that that an electronic system would rely on mobile
phone coverage and/or internet connections, and would require training. However, the 
team also note that WFP Kenya has been successfully implementing mobileVulnerability 
Analysis and Mapping (mVAM)107, a mobile-based platform for monitoring of the supply 
chain using both voice calls and SMS. Key informant interviews indicate that 
implementation of this project has been very useful, even in the insecure areas of Mandera 
– and the project management team can get real-time data in Nairobi. Overall, the 
evaluators established that the current paper reporting system was less efficient and more
costly than possible electronic options.
2.2.7 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 2
162. Table 30 provides a summary of the key results of the SMP and indicates whether
targets have been met. The full updated Performance Monitoring Plan can be found in
Annex 30.
Table 30: Summary of key results - Evaluation Question 2
Result Indicator Target Baseline EoP
Contributions to
Feed the Future
Number of social assistance
beneficiaries participating in
productive safety nets as a result of
USDA assistance
<1,020,483 767,108 763,490
Improved Literacy
of School-Age
Children
Percent of students (girls/boys)
who, by the end of 2 years of
school demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent to their
grade level as defined by national
standards at USDA supported
≥48.8 48.8 46.1
107 This project was launched in 2013, and uses mobile technology to track food security trends in real time, providing high frequency
data that supports humanitarian decision-making. In order to achieve high performance, data collection methods are tailored to the
needs of the country in which the project operates.
Summary of results on efficiency of program delivery:
• The three areas most frequently positively identified by key informants were the WFP food
delivery system (“transportation by WFP”), the procurement of cereals, and WFP’s training (of 
MoE personnel and teachers). Less frequently mentioned, but also considered positively, was 
the community involvement in supporting the SMP.
• WFP personnel identified the use of an integrated supply chain management system known as 
Logistics Execution Support System (LESS) as positively supporting efficiency. The LESS aided 
the monitoring and documentation of the supply while ensuring seamless supply of school
meals.
• The counties implementing SMP identified the storage and transportation by the SCDEs to
the schools, as the weakest link in the pipeline.
• Pipeline breaks occurred in 2015 due to funding constraints from non-USDA donors, including 
another key donor who was unexpectedly unable to maintain their commitments. In 2015 only 
52% of planned commodities were distributed, and overall, 71% of planned commodities have
been provided.
• At school level, lack of water and firewood for cooking were the two priority issues identified
by key informants, both in SMP and HGSMP schools despite them being rated positively
• The evaluators established that the current paper reporting system was less efficient and more
costly than possible electronic options.
45
schools
Number of total individuals
benefiting directly from USDA￾funded interventions
<1,020,483 767,108 763,490
Number of total individuals
benefiting indirectly from USDA￾funded interventions
<1,135,467 536,758 527,984
Increased Capacity
of Government
Institutions
Percent of districts in which food
procurement and distribution
procedures and infrastructure are
in place
100 85.4 100
More Consistent
Teacher Attendance
Percent of teachers in target
schools who attend and teach
school at least 90% of scheduled
school days per year
90 51 89.7
Improved
Attentiveness
Percent of students in classrooms
identified as inattentive by their
teachers
≤20 20 15
Reduced Short
Term Hunger
Percent of students in target
schools who regularly consume a
meal before the school day
85 41 53
Percent of students in target
schools who regularly consume a
meal during the school day
90 80 67
Increased Access to
Food (School
Feeding)
Percent of students in target
schools consuming daily meals at
school
100 100 91.5
Improved Student
Attendance
Total students regularly (80%)
attending USDA supported
classrooms/schools
95 85.6 86.4
Percent of students in target
schools who start grade one and
complete their last grade of
primary schools
80 76.2 54.4
Increased Use of
Health and Dietary
Practices (See RF 2)
Percent of schools in target
communities that store food off
the ground
100 67 76.5
Increased
Engagement of
Local Organizations
and Community
Groups
Percentage of PTAs and SMCs
contributing to their school as a
result of USDA assistance
80 70
PTAs: 82
SMCs: 81
Improved Policy
and Regulatory
Framework
Number of child health and
nutrition policies, regulations
and/or administrative procedures
in each of the following stages of
development as a result of USDA
assistance
3 3 5
Increased
Knowledge of Safe
Food Prep and
Storage Practices
Percent of food preparers at target
schools who achieve a passing
score on a test of safe food
preparation and storage
100 87 100
46
Increased Access to
Requisite Food
Prep and Storage
Tools and
Equipment
Percent of target schools with
improved preparation and storage
equipment
80
Dedicated
Kitchen:
82
Dedicated
Storage:
80
Increased Student
Enrolment
Percentage increase in boys
enrolled in school as a result of
USDA assistance
4 3 3.8
Percentage increase in girls
enrolled in school as a result of
USDA assistance
4 3 6.1
Increased
Community
Understanding of
Benefits of
Education
Percent of parents in target
communities who can name at
least three benefits of primary
education
80 66 68
Summary of key findings
Evaluation Question 2 – What were the results of the School Meals Program?
• Through the support of multiple donors WFP has successfully provided almost 52,794 MT of
high quality food commodities, to 1,766 targeted SMP schools. This includes 19,260MT from
USDA. This has enabled the provision of school meals to almost two million school children
between 2014-2016.
School performance
• The targeted arid SMP counties were all below the national average of literacy and numeracy at 
the start of the program period, and remain so in 2016. It is clear that without the inclusion of 
specific literacy-related activities within the programme, school feeding cannot improve school 
performance as the responsibility for achieving education outcomes lies largely with the 
Ministry of Education (MoE). Nationally, literacy and numeracy rates have shown little
progress over the course of the SMP, and the Government of Kenya is engaging in several
initiatives to improve this.
• WFP’s contribution to school performance is to provide a school meal each day, to enable
children to concentrate of their studies. An objective, composite indicator shows that the
number of inattentive children has shown significant improvement since baseline. Baringo
County was the only county that has not achieved the ≤20 percent target. Teachers reported
that hunger was the main cause of inattention in class (38%).
Provision of school meals
• Only around half the surveyed students consume a meal before attending school, so the school 
meal makes a significant contribution to the food security of the children. However, almost a 
third of surveyed parents reported reducing the portion of food served to their children after
school. This reduces the benefit of the school meals as a food security intervention.
• The evaluation found that school meals have been provided 65-70% of school days over the
course of the program, in part due to funding constraints, and partly due delays in food delivery
by the SCDE. This again reduces the contribution of the SMP to food security.
Participation in education
• Primary school enrolment in the targeted counties has improved since the baseline, and the
campaigns on the importance of education, particularly for girls by MoE/WFP may have
contributed to this.
• No significant change was noted in attendance rates, which were already high (86%) atbaseline.
• Primary school completion rates remain low (54%).
47
Food utilization and safety
• WFP provides training on food preparation and storage in all the targeted districts and in all
the SMP schools. WFP then supports the MoE to improve their infrastructure though
alternative funding mechanisms.
• The program has achieved the targets of the proportion of schools with dedicated school,
dedicated storerooms, and storing food off the ground. However, more work is needed to ensure
all schools have access to energy efficient stoves, other appropriate food storage practices and 
adequately trained kitchen and store personnel.
National capacity
• WFP provides considerable levels of support to the MoE to build their capacity to implement
the HGSMP after transitioning from SMP. The government key informants provided
overwhelmingly positive feedback on WFP in this regard. The MoE recognizes WFP as an
authority on food procurement, distribution and storage.
• WFP’s participatory approach to SMP implementation has promoted active engagement in the 
SMP particularly by the PTA and SMC, and there has been significant improvement in the
inclusion of women in the SMC and the inclusion of women in leadership positions.
Efficiency of program delivery
• The three areas most frequently positively identified by key informants were the WFP food
delivery system (“transportation by WFP”), the procurement of cereals, and WFP’s training (of 
MoE personnel and teachers). Less frequently mentioned, but also considered positively, was 
the community involvement in supporting the SMP.
• The counties implementing SMP identified the storage and transportation by the SCDEs to
the schools, as the weakest link in the pipeline.
• The evaluation found some security threats at WFP SMP sites, including high levels of animal
attacks and bullying. However, only 36.9% of parents were aware that there were any avenues 
through which complaints can be made to WFP.
2.3 Evaluation Question 3: How and why did the School Meals Program
produce the results?
2.3.1 Internal issues affecting the implementation of SMP
163. WFP Logistics systems and operational guidelines and standards: WFP
has substantial expertise in procurement, storage and delivery of food commodities. They
also have many forms of operational guidance to support their logistics systems, including 
strict quality standards. The SMP has implemented food delivery using this system, 
although they have given the responsibility of the transport and delivery of the
commodities to contracted transporters. High quality food was delivered to the counties in 
a timely manner with no complaints, and minimal loss of food during transportation was
reported.
164. WFP Monitoring system: A comprehensive monitoring system has been utilized 
by WFP and the findings and analysis from it has contributed to the efficient
implementation of the program, and changes in implementation as required. WFP has
effectively monitored the required 12 results indicators and 21 activity indicators as per the 
agreed USDA/WFP agreement.
165. A limitation of the current monitoring system is that the monitoring of the provision 
of food for schools is done through paper forms. The forms capture the amount of food 
received, daily consumption and monthly summaries. While the volume of work was found 
to be cumbersome for teachers, the summary is effective at indicating the balance of food
from the previous month, the receipt for the month, consumption, losses
48
and reasons for the losses like rodent infestation, theft or condemned. Since food deliveries 
were based strictly on reconciliation, this summary form is key. The Mid-Term Evaluation 
recommended engaging in capacity building activities at the school level to strengthen
record-keeping and filing practices, and this has been done.
166. The evaluation notes the high level of commitment of the staff involved in
transportation, receipt and usage. It also finds that an electronic system would be more
efficient and cost-effective.
167. The main issues of concern in relation to SMP monitoring was poor supervision in
more remote locations, particularly by MoE personnel. This was reported by key
informants in multiple areas including Baringo, Samburu, and Garissa. The Mid-Term
Evaluation recommended strengthening the joint monitoring system by increasing
awareness of it at county level and considering a cost-sharing mechanism between WFP,
MOE and MoH. Although this has not yet fully been addressed, the evaluation recognizes
that this has been budgeted for in the 2016 grant from USDA to WFP and plans are in place,
once county level coordination committees are established.
2.3.2 External issues affecting the implementation of SMP
168. Funding: The SMP is a multi-donor project, and although USDA has provided all
the commodity and financial contributions as stipulated in the grant agreement, overall
the project has been under-resourced. This has resulted in lower than planned commodity
volumes being provided, contributing to schools being unable to provide school meals
every school day.
169. Government of Kenya financial allocations and systems: Late
disbursement of government funds to schools from the National Treasury, was the main
reported hindrance to the HGSMP implementation in the counties that have transitioned
during this period. While this does not affect SMP significantly, it makes transition to
HGSMP more difficult. The government’s level of funding for HGSMP is also inconsistent
year to year, significantly affecting county level officials’ capacity to implement and
monitor HGSMP activities. More information on this can be found in Section 2.4.2.
170. MoE responsibilities: Support from the MoE is critical to the success of the SMP 
as they are responsible for all the infrastructure and personnel connected to the schools. 
The MoE has provided significant financial support and budget allocation for theSMP 
including providing the funds for schools to purchase pens, books and chalks for thepupils 
under the free primary education (FPE) program. Under the FPE, schools are allocated
1,020 KES per child, annually for these costs.108 However, key program indicators such as 
literacy and completion rates have not been met and require ongoing commitment and
support from the MoE.
171. County governance: The evaluation received numerous complaints from
teachers related to the transportation of food to the schools from the SCDE storage site.
Although officially the SCDE is supposed to deliver food directly to the school, in some
locations the SCDE organized food delivery to a central location and then the Head
Teachers had to organize additional transport from there. As a result, several teachers
reported using their own private funds for the transportation of food items to the school.
In addition, the lack of proper organization within the County Governments in
108 Republic of Kenya Ministry of Education, “Education for All” National Review 2014
49
contracting the transporters, leads to delays in food distribution which resulted in some
schools in remote areas getting their food late into the school term.
172. Another issue related to county governance is the devolution of ECD centres. In
2013 ECDs were removed from the SMP program as the responsibility for them shifted
from the MoE to the county governments. However, for various reasons, primary schools
still get ECD pupils in their school and need to provide meals for them, leading to reduced 
food servings per pupil. The County’s role in supporting ECD feeding program is still 
unstable. The evaluators note that at central level, the MoE commitment to the
SMP/HGSMP is strong. However, county level authorities have different levels of
commitment to both the SMP and to ECD, as well as different levels of capacity.
173. Partnerships and Collaborations: Aside from the MoE, WFP has collaborated
with various government ministries including the Ministry of Health through the Public
Health Officers, who inspected the storage facilities, the kitchens and trained the Head
Teachers, cooks and School Meal Officers on food safety and handling. Most key
informants correlated this with reduced cases of food contamination.
174. WFP also coordinated with several Non-Governmental Organizations and with
UNICEF on activities aimed to improve attendance in schools. For example,
Welthungerhilfe (German Agro-Action) donated water tanks in Tana River, built water
reservoirs for rain water tapping, provided energy saving stoves, and drilled boreholes in
the schools and in the communities around the schools. World Vision and other agencies
also provided sanitary products for girls to ensure school attendance. These activities have 
contributed to the support to households in the SMP targeted areas.
175. Parental engagement: In many schools, parental engagement in the SMP has
been high, with parents taking leading roles on the SMCs and participating in the PTAs.
Parental engagement varies by county, with some locations able to provide less financial
support. This affects the construction of appropriate facilities – particularly kitchens. In
some counties that cost is prohibitive and requires support and collaboration from other
actors.
176. Physical Environment: Defining characteristic of the SMP counties is the harsh
terrain and long distances from Nairobi. These present several challenges to the
distribution of food. Food commodities are often transported during the holidays to give
the transporters ample time to deliver on time. The terrain has also hindered regular
supervision of the SMP by MoE personnel. Seasonal rains exacerbate this problem, making 
access even more difficult especially in Turkana and West Pokot where flooding occurs. At
other times of the year there can be severe water shortages, with peopletravelling long
distances to collect water for cooking and drinking.
177. Insecurity: Due to frequent inter-community conflicts, especially between the
Pokot and Turkana communities, transporting food and conducting monitoring and
supervision of the SMP was hampered. Some cases of theft were also reported. A Head
Teacher in Tana River reported loss of the food to theft from the school stores which meant 
that the little food left had to be stretched out to the end of the term thus reducing the 
rations per child.
50
2.3.3 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 3
Key findings
Evaluation question 3: Why and how did the program produce the observed
results?
The evaluation has found that there were several internal and external factors that have
affected the SMP results.
Internal factors
• Logistics systems: High quality food was delivered to counties in a timely manner with no
complaints, and minimal loss of food during transportation
• Monitoring system: A comprehensive monitoring system has been utilized by WFP and
the findings and analysis from it has contributed to the efficient implementation of the
program, and changes in implementation as required. An electronic system would be more
cost=effective, and allow the Nairobi office to receive information faster.
External factors
• Funding: Although USDA has provided all the commodity and financial contributions as
stipulated in the grant agreement, overall the project has been under-resourced. This has
resulted in lower than planned commodity volumes being provided, contributing to schools
being unable to provide school meals every school day
• Support from MoE: Support from the MoE is critical to the success of the SMP as they are 
responsible for all the infrastructure and personnel connected to the schools. The MoE has 
provided significant financial support and budget allocation for the SMP However, program 
indicators such as literacy and completion rates have not been met and require ongoing
commitment and support from the MoE.
• County governance: The evaluation identified complaints from teachers regarding county 
governments not fulfilling its delivery commitment, of taking food directly to the schools. As 
a result, teachers have sometimes used their private funds to transport food to the school.
• Parental engagement: Parental engagement in the SMP has been high, with parents
taking leading roles on the SMCs and participating in the PTAs.
2.4 Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the School Meals Program?
178. To assess the sustainability of the SMP, the evaluators looked at two main aspects
of the program: The national government’s level of commitment to the program, and the
contributions it makes.
2.4.1 National Government Commitment
179. The SMP in Kenya’s arid and semi-arid lands of Kenya started in 1980. Kenya
therefore represents one of the most long-standing school feeding programs in WFP’s
global portfolio. The global financial crisis in 2008 brought about considerable change
when WFP’s funding reduced substantially and WFP Kenya was forced to reduce its school 
feeding program. At the same time, WFP and the Government of Kenya agreed on a
transition strategy that commenced with the first handover of 540,000 children in 2009 
and subsequent annual handovers of 50,000. By the end of 2015 the number of school 
children supported by the HGSMP stood at over 900,000. The evaluation finds that this 
agreement is holding, and the current transition arrangement exceeds the initial plan.
180. Since the handover strategy has been in place, WFP has included capacity building
elements to ensure that the governments HGSMP is implemented successfully. During the 
next phase of the SMP (2016-2020) WFP plans to transition six counties to HGSMP, while 
continuing to build the capacity for national and county-level actors to manage school
feeding programs. The fact that the transition arrangement is strong, and still
51
holding after eight years indicates high level commitment from both the government and
WFP. It also shows the strength of the relationship between the government and WFP. At
a policy level, the national government’s commitment to the SMP is again demonstrated
by the MoE’s Sessional Paper (2015) on ‘Education and Training’,109 and the National
Education Sector Plan (NESP 2013-2018)110which stress its commitment to implement the
requirements of the Basic Education Act (2013). This is backed by the stated commitment 
in the Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education (2013- 2017)111 and the Medium-Term
Plan Two (2013-2018).112
181. Both the Government policies and the transition strategy require the national
government to allocate resources for the SMP. Despite this, the evaluation team notes that 
several factors have negatively influenced the implementation and outcomes of the
program, some of which are due to a lack of human resources, or financial resources within 
the MoE. This indicates a lack of prioritization for the program by the national government 
outside of the MoE, which has resulted in a lack of resources being made available to the 
MoE to implement the program effectively. The evaluation notes that the period of 
transition to HGSMP has been extended from one term to one year, in order to better 
support the change to HGSMP in the arid counties. Key informants welcomed this
extended support.
2.4.2 National Government Contribution
182. The evaluation found the value and predictability of the MoE financial contribution 
to the program, and the timeliness of disbursement were problematic. The national 
government’s financial contribution to school feeding program has fluctuated over the last
three years (Figure 18) reducing the effectiveness of implementation.
Figure 18: Government contributions to SMP (2014-2016)
183. During the 2014/15 financial year, the National government allocated 2.3 billion
KES113 to the SMP. The following year (2015/16) however, there was a significant drop to
1 billion KES,114 followed by an increase to 2.6 billion in 2016/17. 115 In total, over 2014-
2016, the government has allocated 5.9 billion KES to the SMP (US$56.8 million). This is 
300% of the MGD/WFP contribution over the same period, however key informants raised 
concerns about the level of the government contribution compared to the demand.
109 Government of Kenya (2015) Sessional Paper (2015) on ‘Education and Training’. Ministry of Education. 110 Government of Kenya (2012) National Education Sector Plan (2013-2018). Ministry of Education. 111 Government of Kenya (2012) Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education (2013- 2017). Ministry of Education. 112 Government of Kenya (2012) Medium-Term Plan Two (2013-2018). 113 http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Tough-Budget-balancing-act-for-Treasury-chief/-/539546/2345158/-/wly984/-/index.html 114 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ke/Documents/tax/Tax_Budget%20Highlights%202015_KE.pdf 115 https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ke/Documents/tax/Tax_budget-highlights%202016-KE.pdf
8,000,000,000
6,000,000,000
4,000,000,000
2,000,000,000
0
2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 TOTAL
Kenyan
Shillings (KSh)
52
“… the biggest challenge that we are facing right now is that the government has not increased the
financial allocation which is commensurate to the number of children that they are supporting …
Children are supposed to be fed for 195 school days, that is for one year … however, if you look at what
we have to support children from the HGSMP, it is insufficient.”
Samburu key informant interviews
184. The evaluation recognizes that WFP has been having ongoing discussions with the
MoE on how to rectify these financial issues. To date, WFP has supported changes
including ensuring Treasury is on the Technical School Meals Committee as recommended 
by the Mid-Term Review. The MoE has also agreed in principle to include Treasury, 
Ministry of Labour and Social Services, Ministry of Water, Ministry of Planning and 
Devolution and the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) in the Technical committee. There 
is some evidence that the national commitment towards SMP is increasing, as the
government has increased the funding by KES.1.6 million in the 2017/2018 financial year. 
Furthermore, in response to drought in early 2017, the government allocated KES 622 
million towards provision of meals when WFP did not have resources. WFP plans to
continue undertaking advocacy activities in this regard.
185. It is clear that these financial issues have negative effects on the implementation of
the program: schools are unable to plan properly, procurement is delayed, transportation
costs cannot be paid in a timely manner, and teachers reported using their own private
funds to support the implementation. These issues have also been identified by other
school feeding evaluations in Kenya.116 Sustainability of the SMP can only be achieved
through the National government ensuring allocations commensurate with requirements,
increasing year on year to keep up with market prices and increasing student numbers.
186. The Mid-Term Evaluation recommended that the government consider ring￾fencing the SFP budget line to secure funds allocation for the program, and perhaps bring
the SFP under the National Safety Net Program (NSNP). WFP is currently discussing with 
the government to explore the possibilities of having the SFP funding integrated under the
NSNP, to make funding more regular and protected from reallocations.
2.4.3 Summary of findings – Evaluation Question 4
116 Including Dunn, S & Kariuki, W (2015) External evaluation of the WFP Cash Transfer to Schools Pilot Project, March 2013 – March 2015.
WFP Kenya; Haag, P (2014) External Evaluation of Kenya´s Home-Grown School Meals Program (2009 – 2013). Final Report.
Summary of key findings
Evaluation question 4: How sustainable is the SMP?
The evaluation finds that the SMP is sustainable as it is in process of transitioning to the
government-led HGSMP.
• The National government has demonstrated a high level of ownership of the program
and a commitment to providing school meals through their HGSMP. There are numerous
policies and strategies that require the government to allocate resources to SMP. However, 
Government financial contributions have not been stable resulting in negative effects on 
the implementation of the program. Sustainability of the SMP can only be achieved
through the Government ensuring allocations commensurate with requirements, 
increasing year on year to keep up with market prices and increasing student numbers.
• The government also has a commitment to take over all the WFP SMP schools over time,
and the handover agreement is holding. There is also some evidence that the national
commitment towards SMP is increasing.
53
3 Conclusions
187. The following section describes the main conclusions of the evaluation. The
conclusions are organized as per the international evaluation criteria: relevance,
effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability.
Relevance
188. The long-term objective of the SMP is to promote universal primary education of
socio-economically disadvantaged and nutritionally vulnerable children, especially girls,
within the primary schools in targeted areas. The relevance and importance of this
objective was confirmed by key informant interviews with multiple Government officials
at all levels: national, county and district. At the time of the SMP design, all ten targeted
counties were behind the national average education figures – enrolment, attendanceand
literacy and numeracy, indicating that educational support programs were appropriate.
189. The SMP aligns well with Government of Kenya policies and strategies, and with
WFP’s own corporate guidance. Although WFP provides food assistance to the SMP by in￾kind transfer, which is incongruent with the government’s cash modality used in the
HGSMP, the evaluation recognises that the continued use of in-kind assistance is only a
temporary measure while counties transition to cash transfers (through the HGSMP), and 
therefore appropriate. The SMP also aligns with other development actors, and WFP
coordinates with others to ensure that their targeted communities receive other
complementary assistance that WFP cannot provide.
190. Overall, this EoP evaluation found the design of the SMP to be appropriate to the
education, food security, and gender context, and coherent to the policy framework of the
Government of Kenya as well as WFP corporate guidance.
Effectiveness
191. The EoP evaluation finds that overall, the SMP has been well implemented and
effective at meeting program results and targets.
192. The SMP has been very effective at improving the capacity of the MoE to implement 
SMP and transition to HGSMP. In addition, WFP has effectively contributed to Kenya’s
education policy direction, by supporting the development of multiple government policies
and strategies. WFP has also provided numerous trainings for teachers and MoE officials 
and key informant interviews indicate that these have helped schools manage the program 
more effectively. WFP has also supported the distribution ofHGSMP and National School 
Health Guidelines, which has contributed to all schools nowhaving appropriate food 
procurement and distribution procedures and infrastructure in place.
193. The provision of school meals has been implemented as planned, with both targets
and actual delivery decreasing annually, as counties transition to the government’s
HGSMP. These meals have been effective in reducing school children’s short-term hunger, 
as the evaluation found that only half the surveyed children eat a meal at home before 
coming to school. Parents also reported that if school meals were not provided at school, 
30 percent of children would not eat lunch, and 12.5 percent of children would go home for 
lunch but then not return to school. This indicates the role that the SMP plays not only in
food security, but in keeping children in school all day.
194. The presence of SMP has contributed to improving school enrolment, and has been 
critical for improving student attentiveness in class. Although inattentiveness has
numerous causes, teachers identified hunger as the primary reason. In counties where
more parents reported that food was sometimes not provided at school, teachers were
54
more likely to report that hunger was the main cause of inattention. In those schools,
teachers reported that the lack of school meals accounted for 71% of student
inattentiveness.
195. Attendance rates have been high (>80%) since baseline, with no significant change
over the course of this period of implementation. However, all school level key informants 
reported that when food is not available, student attendance reduces, so thereis clearly a 
link between the SMP and attendance. This makes it even more important that meals are 
available every school day. The evaluation found that school meals were provided only 65-
70% of school days over the course of the program in part due to funding constraints from
other (non-USDA) donors and pipeline delays, as well as occasional insufficient firewood 
and water provision by the communities. This is likely to have reduced potential education 
outcomes as some pupils may not have attended on those days.
196. Despite the role of SMP in improving enrolment, attentiveness of students and
keeping them in school all day, the intended school performance outcome - improved
literacy - has not improved. Literacy rates are largely the responsibility of the MoE and are 
affected by the lack of trained teachers and lack of educational materials in some schools.
The evaluation found that literacy is poor throughout Kenya, and that the Government is
taking steps to address this.
197. The training that WFP has done to train school personnel in appropriate food
storage and food preparation practices has been effective, with 82% of schools now having
dedicated kitchen facilities and 80% having dedicated food storage facilities. These results 
are also testament to the effective model of parental engagement employed by the program. 
In counties without dedicated kitchen spaces, schools reported that it is mainly due to
competing priorities for limited financial resources.
198. WFP’s participatory approach to implementation of SMP has been effective at
engaging parents in SMP implementation. WFP have also managed to improve gender
equality in SMP management with most schools now having equal representation of men
and women on the SMC.
199. Overall, the evaluation found that some counties performed poorly on multiple
indicators including school attendance, children eating meals before school, the
percentage of days that school meals are provided, attentiveness of students, and the
presence of energy efficient stoves. These counties - Baringo, West Pokot, Turkana and
Marsabit - will need tailored support depending on their results, to bring them up to the
standard of the other counties.
Impact
200. It is clear from evaluation interviews that the SMP plays a significant role in
encouraging parents to enrol their children and to send them to school regularly. The
contribution WFP has made to coordinating with other development partners to
implement complementary programs to improve girl’s attendance at school is also likely to 
result in improved gender parity in education. More discussion on gender aspects has not
been possible due to the nature of the evaluation questionnaires, and a lack of adequate
gender assessment in the ASALs.
201. The SMP clearly plays a significant safety net function, improving the food security
of the school children. The evaluation found that only half the children eat a meal at home 
before attending school. However, almost a third of parents reported that they reduced the 
portion of food on the weekdays (school days) compared to the weekends because of the
SMP. This negates some of the food security benefit of the school meal.
55
Evaluation findings also indicate that the SMP directly contributes to some household’s
food security because children taken a portion of their SMP food home for their siblings.
202. Key informants believe the SMP supporting the nutritional status of school children. 
The SMP provides fortified commodities (wheat, oil and salt), increasing the micronutrient
content of the school meal. No measurement of nutritional status is included in program 
monitoring so it not possible to categorically state that these are indeed impacts of the
program.
Efficiency
203. The evaluation found that the WFP system of delivering food to schools was
efficient. In general, WFP provided high quality food commodities with no complaints, and 
minimal loss of food during transportation. Reported pipeline breaks occurred in 2015 due
to funding constraints caused by a reduction in non-USDA donor support.
204. A comprehensive monitoring system has been utilized by WFP and the findings and 
analysis from it has contributed to the efficient implementation of the program, and
changes in implementation as required. Poor supervision by MoE staff in more remote
locations was an area identified for improvement. WFP and MoE are in the process of
strengthening joint monitoring activities so these issues may be resolved soon.
205. The complementary funds provided by WFP to provide energy efficient stoves to
schools, has also contributed greatly to improving the efficiency of meal preparation.
206. Although useful for project monitoring, teachers found the paper based system
cumbersome and time consuming, and the evaluation found it to be expensive. The
evaluation also found that the components of the program implemented by the SCDE,
including food storage and transportation introduced inefficiencies in terms of delays and
extra costs for Head Teachers.
Sustainability
207. The evaluation has found that overall, the SMP is relevant and coherent with
government priorities. At a policy level, the National Government’s commitment to the
SMP is demonstrated by its numerous policies and strategies that include school feeding.
These policies, as well as the transition strategy for the handover of all WFP SMP schools
to the government-led HGSMP require that the national government allocate resources for
the SMP.
208. Government financial contributions have not been stable during this period of
implementation resulting in negative effects on the implementation of the program.
Sustainability of the SMP can only be achieved through the Government ensuring
allocations commensurate with requirements, increasing year on year to keep up with
market prices and increasing student numbers. There is some evidence this is happening,
as the government has increased the funding by KES.1.6 million in the 2017/2018 financial
year.
209. Overall, the partnership between WFP and the Government of Kenya is strong and
the agreement for transitioning the SMP to the government’s HGSMP is holding. With
ongoing support over the next phase of the program, the government key informants felt
that they would be able to take over all the school feeding in the country, resulting in a
sustainable program. The three counties that have successfully transitioned to the HGSMP 
during this phase of program are testament that a full handover of the program will
eventually be possible.
56
4 Recommendations
The evaluation has found that overall, the SMP is relevant and coherent with government
priorities. There are also many components of the program that have been effectively
implemented. Given that there is a handover strategy to the government in place, and
holding, the evaluation generally recommends a continuation of the program in its current
form so that a full handover to the government will be possible.
Overall program strategy
Recommendation 1: WFP should continue to implement SMP in the ASAL counties
while supporting the handover of counties to HGSMP as per the current transition plan.
The support recommended for continuation includes:
• WFP should continue to support the MoE capacity development. This includes
supporting schools to understand the requirements for implementing SMP through a
cash-based modality. This is coherent with the government’s HGSMP approach.
• WFP should continue to collaborate with other development actors such as World
Vision to support interventions that contribute to increased school attendance,
especially for girls.
• WFP should continue to support the MoE to actively seek partnerships for the provision 
of school infrastructure that WFP currently provides support for including kitchen
facilities, energy efficient stoves, food storage, and water.
• WFP should continue to invest in public awareness campaigns to encourage school
attendance and improve parents understanding on the benefits of education. This
should be done together with local authorities, church groups or other well-respected
parties.
Priority 1: To be actioned within the next six months
Recommendation 2: In recognition that WFP Kenya has been successfully
implementing mVAM117 in the arid counties, this evaluation recommends that the WFP CO 
support the MoE to digitize their School Meals reporting system. This would improve the 
timeliness of data delivery and support improved implementation. Use of electronic
reporting that utilizes mobile network for instant uploading of data, in place of the paper
based form (SMP 6, 7 and 8) could be piloted in one county and if successful scaled up to
cover the entire program. Integration with mVAM monitoring system could also be
considered.
The evaluation team recommends that WFP pilot digital monitoring in some or all of the
SMP locations, either as a stand-alone monitoring strategy or combined with SMS, or
paper-based monitoring. Results for the pilot should then be used to identify challenges
before upscaling to areas where connectivity, security or other concerns makes it possible.
Recommendation 3: As per the Mid-Term Evaluation findings, this evaluation
recommends that WFP Kenya and its partners carry out community-level sensitizationon 
the threats to pupils’ safety. This is due to the high level of threats still reported by parents
in relation to the commute to school. SFP stakeholders should also increase
117 This project was launched in 2013, and uses mobile technology to track food security trends in real time, providing high frequency
data that supports humanitarian decision-making. In order to achieve high performance, data collection methods are tailored to the
needs of the country in which the project operates.
57
awareness on these topics during the program implementation. Strategic partnerships with 
agencies focusing on Child Protection (i.e. UNICEF, Plan International, Save the Children
etc.) would be an added value in helping reinforcing synergies and complementarity with
the SFP.
Recommendation 4: WFP Kenya, with support from the Regional Bureau as needed,
should implement additional awareness campaigns on the presence and purpose of
programme feedback mechanisms, especially the new feedback hotline. The evaluation
found that less than half the surveyed households were aware of any feedback mechanism, 
and only 14 households mentioned the possibility of using the hotline.
Recommendation 5: WFP Kenya should ensure that all cooks and storekeepers in SMP
schools provided with training on safe food preparation and appropriate food storage.
More work is needed to ensure that all school kitchens have a valid health certificate, and
that pest/insect control measures are adequately carried out, as the evaluation found 
evidence of presence of rodents or presence of insects in almost half the stores.
Recommendation 6: WFP Kenya should assess why Baringo, West Pokot, Turkana and 
Marsabit counties have consistently achieved poorer results on several indicators than 
other counties. The specific indicators include school attendance, children eating meals 
before school, the percentage of days that school meals are provided, attentiveness of 
students, and the presence of energy efficient stoves. Each county has different areas of
weakness, so WFP Kenya should ensure that each county receive tailored, additional
support on the areas where they are weak, to bring them up to the standard of the other
counties, and ensure that they will eventually be able to successfully transition to the
HGSMP.
Priority 2: To be actioned within the next one year
Recommendation 7: WFP Kenya, with support from the Regional Bureau as needed,
should conduct a gender and protection assessment to identify and contextualise issues
related to school feeding in the ASALs. The assessment should provide recommendations
for implementing targeted measures to improve gender parity in school participation as
latest figures show that girls enrolment in all the targeted counties is still below 50%, while
boys enrolment is 51-63%.118
Priority 2: To be actioned on an ongoing basis until full handover of the SMP
to the HGSMP
Recommendation 8: Based on the financial challenges of the MoE, this evaluation
recommends that WFP Kenya continue to support the Government of Kenya to find
solutions to improve the management of financial resources for the SMP. This should
include the following:
• Helping to identify ways to advocate for, and allocate a sufficient, and annually indexed
budget to the HGSMP. The budget should include sufficient funds for procurement,
transportation, storage and preparation of school meals each school day.
118 MoEYS/WFP (2017) School Meals Programme – Verification of school enrolment in arid counties. Report, September 2017.
58
• Helping to identify ways to ensure existing SMP funding is not reallocated, while
helping to secure additional funds.
• Providing technical support to improve the efficiency of financial allocations to the
schools
59
5 Bibliography
Braidotti, F (2015) A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFP’s USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Program’s support (2013-2015) in Kenya from September 2013to
December 2014. Final report. October 2015
Bundy, D (2009) “Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the
Education Sector
Dunn, S & Kariuki, W (2015) External evaluation of the WFP Cash Transfer to Schools Pilot Project,
March 2013 – March 2015. WFP Kenya.
Education Development Trust (2016) https://www.educationdevelopmenttrust.com/en￾GB/news-and-blogs/news/2016/barriers-to-girls-education-kenya
Feed the Future: https://www.feedthefuture.gov/country/kenya
Goe, L (2008) Teacher quality and student achievement: Making the most of recent research. TQ
Research and Policy Brief. National Comprehensive Centre for Teacher Quality. Washington DC.
Government of Kenya (2009). National School Health Policy.
Government of Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya – Chapter 4: The Bill of Rights.
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=207673
Government of Kenya (2011) Kenya National Social Protection Policy. Ministry of Gender,
Children and Social Development.
Government of Kenya (2011). Food and Nutrition Security Policy.
Government of Kenya (2011). National School Health Strategy Implementation Plan (2011-2015).
Ministry of Public Health & Sanitation, and the Ministry of Education.
Government of Kenya (2012) Medium-Term Plan Two (2013-2018).
Government of Kenya (2012) National Education Sector Plan (2013-2018). Ministry of
Education.
Government of Kenya (2012) Strategic Plan of the Ministry of Education (2013- 2017). Ministry
of Education.
Government of Kenya (2012) The National Nutrition Action Plan (2012-2017). Ministry of Public
Health and Sanitation
Government of Kenya (2015) Sessional Paper (2015) on ‘Education and Training’. Ministry of
Education.
Government of Kenya (2016) School nutrition and meals strategy for Kenya. Ministry of Education, 
Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock & Fisheries. Draft – February 2016.
Haag, P (2014) External Evaluation of Kenya´s Home-Grown School Meals Program (2009 –
2013). Final Report.
Hincks Dellcrest Centre - The Child with Attention Problems - The Inattentive Child.
https://www.hincksdellcrest.org/ABC/Teacher-Resource/The-Child-with-Attention￾Problems/The-Inattentive-Child.aspx
Hopkins, D. (1997) powerful learning, powerful school. London Chapman; Guthric J.W (1970) A
survey of school effectiveness. In do Teachers make a difference? Washington D.C Department of
health, Education and Welfare
http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=142
http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Tough-Budget-balancing-act-for-Treasury-chief/-
/539546/2345158/-/wly984/-/index.html
60
http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipcinfo-countries/ipcinfo-eastern-middle-africa/Kenya
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ke/Documents/tax/Tax_Budget%20Highligh
ts%202015_KE.pdf
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ke/Documents/tax/Tax_budget￾highlights%202016-KE.pdf
Kimani, E (2014) The nutrition paradox in Kenya: What are we doing? Global Nutrition Report.
Langinger, N. (2011) School Feeding Programs in Kenya: Transitioning to a Home-grown
Approach. Stanford Journal of International Relations. Fall 2011.
MoEYS/WFP (2017) School Meals Programme – Verification of school enrolment in arid
counties. Report, September 2017.
Molinas, L. & Regnault de la Mothe, M. (2009) The multiple impacts of school feeding: a new
approach for reaching sustainability. In: WFP (2010) Revolution: From food aid to food assistance:
Thematic Areas, Chapter 14, p217-230.
Nauges, C. & Strand, J. (2007) “Estimation of Non-Tap Water Demand in Central American
Cities”. Resource and Energy Economics 29: 165-182.
Oxfam (2005) Beyond the Mainstream, Education and Gender Equality Series, Program Insights.
Oxfam GB. December 2005. www.ungei.org/resources/files/oxfam_edPaper4.pdf
Republic of Kenya Ministry of Education, “Education For All” National Review 2014
Scott, L., Dopson, S., Montgomery, P., Dolan, C., Ryus, C., 2009. Impact of Providing Sanitary Pads 
to Poor Girls in Africa. Working Paper. SAID Business School, University of Oxford.
UNICEF (2014) UNICEF Annual Report 2014 – Kenya.
UNICEF (2015) State of the World’s Children: 2014 data
United Nations Development Program (2014) “Human Development Report 2015”
United Nations Development Program (2015) Human Development Report Office.
http://report.hdr.undp.org
Uwezo (2014) Literacy and numeracy across East Africa: Are our children learning?
Uwezo (2014): Are Our Children Learning? Literacy and Numeracy in Kenya 2014. Nairobi:
Twaweza East Africa
Uwezo (2015): Are Our Children Learning? The State of Education in Kenya in 2015 and Beyond.
Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa.
Uwezo (2016) Are our children learning (2016)? Uwezo Kenya sixth learning assessment report.
December 2016.
Uwezo Kenya (2012): Are Our Children Learning? Annual Learning Assessment Report 2012,
Nairobi: Twaweza East Africa
WFP (2009) Gender policy: promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women in
addressing food and nutrition challenges. WFP/EB.1/2009/5-A/Rev.1
WFP (2013) Revised School Feeding Policy. Promoting innovation to achieve national ownership.
November 2013.
WFP (2014) Baseline survey for the USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and
Child Nutrition Program’s Support (2013-2015) to WFP Kenya Country Program.
WFP Kenya (2014) Standard Program Report
WFP Kenya (2015) Standard Program Report
WFP Kenya (2016) Standard Program Report
61
Woodhouse, Allison and Lamport, Mark A. (2012) "The Relationship of Food and Academic
Performance: A Preliminary Examination of the Factors of Nutritional Neuroscience, Malnutrition,
and Diet Adequacy," Christian Perspectives in Education, 5(1). Available at:
http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cpe/vol5/iss1/1
World Bank (2016) http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS & Unknown
author/date. Kenya: Situation analysis to transform nutrition.
http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/G02742.pdf
World Bank/WFP (2013) Systems Approach for Better Education Results: School Health and
School Feeding
62
6 Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation Terms of Reference
Introduction
These Terms of Reference (TOR) are for the final evaluation of the World Food Program (WFP)
McGovern-Dole (MGD) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (FFE 615-
2013/041/00) in Kenya. This evaluation is commissioned by WFP Kenya Country Office and will
cover the period from 2014 to 2016. School feeding in Kenya is a multi-donor project.
This TOR were prepared by the WFP Kenya Country Office M&E unit based upon an initial
document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard template. The
purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation team and helps 
guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key information to
stakeholders about the proposed evaluation.
Reasons for the Evaluation
The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below:
Rationale
This evaluation follows on the baseline evaluation (conducted between March-July 2014) and the
mid-term evaluation (conducted between February and July 2015) and is being commissioned for
the following reasons:
USDA manages the MGD Food for Education program which is a major funding mechanism for
school feeding worldwide. It aims to reduce hunger and improve literacy and primary education
and has, more recently, incorporated goals related to boosting teacher attendance and capacity as
well as students’ academic performance. The program provides U.S. produced agricultural
commodities and financial assistance, and supports capacity development and enhanced
monitoring and reporting. Sustainability is an important consideration, and the grantees are
expected to work to support government and community ownership.
MGD is one of the longest -standing, important donors to WFP School feeding in Kenya. Most
recently, WFP Kenya was awarded a total of US$20.2 million in support for the period 2014-2016
The grant agreement incorporates 12 specific performance indicators and 21 results indicators
against which performance of the program will to be measured. In the evaluation plan agreed
between with USDA, WFP commits to conducting a final evaluation to measure performance of the 
program for accountability and learning purposes. For this reason, WFP is commissioning an
evaluation at the final-point of project implementation.
Objectives
The main objective of this evaluation is to assess and report on the performance and results
achieved (intended or unintended, positive or negative) of USDA MGD support to WFP School
Feeding Program in Kenya from 2014 to 2016. The Evaluations will serve the dual and mutually
reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of the
USDA MGD support to WFP School Feeding Program in Kenya from 2014 to 2016.
Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw 
lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to
inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and
lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
Stakeholders and Users
A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the
evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below
provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team as
part of the inception phase.
Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key 
stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s 
empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by
women, men, boys and girls from different groups.
63
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO)
Kenya
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, it has a
direct stake in the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience to inform
decision-making. It is also called upon to account internally as well as to its
beneficiaries and partners for performance and results of its operation.
Regional Bureau (RB)
Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of 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 evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country
offices.
WFP HQ WFP has an interest in the lessons that emerge from evaluations, particularly as they
relate to WFP strategies, policies, thematic areas, or delivery modality with wider
relevance to WFP programming.
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 evaluation will not be presented to the EB but its findings may
feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning processes.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP
determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of
participation in the evaluation of women, men, boys and girls from different groups will
be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought.
Government, National and
County Levels
Both county and national Government 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. For SFP, the government has the overall
ownership of the school feeding program, and shares the interest in learning lessonsfor
design of future programs, including transition to cash model. The key line Ministries
are:’ Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries, Ministry 
of Health, Treasury including relevant Ministries at county level. County and Sub￾County Education Officers, School Management Committees are also
key as they are involved in program implementation and policy support.
UN 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 UN concerted efforts. WFP implements theprogram 
within a wider UN system of support to government priorities. The partner agencies are 
interested in learning to what extent WFP interventions are contributingto the overall 
outcomes committed to the UNDAF particularly UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, UNDAF
thematic working groups, the Education Sector Donors Groups, The
World Bank.
NGOs [Feed the children,
Partnership for Child
Development (PCD) and
SNV.]
NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at the same
time having their own interventions. Some NGOs are members of the national school
feeding technical committee where coordination and joint monitoring of the overall
national program - of which this project fits within, is done. The results of theevaluation
might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations and
partnerships.
Donors [USDA,
Canada/DFATD, Australia,
Russia, Private donors]
WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. The school feeding
program is a multi-donor donor initiative in which USDA support complements and
supplements other donors. As such, other donors will have an interest in knowing
whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective
and contributed to their own strategies and programs.
64
The primary users of this evaluation will be:
• The Kenya country office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to program
implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use the evaluation findings
to provide strategic guidance, program support, and oversight
• WFP HQ may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability
• OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as for
annual reporting to the Executive Board.
Context and subject of the Evaluation
Context
Kenya has a population of 44 million people. It has diverse natural resources and highly varied terrain. The
country's highlands comprise one of the most successful farming regions in Africa; the port of Mombasa is
a major regional hub; and the unique geography supports abundant and diverse wildlife of great economic
value. In September 2014, the World Bank reclassified Kenya's economy as lower-middle income. However, 
poverty, food insecurity, under-nutrition and income inequality remain high; 45.6 percent of Kenyans live 
below the national poverty line. The most severe conditions exist in the arid north, which is underdeveloped, 
drought-prone and is often disrupted by local conflicts. Food availability is constrained by poor roads and 
long distances to markets. Kenya is a food-deficit country, ranking 145 of 188 countries in the 2015 Human 
Development Index (two positions up from previous year).119 The country's 2015 Global Hunger Index was 
24, ranking 67th out of 117 assessed countries. Many parts of the county, especially the arid and semi-arid
lands which comprise 80 percent of Kenya's land area, are characterized by undernourishment, wasting,
stunting, and child mortality. Global acute malnutrition among children aged 6 - 59 months in arid areas 
often exceeds 15 percent while micronutrient deficiencies are above 50 percent. Education is fundamental to 
the Government's strategy for socio-economic development. The 2015 Kenya Economic Survey stated that 
national net enrolment in primary education was 88 percent with 78.5 percent completion rates (2014 data). 
However, in several northern counties net enrolment is still below 50percent.
Poverty is linked with worsening droughts and flooding that force poor households to resort to negative
coping mechanisms such as withdrawing children from school and selling productive assets. Kenya has a ten￾year Ending Drought Emergencies plan which aims to create “a more conducive environment for building 
drought resilience” by investing in infrastructure, security, human capital and improved financing for
drought risk management.
Kenya has several social-assistance programs which cover only 27 percent of the poor; 90 percent of the
funding comes from development partners. In the 2012 social-protection policy aimed to increase access to
services for vulnerable populations, school feeding is a major social safety net.
Education is fundamental to the Government’s strategy for socio-economic development. In 2010, national
net enrolment in primary education was 93 percent for boys with 88 percent completion, and 92 percent
for girls with 78 percent completion.120 In the north-eastern counties net enrolment dropped to 40 percent
with 35 percent completion, and adult literacy was 8 percent;121 education in these areas is frequently
disrupted by conflict, drought and flooding. Girls’ enrolment improved from 0.96 in 2008 to 1.0 in 2012, but 
gender disparities persist.122 Retention and educational quality are ongoing challenges. Early childhood
development (ECD), education and care are weak and reach only half of pre-school-age children.
The National Education Sector Support Program (2013–2018)123 aims to enhance basic education in terms
of access and quality. The 2010 National School Health Strategy includes access to safe water and sanitation
components.
Of children under 5, 84 percent are deficient in vitamin A, 73 percent in iron and 51 percent in zinc; a quarter 
of children have inadequate iodine intake. Iron deficiency affects 55 percent of pregnant women, 46percent
of adolescents in refugee camps and 21 percent of schoolgirls in western Kenya.10 Many households cannot
afford a nutritious diet, and an estimated 1.8 million children are chronically undernourished; high stunting 
levels persist. The 2012 National Food and Nutrition Security Policy aims to: i) improve nutrition; ii) ensure
that adequate food is accessible and affordable; and iii) protect vulnerable populations through safety nets 
linked to long-term development. It prioritizes the prevention of nutrition-related vulnerabilities in the first
1,000 days of life and links nutrition education with targeted
119 United Nations Development Program (2014). “Human Development Report 2015”. 120 MOEST administrative data. 121 121 Government of Kenya (2015). “National Education Sector Plan: Volume One”. Nairobi: MOEST. 122 Government of Kenya. (2012). “Second Medium-Term Plan, 2013–2017” Nairobi. 123 Government of Kenya (2015). “National Education Sector Plan: Volume One”. Nairobi: MOEST.
65
nutrition interventions. Kenya joined Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) in 2012, and is developing its National
Nutrition Action Plan implementation strategy.
Subject of the evaluation
The Government of Kenya (Ministry of Education (MoE) and WFP have since 1980 carried out a school meals 
program in food insecure regions of Kenya with the objectives of encouraging parents to enrol and keep their 
children in school, and to encourage pupils to learn. By 2008, the number of pupils receiving school meals 
had grown from an initial 240,000 to 1.2 million in 3,850 primary schools in Kenya’s arid andsemi-arid 
lands. To pursue greater national ownership and sustainability of the program, MoE established the Home￾Grown School Meals Program (HGSMP), which in 2009 took over an initial 540,000 pupils in semi-arid 
lands until 2014 when WFP started handing over school feeding in arid counties beginning with Isiolo 
County. Nairobi County also switched from in kind food assistance to cash in September 2015. While the
Government and WFP work to gradually expand the coverage of the HGSMP, WFP continues to support
children in all public schools in the arid lands and in targeted schools in the informal settlements of Nairobi, 
where food insecurity continues to be widespread, and education indicators are below the national average. 
WFP also prioritises capacity development of the Government to manage and extend the HGSMP to the arid
lands.
WFP provides regular hot mid-day meals in primary and pre-primary schools. Primary school pupils receive 
a lunch of 198 grams comprising cereals, pulses, fortified vegetable oil and iodized salt to provide 30 percent 
of the recommended daily energy intake, and pre-primary pupils receive this lunch and an additional 
morning porridge made from Super Cereal. Meals are provided every school day, for a total of 195 days a 
year. In addition to providing school lunch to schools, WFP is engaged in capacity development activities to 
enhance the capacity of the government to sustainably expand and manage the school meals program. The 
activities include training, equipment support, south to south learning initiatives and policy support among 
others. Currently WFP is supporting revision of the HGSMP manual to incorporate lessons learned in cash
transfer to schools in arid areas; School Health, Nutrition and Meals Strategy; School Health policy; 
Micronutrient powder in Schools Policy and incorporating nutrition education in primary school curriculum.
WFP implements its school feeding program in close collaboration with MOEST. An annual joint work plan
is formulated, and regular meetings at central and local levels organized to coordinate activities. At the
county level, WFP works with county-level education officials. School Management Committees already
established in each school are in charge of day-to-day implementation. The activities are monitored as part
of WFP’s regular monitoring and through joint monitoring missions with MOEST.
McGovern-Dole is one of the longest-standing donors to the SFP in Kenya. It’s most recent contribution of
US$20.2 million supports the SFP during 2014 to 2016. This period spans two WFP Country Programs (CPs). 
During the design of the new CP, there were many decisions made with the GoK, which altered plans and 
sequencing of the SFP program. The $20.2 million agreement between USDA and WFP was signed in
September 2013 while the food commodities (Bulgur wheat) arrived between February–March 2014.
Distribution to schools could therefore not commence until Term 2, 2014. Through this support, WFP
provides school meals, raises awareness on the importance of education, trains stakeholders on appropriate 
food preparation and storage practices and supports capacity building. The objectives of MGD support 
include boosting pupils’ enrolment, attendance, literacy and attentiveness, reducing short term hunger and 
guaranteeing access to food for school children. The project also aims to enhance teacher attendance, spread
awareness on the benefits of education among the community, engage local organizations and community 
groups, increase knowledge about safe food preparation and storage and provide equipment for this purpose.
Finally, to ensure sustainability, the objectives include building government capacity and improving the 
policy and regulatory framework in support of child health and nutrition (See Annex 3: results framework).
Evaluation Approach
Scope
The evaluation will be of MGD-supported WFP School feeding activities implemented from 2014 to 2016.
The evaluation will cover arid counties and the informal settlements of Nairobi where these activities were
implemented during the above-mentioned period.
The final evaluation will use the internationally agreed criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,
sustainability and impact. As per the agreed-on evaluation plan, this evaluation will put greater emphasis
than the midterm evaluation on the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the program. It’s noteworthy
that the midterm evaluation focused on the implementation of the program with the evaluation findings
targeted at adjustments or program management decisions that were to help improve implementation. As
such, the mid‐term evaluation was focused on interim or anticipated results, partnerships, implementation
arrangements and systems, and any factors affecting the results achieved at the mid‐point. . This evaluation
is focused on accountability (against intended results) and learning (for the continuance of the school
66
feeding in Kenya). The final evaluation will assess the impact of the program against the following
objectives:
• Contribution to feed the future
• Improved literacy of school –age children
• Increased capacity of Government institutions
• More consistent teacher attendance
• Improved attentiveness
• Reduced short term hunger
• Increased access to Food (School Feeding)
• Improved student attendance
• Increased use of health and dietary practices
• Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups
• Improved policy and regulatory frame work
• Increased knowledge of safe food prep and storage practises
• Increased access to requisite food prep and storage tools and equipment
• Increased student enrolment.
• Increased community understanding of education benefits
The evaluation will not cover WFP’s accountability for literacy results but will document the trends in literacy 
achievement from students in program schools and non‐program schools, using available national data in 
line with WFP’s commitment to the principle of using nationally available data and systems where possible.
National reports produced by UWEZO will therefore be used. UWEZO is the Government of Kenya’s 
recognized source of numeracy and literacy data. UWEZO identifies and adheres to country specific policies 
and guidelines that relate to methodology (sampling) and test development for national assessments. In 
addition to this, the UWESO processes are benchmarked alongside Pratham’s Annual Status of Education 
Report (ASER) from which the UWESO methodology is derived. UWESO applies a rigorous research design 
which uses a two-step sampling approach. The stratum is the sub-county and all counties are included. This 
ensures that there is representativeness of the sample. The detailed report also involves careful efforts to
eliminate biases. On the literacy and numeracy tests, a set of questions is administered to children of school 
age in the sampled households to test their level of understanding. The Standards Manual124 gives the details
of organizational standards for the Assessment.
The evaluation will take into consideration that school feeding program in Kenya is a multi-donor initiative.
Evaluation Criteria and Questions
Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of Relevance,
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability. Gender Equality and the Empowerment of women
(GEEW) should be mainstreamed throughout.
Evaluation Questions: Allied to the evaluation criteria, the evaluation will address the following key
questions, which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. Collectively,
the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the WFP’s McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program support (2014-2016), which could inform
future strategic and operational decisions.
Below are the key criteria and broad questions to be evaluated:
Criteria Evaluation Questions
Relevance Areas for analysis will include the extent to which the objectives, targeting, choice of
activities and of transfer modalities:
Were appropriate to the needs of the target population;
Were aligned with relevant stated national policies, including sector policies and
strategies and seek complementarity with the interventions of relevant humanitarian and
development partners
Were aligned with WFP strategies, policies and normative guidance
Were aligned with partner UN agency and donor policies and priorities?
Effectiveness Has the SFP achieved its stated outputs, objectives and outcomes?
What were the major factors (Both internal and external) influencing the achievement or
124 http://www.uwezo.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RO_2012_UwezoStandardsManual.pdf
67
non-achievement of the outputs, outcomes/objectives of the intervention?
Why and how did the operation produce the observed results? The evaluation should
generate insights into the main internal and external factors that caused the observed
changes and affected how results were achieved. The inquiry is likely to focus, amongst
others:
Internally (factors within WFP’s control): the processes, systems and tools in place to
support the operation design, implementation, monitoring/evaluation and reporting; the
governance structure and institutional arrangements (including issues related to staffing,
capacity and technical backstopping from RB/HQ); the partnership and coordination
arrangements;
Externally (factors outside WFP’s control): the external operating environment; the
funding climate; external incentives and pressures; etc.
Efficiency Were activities cost-efficient?
Were the activities implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
What were the external and internal factors influencing efficiency of the program
(attainment of the planned outputs, cost factors, logistics and pipeline performance)?
Impact What were the short- and medium-term effects of the program on beneficiaries’ lives?
Are assisted schools moving in the right direction of improving education outcomes and
sustaining school feeding?
Did any negative effects occur for beneficiaries?
What were the gender-specific impacts, especially regarding enrolment and attendance?
What are the main drivers of positive impacts? (Partnerships, capacity, ownership, etc.)
What were the intended and unintended impacts of the program
Sustainability To what extent is the country taking ownership of the program? (e.g. demonstrated
commitment and contribution to the program);
What is the national readiness to implement the program? E.g. demonstrated capacity at
central and sub-national levels to manage the program?
Data Availability
The following are the main sources of data.
• Baseline and mid-term evaluation reports
• WFP strategic Results framework
• Kenya Country Program 200680 (2014-2018) project document and log frame
• Kenya Country Program 106680 (2009-2014) project document and log frame
• School feeding handbook
• WFP School feeding policy
• 2013 t0 2014 Standard Project Reports (SPRs).
• M&E monthly monitoring reports
• Strategy to Strengthen & Expand the Home-Grown School Meals (HGSM) Program into the Arid
Lands of Kenya (Validated version 2013)
• USDA commitment letter for Agreement FFE-615-2013/041-00 Kenya
• Government of Kenya Education related policies and strategies
• External Evaluation of WFP’s Cash Transfer to Schools Pilot Project (March 2013- March 2015
• HGSMP Evaluation May 2014
• UWEZO annual reports
Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should:
Assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the information
provided in section 4.3. This assessment will inform the data collection
Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge
any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
Methodology
The methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. It should:
Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above [relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability]
Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-section of information sources (stakeholder
groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to demonstrate
impartiality.
Using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) to ensure triangulation of information
through a variety of means.
68
Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions taking into account the
data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints;
Ensure through the use of mixed methods that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholder groups
participate and that their different voices are heard and used;
Mainstream gender equality and women’s empowerment, as above;
The evaluation team is expected to elaborate appropriate sampling methods for collecting primary
quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluation team will draw a statistically representative sample from
the sample frame consisting of the total number of schools (1668) spread across 10 counties (Mandera, Wajir,
Garissa, Marsabit, Isiolo, Samburu, Turkana, Tana River and West Pokot) and the unplanned settlements of 
Nairobi, covered by this program (See table on program coverage and Annex 1).
As with the Mid Term Evaluation, the Final Evaluation will take a program theory approach based on the
results framework. In its execution, the evaluation will draw on the existing body of documented data as far
as possible.
The evaluation will use mixed methods and triangulate information from different methods and sources to
enhance the reliability of findings. In particular, the evaluation will combine qualitative and quantitative
approaches to collect field‐level data and information from the arid counties and unplanned settlements of
Nairobi under school meals program. Separate questionnaires will be applied to the different primary sources
of information, focusing on infrastructure, staff, enrolment and attendance, exam scores, completion rates 
and community involvement in the program.
The qualitative component of the evaluation will use participatory methods where relevant to highlight
lessons learned and case studies representative of the interventions. In particular, the methodology will
involve focus group discussions with head teachers, school management committee members, education
officials, pupils and key informants drawn from education stakeholders. This component will employ
relevant interview schedules as a key data collection method which will be collated to provide general
impressions of the program.
Fieldwork will be based on a follow‐up to the baseline and mid-term evaluations conducted. Where possible
and relevant, before/after comparison will be done through design of comparable sampling strategy.
The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality will be employed: use of an Evaluation
Committee and an Evaluation Reference Group and referring to the Technical Note on Independence and
Impartiality for guidance
Quality Assurance
WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected 
from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality Assurance, Templates for 
evaluation products and Checklists for their review. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality 
assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the
international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to
best practice.
DEQAS will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be responsible
for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Step by Step Process Guide and for conducting
a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization.
WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This includes
Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant Checklist will be applied
at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
In addition, to enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an external reviewer directly managed
by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter will provide:
• systematic feedback on the quality of the draft inception and evaluation reports; and
• Recommendations on how to improve the quality of the evaluation.
This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team,
but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and convincing way and draws its
conclusions on that basis.
The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and accuracy)
throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility
of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is
available in WFP’s Directive (#CP2010/001) on Information Disclosure.
Phases and Deliverables
The evaluation will proceed through the 5 following phases. The evaluation schedule annex provides a
detailed breakdown of the proposed timeline for each phase over the full timeframe. A summary of the
deliverables and deadlines for each phase are as follows:
69
Figure 1: Summary Process Map
Preparation phase (February–March 2016): The evaluation manager will conduct background
research and consultation to frame the evaluation; prepare the TOR; select the evaluation team and contract 
the company for the management and conduct of the evaluation. The TOR will be shared with USDA for
comments and or inputs.
Inception phase (April): This phase aims to prepare the evaluation team for the evaluation phase by
ensuring that it has a good grasp of the expectations for the evaluation and a clear plan for conducting it. The 
inception phase will include a desk review of secondary data and initial interaction with the main
stakeholders. The inception report will be shared with USDA for comments and or inputs.
Evaluation phase (May - June): The fieldwork will span over a period of two months and 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 (Mid-June - August): The evaluation team will analyse the data collected during the
desk review and the field work, conduct additional consultations with stakeholders, as required, and draft
the evaluation report. The draft evaluation report will be submitted to the evaluation manager for quality
assurance. Stakeholders will be invited to provide comments, which will be recorded in a matrix by the
evaluation manager and provided to the evaluation team for their consideration before report finalisation.
Follow-up and dissemination phase: The final evaluation report will be shared with the relevant
stakeholders. The management responsible will respond to the evaluation recommendations by providing
actions that will be taken to address each recommendation and estimated timelines for taking those
actions. The evaluation report will also be subject to external post-hoc quality review to report
independently on the quality, credibility and utility of the evaluation in line with evaluation norms and
standards. The final evaluation report will be published on the WFP public website. Findings will be
disseminated and lessons will be incorporated into other relevant lesson sharing systems.
Organization of the Evaluation
Evaluation Conduct
The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close
communication with the independent evaluation manager appointed by WFP to manage the evaluation. The 
team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition and in line with the evaluation schedule
provided in a separate annex.
The team members will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject of evaluation 
or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect the code of conduct of
the evaluation profession.
Team composition and competencies
The Team Leader should be a senior evaluator with at least 10 years of experience in evaluation with
demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary and mixed quantitative and qualitative method
evaluations, complemented with good understanding of 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 evaluation approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the
team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation team; iv) drafting and revising, as
required, the inception report, the end of field work i.e (exit)debriefing presentation and evaluation report
in line with EQAS.
The team must include strong demonstrated knowledge of qualitative and quantitative data and statistical
analysis. It should include both women and men and at least one team member should be familiar with WFP’s
FFE work and with USDA M&E Policy.
The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance of
expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas:
• Education
• Nutrition
• Food security
• Gender
• Sampling and statistical analysis
• Capacity development
Preparation Inception Inception
Report
Evaluation Reporting Evaluation
Report
Dissemination
and follow-up
70
All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience and
familiarity with Kenya or the Horn of Africa.
The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required and 
have a track record of written work on similar assignments.
Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document review;
ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) contribute to the
drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s).
All members of the evaluation 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.
As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for
ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical 
or situational reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN 
Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. Consultants hired independently are 
covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel which cover WFP
staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP.
Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling to be obtained from
designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the Field courses in
advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.125
However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that:
The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a
security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations.
The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a
security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc.
Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The Kenya Country Office:
The Kenya country Office management (Deputy Country director will take responsibility to:
• Ensure an independent Evaluation Manager for the evaluation:
• Compose the internal evaluation committee and the external evaluation reference group
• Approve the final TOR, inception and evaluation reports.
• Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment
of an Evaluation Committee and of a Reference Group
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation
subject, its performance and results with the Evaluation Manager and the evaluation team
• Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external
stakeholders
• Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management
Response to the evaluation recommendations
Evaluation Manager:
• Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
• Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational
• Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the
evaluation team
• Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support etc.)
• Ensure that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation;
facilitate the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; set up meetings, field visits; provide logistic
support during the fieldwork; and arrange for interpretation, if required.
• Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials as required
• Chairs the External Reference Group meetings
An Internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence and
impartiality of the evaluation. The membership includes M&E officer, evaluation manager, technical unit in
charge of school feeding program, Deputy (country director programs), One staff each from finance and
125 Field Courses: Basic https://dss.un.org/bsitf/; Advanced http://dss.un.org/asitf
71
logistics unit. The key roles and responsibilities of this team, includes providing input to evaluation process
and commenting on evaluation products.
An External Evaluation Reference group has also been formed, with representation from USDA/FAS, 
Canada, Ministry of Education, Feed the Children, WFP Country office and Regional Bureau and will review 
the evaluation products as further safeguard against bias and influence (See annex 5; External reference
Group TOR)
The Regional Bureau. The RB management will be responsible to:
• Assign focal point for the evaluation.
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the operation,
its performance and results. In particular, the RB should participate in the evaluation debriefing and 
discussions with the evaluation manager and team, as required.
• Provide comments on the TORs, inception report and the evaluation report.
Headquarters. Some HQ divisions might, as relevant, be asked to discuss WFP strategies, policies or
systems in their area of responsibility and to comment on the evaluation TOR and report.
Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, and UN agencies) will be identified for interviews by the
evaluation team in addition to the list provided by WFP which will be based on the preliminary stakeholder
analysis detailed in table 1. Government and USDA and other partners will provide inputs into the draft
evaluation report before its finalized.
The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV will advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the
evaluation process where appropriate. It is responsible to provide access to independent quality support
mechanisms reviewing draft inception and evaluation reports from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures
a help desk function upon request from the Regional Bureaus.
Communication and budget
Communication
To enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and 
open communication with key stakeholders. These may for example take place by ensuring a clear agreement 
on channels and frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders.
Communication with evaluation team and stakeholders should go through the Evaluation manager.
As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly
available. Following the approval of the final evaluation report, dissemination will be broad and workshops
will be conducted both internally and with partners, looking at the recommendations and the way forward.
Specifically;
WFP Kenya Country Office will organize an internal workshop to discuss evaluation findings and
recommendations, where the consultant will present the key findings;
WFP in collaboration with the Ministry of Education, will organize a workshop targeting relevant external
audiences, where the consultant will present the key findings.
WFP will discuss the report with USDA and disseminate the findings and recommendations in various ways,
including through discussions with WFP senior management and staff as well as with the key partners
including the Ministry of Education, non-governmental partners and UN agencies.
72
Annex 2: Counties where the USDA-supported SMP is implemented
County Number of schools
1 Baringo 112
2 Garissa 167
3 Isiolo 98
4 Mandera 185
5 Marsabit 167
6 Nairobi 92
7 Samburu 148
8 Tana River 161
9 Turkana 331
10 Wajir 191
11 West Pokot 114
TOTAL 1,766
73
Annex 3: UWEZO 2014 report - school performance rankings for the
targeted SMP targeted counties
County District Mean pass rate
combined test
National ranking
(out 0f 155
Districts)
Nairobi126 West 77.6 15
Baringo North 63.7 69
Central 63.6 72
Marsabit 57.3 106
Moyale 54.2 116
Garissa 45.2 138
Isiolo 42.4 140
Tana River 34.4 144
Pokot Central 56.1 111
West 54.2 115
North 36.3 142
East 33.9 145
Samburu East 30.6 149
Turkana East
Central 46.3 136
South 32.9 146
North 28.2 151
Wajir West 47.9 131
South 23.7 153
Mandera East 71.4 35
Central 20.5 154
West 17.0 155
126 Nairobi is included in the SMP because of the unplanned settlements around it where there is high levels of food insecurity.
74
Annex 4: Recommendations of the SMP Mid-Term Evaluation
Immediate and short-term key recommendations (requiring mid-course corrections 
or initiation of action) are as follows:
1. For many pupils in the arid lands the SFP meal is the most substantial meal they have during
the day. In fact, 56.1 percent of parents reduce the portions of the evening meal when lunch
is provided in schools and only 59 percent of pupils consume a meal before school.
Recommendation: Consider providing the SFP meal one or two hours earlier (11am instead of 
12.30pm) to address problems of short term hunger, particularly in counties where the intake of 
breakfast at household level is low. Particular attention should be given to Marsabit, Turkana and 
West Pokot Counties since they performed more poorly than the other Counties for the
abovementioned indicators.
2. Results indicate that pupils experience significant threats to their safety while walking to and
from school. This is particular prevalent in Nairobi.
Recommendation: SFP stakeholders should increase awareness on these topics during program 
implementation. WFP should consider carrying out community-level sensitization on the threats 
to pupils’ safety. Strategic partnerships with agencies focusing on Child Protection (i.e. Unicef,
Plan International, Save the Children etc) would be an added value in helping reinforcing synergies
and complementarity with the SFP. These interventions should be prioritized in Nairobi informal
settlements.
3. The GoK financing flows under which SFP operates are very inefficient and not timely and this
significantly delays program implementation. This affects both the government-led HGSMP 
and the in-kind program supported by WFP (due to commodity delivery delays by MOEST at 
county level).
Recommendations: WFP and the GoK should consider establishing a national and
independent entity to manage the SFP, housed outside of MOEST, with the aim of increasing
implementing partners’ involvement and accountability. The Treasury should be represented
within this independent entity to ensure that any arising issues related to funding channels are
promptly addressed. The institutional arrangement could be lighter at national level while
increasing the support to county-level structures. A potential disadvantage of this option is the
danger of having another autonomous agency that doesn’t integrate closely enough with the core
ministries. In this regard, an open discussion to seek a proper balance is encouraged.
In addition, GoK should consider ring-fencing the SFP budget line in order to secure funds
allocation for the program. In this regard, a strategy could be to bring the SFP under the National 
Safety Net Programs (NSNP). This will enhance coordination; help the SFP program to work more 
coherently, efficiently and effectively with the others Kenya’s safety net programs andin addition 
it could ensure a “ring-fenced” budget. This can be done integrating the SFP with the National
Social Protection Secretariat (and the Council when the bill is enacted) within the NSNP. MOEST
should participate in the national steering committee and, at Director level, inthe management 
and technical working groups.
Synergies could be sought by integrating the MOEST data (NIEMIS) into the social protection
single registry for example. In order to further secure funds for the future implementation of the
SFP program in a sustainable manner, a scale-up of the current advocacy campaign is
recommended especially targeting the National Assembly Budget Committee, the Council
Governance and the Treasury. Student Councils formed at school level could be also involved for
an effective advocacy campaign.
4. There is high degree of variance and inaccuracy in the methods used to distribute food among
pupils.
Recommendation: Provide a unified scoop measure to all supported schools, both under the
SFP and the HGSMP. Implementers should also consider providing weighing scales to all
supported schools along with adequate training on how to use them.
75
5. Even though the SFP increases the attendance rate, this alone does not translate into good
literacy outcomes of the pupils in the arid counties. Other factors impacting negatively on
literacy outcomes include poor quality of teaching as documented by the SDI Report 2012.
Recommendation: This evaluation recognizes that influencing the quality of teaching is beyond 
WFP’s mandate and responsibility. Recognizing WFP efforts in the review of the Kenya national 
curriculum alongside other development partners, Kimetrica recommends continued synergy 
with partners who are supporting the GoK to address issues related to the quality of education
and teaching, particularly in the context of the two recently launched national programs – the 
Global Partnership for Education (GPE) and Tusome – that are principally funded by the World
Bank and USAID.
Medium to long-term recommendations are as follows:
1. There is a low level of coordination between MOEST and MOH at county level. Coordination
may be increased through more frequent and regular meetings of MOEST and MoH officials
and through their involvement in the joint monitoring activities.
Recommendation: Strengthen county level school committees, with a wide representation of
program stakeholders, to increase coordination and accountability. In addition, MoH should
ensure that food inspections are carried out in the District Education Officer (DEO) warehouses
as soon as WFP delivers the commodities, especially if there is insufficient funding to carry out
food inspection at school level. The establishment of a national independent entity beyondMOEST 
and integrating SFP into the NSNP, as outline in point 3, would help to increase the involvement 
and participation of other Ministries (including MoALF), ring-fence the funds and foster 
coordination.
2. Multiple reporting lines related to the SFP implementation create issues of accountability.
Teachers, including the SFP Teacher, report to the TSC while the program is under the purview
of MOEST.
Recommendation: Strengthen the Technical School Feeding Committee by involving
additional partners, such as the TSC, to address issues of accountability and multiple reporting
lines, and enlarging its operational budget. The involvement of the Treasury within the Technical
School Feeding Committee would also be beneficial to address lesson learned number 3 mentioned
above.
3. There is high staff turnover, both within schools and ministerial offices. One SFP management 
training per project cycle (once every 2.5 years) may not be effective, despitethe additional
supplementary visits and on-the-job training carried out by WFP.
Recommendation: Consider increasing the frequency of training (once a year), especially for
officials that have not yet been trained in the context of the SFP.
4. Record-keeping at school level is poor and this affects the monitoring process.
Recommendation: Project implementers should engage in capacity building activities at the
school level to strengthen record-keeping and filing practices. More frequent SFP management
trainings at the county level (recommendation number 6) would increase the schools’ and
government’s capacity to implement the HGSMP and in-kind contribution program. Project
implementers should consider making commodity delivery conditional upon reconciled records
(both SFP and School records).
1. KI interviews in Garissa and Turkana revealed that monitoring at the school level by MOEST
is a challenge due to lack of funds at county level. In addition, government officials were not
aware of the joint monitoring arrangements in place with WFP.
Recommendation: SFP implementing partners should raise awareness of the joint monitoring 
arrangement at county level. WFP should consider involving the MoH, and MoALF in addition to
MOEST during their field visits. Furthermore, MoH should ensure that food inspections are 
carried out in the DEO warehouses as soon as WFP delivers the commodities, especially if there
is insufficient funding to carry out food inspection at school level. A cost-
76
sharing mechanism between WFP, MOEST and MoH should be considered to cover the expenses
related to joint monitoring. This evaluation recommends developing a Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU) between WFP, MOEST, MoH and MoALF (and TSC) to determine the cost￾sharing mechanism: a possible solution could include WFP providing transport means (as is
already happening) with MOEST and MoH ensuring their officials’ daily allowance and fuel is
covered. MOEST and WFP should also consider involving additional partners in their monitoring
activities (such as UNICEF) to increase complementarity of activities with key partners. They 
should use this opportunity to conduct joint sensitization sessions of pupils and teachers on the 
issues addressed by their programs.
2. The schools often inflate their enrolment figures, as verified by WFP in Samburu County.
Recommendation: Finalize the already initiated process of creating a common MIS to reflect
real-time changes in school enrolment and attendance figures.
3. The WFP helpline/complaint mechanism proved to be quite effective in the County where it
was piloted.
Recommendation: Following the pilot exercise conducted by WFP, the GoK should prioritize
the implementation of a helpline/complaint mechanism in all counties covered by the SFP and
HGSMP, with a dual objective of increasing community knowledge and awareness of the program
and creating an avenue for raising complaints and issues.
77
Annex 5: Evaluation criteria
This evaluation considered a globally accepted evaluation criteria. The questions proposed 
were in line with the considerations of the evaluation questions, and offered thebest 
opportunity towards evaluating the SMP with reference to the situation at baseline and
midline surveys. Overall the evaluation incorporated gender based approaches towards the
data collection, analysis and reporting.
Relevance
•In assessing relevance, the evaluation questions sought to determine the extent to
which the SMP was suited to the priorities and policies of the target group,
recipient, and donor. In doing this, we considered the following questions: To what
extent were the objectives of the program still valid? Were the activities and outputs
of the program consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives?;
Were the activities and outputs of the program consistent with the intended impacts
and effects?
Effectiveness
•The evaluation assessed the extent to which SMP attained its objectives. To achieve
this the following questions were considered: To what extent were the objectives
achieved / are likely to be achieved?; what were the major factors influencing the
achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Efficiency
•Our approach towards assessment of efficiency shall consider measuring the
outputs both qualitatively and qualitatively in relation to the inputs. This is more or
less an economic approach, which questions whether SMP used the least costly
resources possible in order to achieve the desired results. This aimed at comparing
alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether WFP and
partners adopted the most efficient process. The following questions were used:
Were activities cost-efficient?; were objectives achieved on time?; was the program
or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
Impact
•The evaluation sought to assess the positive and negative changes produced by SMP,
directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. The evaluation was concerned with
both intended and unintended results including positive and negative impact of
external factors, such as changes in terms of the environment, education systems,
and financial conditions. The following questions were considered: What has
happened because of the program or project; what real difference has the activity
made to the beneficiaries; how many people have been affected?
Sustainability
•In assessing sustainability, the evaluation sought to measure whether the benefits of
the SMP are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. The
evaluation sought to determine; to what extent did/will the benefits of a SMP
continue after donor funding ceased; the major factors which were/are likely the
achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the program or project.
78
Annex 6: Evaluation Matrix
Criteria Evaluation Questions Measure/ Indicator of Progress Main Sources
of information
Data Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence
availability/
reliability
Relevance Areas for analysis will include the extent to
which the objectives, targeting, choice of
activities and of transfer modalities:
Qualitative and quantitative
assessment of the targeting,
project implementation and the
target population profile to
determine all the parameters of
relevance.
WFP
documents, Key
Informants,
Target
Population
a. Face to face
interviews
b. Review of
literature and data
Thematic analysis using Miles and
Hubberman approach for the
qualitative data. This will be
triangulated by analysis of
quantitative data to deduce the
extent to which the needs were
reached.
3-Strong
Were appropriate to the needs of the target
population;
Were aligned with relevant stated national
policies, including sector policies and strategies
and seek complementarity with the
interventions of relevant humanitarian and
development partners
Were aligned with WFP strategies, policies and
normative guidance
Were aligned with partner UN agency and donor
policies and priorities?
Effectiveness a. Has the SMP achieved its stated outputs,
objectives and outcomes?
1. % increase in enrolment
2. % increase of pupils
attending school
3. Number of methods
used in assessing literacy
levels
4. % increase in the
number of teachers
attending school as a
result of SMP
5. % of MoE officials
trained by WFP in 2014?
School based
assessment
MoE Officials
face to face
interviews with head
teachers, patrons and
MoE officials
Varied as per PMP 2-Fair
b. What were the major factors (Both internal
and external) influencing the achievement or
non-achievement of the outputs,
outcomes/objectives of the intervention?
Analytical evidence of difference
in the different schools based
performance
Assessment of the reported
Secondary Data
and Primary
Data
a. Secondary Data
Provided by WFP
b. Secondary data
collected from other
Thematic analysis of qualitative
data and triangulating with
performance measures
3-Strong
79
Criteria Evaluation Questions Measure/ Indicator of Progress Main Sources
of information
Data Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence
availability/
reliability
c. Why and how did the operation produce the
observed results? The evaluation should
generate insights into the main internal and
external factors that caused the observed
changes and affected how results were achieved.
internal and external factors by
stakeholders and target
populations
Assessment of other
complementary projects within
the project area?
Assessment of other
documented issues within the
community such as security,
conflict, climate change etc.
sources but relevant
to the subject area.
C. Face to Face
Interviews
d. Internally (factors within WFP’s control): the
processes, systems and tools in place to support
the operation design, implementation,
monitoring/evaluation and reporting; the
governance structure and institutional
arrangements (including issues related to
staffing, capacity and technical backstopping
from RB/HQ); the partnership and coordination
arrangements;
The processes, systems and
tools in place to support the
operation design,
implementation,
monitoring/evaluation and
reporting; the governance
structure and institutional
arrangements (including issues
related to staffing, capacity and
technical backstopping from
RB/HQ); the partnership and
coordination arrangements
a. Primary Data
collected from
WFP staff and
project
stakeholders
b. Various
Project Reports
WFP
a. Face to face
interviews
b. Review of
literature and data
Thematic analysis of qualitative
data and triangulating with
performance measures
3-Strong
e. Externally (factors outside WFP’s control): the
external operating environment; the funding
climate; external incentives and pressures; etc.
Factors outside WFP that
affected the project
performance
a. Primary Data
collected from
WFP staff and
project
stakeholdersb.
Various Project
Reports WFP
a. Face to face
interviewsb. Review
of literature and data
Thematic analysis of qualitative
data and triangulating with
performance measures
2-Fair
Efficiency
a. Were activities cost-efficient?
b. Were the activities implemented in the most
efficient way compared to alternatives?
c. What were the external and internal factors
influencing efficiency of the program
(attainment of the planned outputs, cost factors,
logistics and pipeline performance)?
Financial Cost per Key
Performance Indicator
a. Primary Data
collected from
WFP staff and
project
stakeholders
b. Various
Project Reports
WFP
a. Review of
Literature/Data and
Progress reports from
WFP
b. Face to Face
Interviews with WFP
c. F2F interviews with
key Stakeholders
d. Review of financial
documentations
Assess the cost versus the program
output e.g. cost per percentage
increase in enrolment, cost per unit
performance measure
1-Weak Time Cost per unit measure of
key performance indicator
Perceived efficiency of SMP in
delivering its outputs
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Ease of carrying out activities Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Decision making process and
involvement of community
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
80
Criteria Evaluation Questions Measure/ Indicator of Progress Main Sources
of information
Data Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence
availability/
reliability
Cost of overheads visa vise
direct project costs
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Duplication of effort and
management of duplication
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Reported and documented
issues around efficiency
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Deliverables achieved in time
and on budget
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
Impact a. What were the short- and medium term
effects of the program on beneficiaries’ lives?
1. Proportion of students who
by the end of two grades of
primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can
read and understand the
meaning of grade level text.
2. Percent of food preparers at
target schools who achieve a
passing score on a test of safe
food preparation and storage
3. Percent of teachers in target
schools who attend school
and teach at least 90 percent
of scheduled school days per
year.
4. Percent of students
(girls/boys) regularly
attending supported schools
5. Percent of districts in which
food procurement and
distribution procedures and
infrastructure are in place
6. Number of child health and
nutrition policies, regulation
and/or administrative
procedures in place
School based
assessment
Face to faceinterviews
with head teachers,
pupils and WFP
county and national
officials
Desk review
Varied as per PMP 3-Strong
81
Criteria Evaluation Questions Measure/ Indicator of Progress Main Sources
of information
Data Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence
availability/
reliability
b. Are assisted schools moving in the right
direction of improving education outcomes and
sustaining school feeding?
7. Proportion of students who
by the end of two grades of
primary schooling,
demonstrate that they can
read and understand the
meaning of grade level text.
8. Percent of food preparers at
target schools who achieve a
passing score on a test of safe
food preparation and storage
9. Percent of teachers in target
schools who attend school
and teach at least 90 percent
of scheduled school days per
year.
10. Percent of students
(girls/boys) regularly
attending supported school.
11. Percent increase in girls/boys
enrolled in schools
12. Percent of students in
targeted schools consuming
daily meals (lunch)
School based
assessment
Face to face
interviews with head
teachers, pupils
Varied as per PMP 3-Strong
Sustainability measures put in by
the school
School based
assessment
Observations
Review of data from
schools
F2F interviews with
school heads,
patrons, cooks,
parents, etc.
Qualitative Thematic analysis 3-Strong
c. Did any negative effects occur for
beneficiaries?
Negative effects among
beneficiaries
School based
assessment
F2F interviews with
school heads,
patrons, project
implementation
stakeholders,
parents, and pupils
Qualitative Thematic
analysisQuantitative based
proportion (%) quantification of the
negative effects
3-Strong
82
Criteria Evaluation Questions Measure/ Indicator of Progress Main Sources
of information
Data Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence
availability/
reliability
d. What were the gender-specific impacts,
especially regarding enrolment and attendance?
Gender based measures School based
assessment
a. Primary data
collection among
pupils’
b. Review and
segmentation of all
relevant secondary
data by gender.
C. Thematic
assessment of issues
while assessing for
gender based
differences.
Analysis of all relevant findings by
gender. Includes a sampling
approach of pupils that addresses
the need for separate gender
quotas
3-Strong
e. What are the main drivers of positive
impacts? (Partnerships, capacity, ownership,
etc.)
Positive and negative drivers of
impact
f. What were the intended and unintended
impacts of the program Number of total individuals
benefiting indirectly from USDA￾funded interventions
Face to face
interviews with
parents and
pupils
School based
assessments
Varied as per PMP 3-Strong
Sustainability a. To what extent isthe country taking ownership 
of the program? (e.g. demonstrated commitment
and contribution to the program);
Ownership of the program Reports and
Literature, F2F
interviews with
stakeholders Review of
Literature/Data
F2F data
Thematic analysis of qualitative
data
3-Strong b. What is the national readiness to implement
the program? E.g. demonstrated capacity at
central and sub-national levels to manage the
program?
SWOT analysis of the central and
subnational levels
Reports and
Literature, F2F
interviews with
stakeholders
83
Annex 8: Quantitative data collection tools
SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE A
(To be filled by Head-teacher in advance)
Section 1: Respondent Identification
This section is to document information about the location school and the name and contact
of the respondent and head teacher.
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q105 School Name
Q106 Latitude
Q107 Longitude
Q108 Respondent name
Q109 Which Position do you occupy in this
school
1. Head Teacher/Principal
2. Deputy Head Teacher
3. Teacher
4. Administrative officer
5. Other
Q110 Director/Headmaster name (only if
Respondent is not the Head Teacher)
Q111 What is the school category 1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
Q112 Kindly indicate your Mobile Phone
number
Q113 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q114 Name of Enumerator
84
Section 2: School Feeding Program (To be filled by Head-teacher in advance)
Question Response Code
Q201 What are the avenues or communication
channels through which parents and pupils
get information about SMP or make
complaints about the program (WFP:
Protection and Accountability to
affected population)?
(Circle all that apply)
1. None
2. Regular meetings with SMC
3. Regular meetings with School Administrators
4. Suggestion Box
5. Helpline
6. Other (specify)
Q202 How many people are involved in the
preparation of the food (food preparers, cook
and store keeper)
Q203 Does the school have a Parent Teacher
Association (PTA)?
1. Yes
2. No
Q204 Does the school have a School Meal
Committee (SMC)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q206)
Q205 What is the level of participation and
engagement of the SMC in the SMP?
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
Q206a What means of transport would someone use
to the nearest food market? (Mark all that
apply)
1. By Foot
2. Bicycle
3. Motorcycle
4. Auto RickShaw (Tuk Tuk)
5. Private Car
6. Public Bus/Matatu
7. Donkey/Camel
8. Other
9. Other
10. Other
Q206b For the means of transport mentioned what
time in minutes does it take to the nearest
food market? (Mark all that apply)
1. By Foot: 
2. Bicycle: 
3. Motorcycle: 
4. Auto RickShaw (Tuk Tuk): 
5. Private Car:
6. Public Bus/Matatu: _
7. Donkey/Camel: _
8. Other: : 
9. Other: : 
10. Other: : 
Q207a What means of transport would someone use
from this school the nearest educational
office?
1. By Foot
2. Bicycle
3. Motorcycle
4. Auto RickShaw (Tuk Tuk)
5. Private Car
6. Public Bus/Matatu
85
7. Donkey/Camel
8. Other
9. Other
10. Other
Q207b For the means of transport mentioned what
time in minutes does it take from this school
the nearest educational office?
1. By Foot: 
2. Bicycle: 
3. Motorcycle: 
4. Auto RickShaw (Tuk Tuk): 
5. Private Car
6. Public Bus/Matatu: _
7. Donkey/Camel: _
8. Other: : 
9. Other: : 
10. Other: : 
Section 3. Non-food contribution (To be filled by Head-teacher in advance)
This section assesses the non–food contributions by schools, parents, external donors, or a
combination of sources.
Q208_1a: Did the SCHOOL make any non-food contributions in 2015? 1. Yes
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
Q208_2a Q208_3a
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Q208_1b: Did the PARENTS make any non-food contributions in
2015?
1. Yes
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
Q208_2b Q208_3b
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
86
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Q208_1c: Did the EXTERNAL DONORS make any non-food
contributions in 2015?
1. Yes
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
Q208_2c Q208_3c
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Q208_1d: Did the ANY OTHER PERSON make any non-food
contributions in 2015?
1. Yes
(Specify _)
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
Q208_2d Q208_3d
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Q208_1e: Did the ANY OTHER PERSON make any non-food
contributions in 2015?
1. Yes
(Specify _)
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
87
Q208_2e Q208_3e
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Q208_1f: Did the ANY OTHER PERSON make any non-food
contributions in 2015?
1. Yes
(Specify _)
2. No
Non-food items contributed by school? Approximate % of requirement
met (Cannot be more than 100%)
Q208_2f Q208_3f
Water 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Firewood 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooking Utensils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cleaning Products 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Plates and cutlery for pupils 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Cooks Salary 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
Other (specify) 1. Yes 2. No (go to Next)
88
Section 4: Teacher-Head Teacher (To be filled by Head-teacher in advance)
ID Teacher Name (Optional) Sex Age Qualification Position in the school Years of Years of Full time/ Part Teachers’ Teacherstrained
1. Senior Graduate 1. Head teacher/ teaching experience time attendance in in safe food
1. Male 2. GT1 principal experience as Head 2015 preparation and
2.
Female
3. GT2
4. ATS 1
2. Deputy head
teacher
Teacher
(for Head￾1. Full-time
2. Part-time (in percent)
storage practices
5. ATS 2 3. Senior teacher Teacher 1. Yes
6. ATS3 4. Teacher only) 2. No
7. ATS4 (government)
5. Teacher (paid
8. P1
9. Untrained
contract)
6. Teacher (volunteer)
7. Other (specify)
10. Other
Q401 Q402 Q403 Q404 Q405 Q406 Q407 Q408 Q409 Q410 Q411
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
89
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
90
Section 6: Student record
# Academic
year
Total number of students
enrolled: (Male)
Total number of students
enrolled:
(Female)
Total number of students:
Transferred OUT (Male)
Total number of students:
Transferred OUT (Female)
Total number of students:
Dropout
(Male)
Total number of students:
Dropout
(Female)
Q601
Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary Pre-Primary Primary
Q602 Q603 Q604 Q605 Q606 Q607 Q608 Q609 Q610 Q611 Q612 Q613
1 2015
2 2014
3 2013
4 2012
2015 class 8 cohort
Q614 Total number of students enrolled in 2008: (Male)
Q615 Total number of students enrolled in 2008: (Female)
Q616 Students cohort who completed Primary within the same school: (Male)
Q617 Students cohort who completed Primary within the same school (Female)
Q618 Total number of students: Transferred OUT but completed Primary elsewhere between 2008-2015 (Male)
Q619 Total number of students: Transferred OUT but completed Primary elsewhere between 2008-2015 (Female)
Q620 Total number of students: Dropout between 2008-2015 (Male)
Q621 Total number of students: Dropout between 2008-2015 (Female)
91
Section 7: School & Student Performance
Q700 Average KCPE Score (2015)
Term 1
(2015)
Term 2
(2015)
Term 3
(2015)
Average Mark for 2015 (out of
500)
Q701 Q702 Q703 Q704
Average mark for Class 1 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 2 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 3 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 4 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 5 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 6 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 7 pupils (out of 500)
Average mark for Class 8 pupils (out of 500)
No. Pupils Name (Optional)
Sex
1. Male
2. Female
Class
School Attendance
(days)
Average Pupil Mark
(out of 500)
Term 1 Term 2 Term 3 Term 1 Term 2 Term 3
Q705 Q706 Q707 Q708 Q709 Q710 Q711 Q712 Q713
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
92
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
93
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
94
95
Section 8: Record attendance & Food Utilization (SMP Form 6)
YEAR 2016
Term Day Date Pre-Primary
Attendance
Primary
Attendance
Total
Attendance
School
Feeding
Provided
1. Yes
2. No (go to
Q815)
Maize /
bulgar
wheat
(Kg)
Pulses
(Kg)
Veg.
Oil
(Kg)
Salt
(Kg)
CSB
(Kg)
Top 3 reasons for
missed meals.
(Use code below)
What was the
source of lunch
eaten on those
days when meal
was not provided?
(Use code below)
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Q801 Q802 Q803 Q804 Q805 Q806 Q807 Q808 Q809 Q810 Q811 Q812 Q813 Q814 Q815 Q816
Term1 1
Term1 2
Term1 3
Term1 4
Term1 5
Term1 6
Term1 7
Term1 8
Term1 9
Term1 10
Term1 11
Term1 12
Term1 13
Term1 14
Term1 15
Term1 16
Term1 17
Term1 18
96
Term1 19
Term1 20
Term1 21
Term1 22
Term1 23
Term1 24
Term1 25
Term1 26
Term1 27
Term1 28
Term1 29
Term1 30
Term1 31
Term1 32
Term1 33
Term1 34
Term1 35
Term1 36
Term1 37
Term1 38
Term1 39
Term1 40
Term1 41
Term1 42
Term1 43
Term1 44
Term1 45
Term1 46
Term1 47
97
Term1 48
Term1 49
Term1 50
Term1 51
Term1 52
Term1 53
Term1 54
Term1 55
Term1 56
Term1 57
Term1 58
Term1 59
Term1 60
Codes for Q815 Codes for Q816
1. Over scooping
2. Less food was delivered to the school than required
3. Lack of firewood therefore did not cook on certain days
4. No cook to prepare the food
5. Food was not delivered on time
6. Lack of cooking utensils
7. Other (Specify)
1. Pupils brought their own lunch from home
2. Pupils were sent home to eat during lunch time
3. Lunch purchased by school using school fees
4. Pupils did not eat lunch at all
5. Other (specify)
98
Section 8: Record attendance & Food Utilization (SMP Form 6) (Continued)
YEAR 2016
Term Day Date Pre-Primary
Attendance
Primary
Attendance
Total
Attendance
School
Feeding
Provided
1. Yes
2. No (go to
Q815)
Maize /
bulgar
wheat
(Kg)
Pulses
(Kg)
Veg.
Oil
(Kg)
Salt
(Kg)
CSB
(Kg)
Top 3 reasons for
missed meals.
(Use code below)
What was the
source of lunch
eaten on those
days when meal
was not provided?
(Use code below)
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Q801 Q802 Q803 Q804 Q805 Q806 Q807 Q808 Q809 Q810 Q811 Q812 Q813 Q814 Q815 Q816
Term2 1
Term2 2
Term2 3
Term2 4
Term2 5
Term2 6
Term2 7
Term2 8
Term2 9
Term2 10
Term2 11
Term2 12
Term2 13
Term2 14
Term2 15
Term2 16
Term2 17
Term2 18
Term2 19
99
Term2 20
Term2 21
Term2 22
Term2 23
Term2 24
Term2 25
Term2 26
Term2 27
Term2 28
Term2 29
Term2 30
Term2 31
Term2 32
Term2 33
Term2 34
Term2 35
Term2 36
Term2 37
Term2 38
Term2 39
Term2 40
Term2 41
Term2 42
Term2 43
Term2 44
Term2 45
Term2 46
Term2 47
Term2 48
100
Term2 49
Term2 50
Term2 51
Term2 52
Term2 53
Term2 54
Term2 55
Term2 56
Term2 57
Term2 58
Term2 59
Term2 60
Term2 61
Term2 62
Term2 63
Term2 64
Term2 65
Term2 66
Term2 67
Term2 68
Term2 69
Term2 70
Codes for Q815 Codes for Q816
1. Over scooping
2. Less food was delivered to the school than required
3. Lack of firewood therefore did not cook on certain days
4. No cook to prepare the food
5. Food was not delivered on time
1. Pupils brought their own lunch from home
2. Pupils were sent home to eat during lunch time
3. Lunch purchased by school using school fees
4. Pupils did not eat lunch at all
5. Other (specify)
101
6. Lack of cooking utensils
7. Other (Specify)
102
Section 8: Record attendance & Food Utilization (SMP Form 6) (Continued)
YEAR 2015
Term Day Date Pre-Primary
Attendance
Primary
Attendance
Total
Attendance
School
Feeding
Provided
1. Yes
2. No (go to
Q815)
Maize /
bulgar
wheat
(Kg)
Pulses
(Kg)
Veg.
Oil
(Kg)
Salt
(Kg)
CSB
(Kg)
Top 3 reasons for
missed meals.
(Use code below)
What was the
source of lunch
eaten on those
days when meal
was not provided?
(Use code below)
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Q801 Q802 Q803 Q804 Q805 Q806 Q807 Q808 Q809 Q810 Q811 Q812 Q813 Q814 Q815 Q816
Term1 1
Term1 2
Term1 3
Term1 4
Term1 5
Term1 6
Term1 7
Term1 8
Term1 9
Term1 10
Term1 11
Term1 12
Term1 13
Term1 14
Term1 15
Term1 16
Term1 17
Term1 18
Term1 19
103
Term1 20
Term1 21
Term1 22
Term1 23
Term1 24
Term1 25
Term1 26
Term1 27
Term1 28
Term1 29
Term1 30
Term1 31
Term1 32
Term1 33
Term1 34
Term1 35
Term1 36
Term1 37
Term1 38
Term1 39
Term1 40
Term1 41
Term1 42
Term1 43
Term1 44
Term1 45
Term1 46
Term1 47
Term1 48
104
Term1 49
Term1 50
Term1 51
Term1 52
Term1 53
Term1 54
Term1 55
Term1 56
Term1 57
Term1 58
Term1 59
Term1 60
Codes for Q815 Codes for Q816
1. Over scooping
2. Less food was delivered to the school than required
3. Lack of firewood therefore did not cook on certain days
4. No cook to prepare the food
5. Food was not delivered on time
6. Lack of cooking utensils
7. Other (Specify)
1. Pupils brought their own lunch from home
2. Pupils were sent home to eat during lunch time
3. Lunch purchased by school using school fees
4. Pupils did not eat lunch at all
5. Other (specify)
105
Section 8: Record attendance & Food Utilization (SMP Form 6) (Continued)
YEAR 2015
Term Day Date Pre-Primary
Attendance
Primary
Attendance
Total
Attendance
School
Feeding
Provided
1. Yes
2. No (go to
Q815)
Maize /
bulgar
wheat
(Kg)
Pulses
(Kg)
Veg.
Oil
(Kg)
Salt
(Kg)
CSB
(Kg)
Top 3 reasons for
missed meals.
(Use code below)
What was the
source of lunch
eaten on those
days when meal
was not provided?
(Use code below)
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Q801 Q802 Q803 Q804 Q805 Q806 Q807 Q808 Q809 Q810 Q811 Q812 Q813 Q814 Q815 Q816
Term2 1
Term2 2
Term2 3
Term2 4
Term2 5
Term2 6
Term2 7
Term2 8
Term2 9
Term2 10
Term2 11
Term2 12
Term2 13
Term2 14
Term2 15
Term2 16
Term2 17
Term2 18
Term2 19
106
Term2 20
Term2 21
Term2 22
Term2 23
Term2 24
Term2 25
Term2 26
Term2 27
Term2 28
Term2 29
Term2 30
Term2 31
Term2 32
Term2 33
Term2 34
Term2 35
Term2 36
Term2 37
Term2 38
Term2 39
Term2 40
Term2 41
Term2 42
Term2 43
Term2 44
Term2 45
Term2 46
Term2 47
Term2 48
107
Term2 49
Term2 50
Term2 51
Term2 52
Term2 53
Term2 54
Term2 55
Term2 56
Term2 57
Term2 58
Term2 59
Term2 60
Codes for Q815 Codes for Q816
1. Over scooping
2. Less food was delivered to the school than required
3. Lack of firewood therefore did not cook on certain days
4. No cook to prepare the food
5. Food was not delivered on time
6. Lack of cooking utensils
7. Other (Specify)
1. Pupils brought their own lunch from home
2. Pupils were sent home to eat during lunch time
3. Lunch purchased by school using school fees
4. Pupils did not eat lunch at all
5. Other (specify)
108
Section 8: Record attendance & Food Utilization (SMP Form 6) (Continued)
YEAR 2015
Term Day Date Pre-Primary
Attendance
Primary
Attendance
Total
Attendance
School
Feeding
Provided
1. Yes
2. No (go to
Q815)
Maize /
bulgar
wheat
(Kg)
Pulses
(Kg)
Veg.
Oil
(Kg)
Salt
(Kg)
CSB
(Kg)
Top 3 reasons for
missed meals.
(Use code below)
What was the
source of lunch
eaten on those
days when meal
was not provided?
(Use code below)
Boys Girls Boys Girls
Q801 Q802 Q803 Q804 Q805 Q806 Q807 Q808 Q809 Q810 Q811 Q812 Q813 Q814 Q815 Q816
Term3 1
Term3 2
Term3 3
Term3 4
Term3 5
Term3 6
Term3 7
Term3 8
Term3 9
Term3 10
Term3 11
Term3 12
Term3 13
Term3 14
Term3 15
Term3 16
Term3 17
Term3 18
Term3 19
Term3 20
109
Term3 21
Term3 22
Term3 23
Term3 24
Term3 25
Term3 26
Term3 27
Term3 28
Term3 29
Term3 30
Term3 31
Term3 32
Term3 33
Term3 34
Term3 35
Term3 36
Term3 37
Term3 38
Term3 39
Term3 40
Term3 41
Term3 42
Term3 43
Term3 44
Term3 45
Term3 46
Term3 47
Term3 48
Term3 49
110
Term3 50
Term3 51
Term3 52
Term3 53
Term3 54
Term3 55
Term3 56
Term3 57
Term3 58
Term3 59
Term3 60
Term3 61
Term3 62
Term3 63
Term3 64
Term3 65
Term3 66
Term3 67
Term3 68
Term3 69
Term3 70
Codes for Q815 Codes for Q816
1. Over scooping
2. Less food was delivered to the school than required
3. Lack of firewood therefore did not cook on certain days
4. No cook to prepare the food
5. Food was not delivered on time
6. Lack of cooking utensils
1. Pupils brought their own lunch from home
2. Pupils were sent home to eat during lunch time
3. Lunch purchased by school using school fees
4. Pupils did not eat lunch at all
5. Other (specify)
111
7. Other (Specify)
112
Section 9: Delivery Record
Q900a: What quantity of food was received during the academic year 2016?
Was there any
carryoverstock for this
item at the beginning
of Term 2 of 2016
(January)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q920)
Amount in
kg
Did school receive this
item in Term 2 of 2016?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q922)
Amount in kg Any loss incurred
during Term 2 of
2016?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q924)
Amount in kg Actual
Delivery Date
Expected
delivery date
(based on
Distribution
Plan)
Q901a Q902a Q903a Q904a Q905a Q906a Q907a Q908a Q909a
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
3 Pulses
4 Vegetable Oil
5 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
6 Salt
7 Other
8 Other
#2
9 Other
#3 _
113
Section 9: Delivery Record (CONTINUED)
Q900b: What quantity of food was received during the academic year 2016?
Was there any
carryoverstock for this
item at the beginning
of Term 1 of 2016
(January)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q920)
Amount in
kg
Did school receive this
item in Term 1 of 2016?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q922)
Amount in kg Any loss incurred
during Term 1 of
2016?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q924)
Amount in kg Actual
Delivery Date
Expected
delivery date
(based on
Distribution
Plan)
Q901b Q902b Q903b Q904b Q905b Q906b Q907b Q908b Q909b
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
3 Pulses
4 Vegetable Oil
5 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
6 Salt
7 Other
8 Other
#2
9 Other
#3 _
114
Section 9: Delivery Record (CONTINUED)
Q900c: What quantity of food was received during the academic year 2015?
Was there any
carryoverstock for this
item at the beginning
of Term 3 of 2015
(September)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q904)
Amount in
kg
Did school receive this
item in Term 3 of 2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q906)
Amount in kg Any loss incurred
during Term 3 of
2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q908)
Amount in kg Actual
Delivery Date
Expected
delivery date
(based on
Distribution
Plan)
Q901c Q902c Q903c Q904c Q905c Q906c Q907c Q908c Q909c
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
3 Pulses
4 Vegetable Oil
5 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
6 Salt
7 Other
8 Other
#2
9 Other
#3 _
115
Section 9: Delivery Record (CONTINUED)
Q900d: What quantity of food was received during the academic year 2015?
Was there any
carryoverstock for this
item at the beginning
of Term 2 of 2015
(May)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q912)
Amount in
kg
Did school receive this
item in Term 2 of 2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q914)
Amount in kg Any loss incurred
during Term 2 of
2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q916)
Amount in kg Actual
Delivery Date
Expected
delivery date
(based on
Distribution
Plan)
Q901d Q902d Q903d Q904d Q905d Q906d Q907d Q908d Q909d
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
3 Pulses
4 Vegetable Oil
5 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
6 Salt
7 Other
8 Other
#2
9 Other
#3 _
116
Section 9: Delivery Record (CONTINUED)
Q900e: What quantity of food was received during the academic year 2015?
Was there any
carryoverstock for this
item at the beginning
of Term 1 of 2015
(January)?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to Q920)
Amount in
kg
Did school receive this
item in Term 1 of 2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q922)
Amount in kg Any loss incurred
during Term 1 of
2015?
1. Yes
2. No(skip to Q924)
Amount in kg Actual
Delivery Date
Expected
delivery date
(based on
Distribution
Plan)
Q901e Q902e Q903e Q904e Q905e Q906e Q907e Q908e Q909e
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
3 Pulses
4 Vegetable Oil
5 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
6 Salt
7 Other
8 Other
#2
9 Other
#3 _
117
6.1.1.1.1 School Questionnaire B:
Observation of School Facilities
(To be conducted by interviewer on the day of school visit)
Section 1: School Identification:
Section 2: Observation of School Facilities
(To be administered by interviewer during the actual school visit)
This section looks at various facilities available within the school.
Question Response Code
Q301 Number of classrooms
Q302 Where does the school store its
supplementary books
1. A dedicated room for a library
2. Staff room
3. No Supplementary books at all (go
to Q304)
4. Other room
(Specify )
Q303 How many supplementary books does the
school have?
Q304 Does your school have a dedicated kitchen? 1. Yes (go to Q306)
2. No
Q305 If not, where is the food normally prepared? 1. In a classroom
2. Open space
3. Other
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q105 School Name
Q106 Latitude
Q107 Longitude
Q111 What is the school category 1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
Q112 Kindly indicate your Mobile Phone
number
Q113 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q114 Name of Enumerator
118
Q306 Does your school use energy saving stoves? 1. Yes
2. No
Q307 What is the main source of DRINKING
water for the school?
1. Piped water into dwelling, plot, or
yard
2. Public tap/standpipe
3. Tube well/borehole
4. Protected dug well
5. Protected spring
6. Rainwater collection
7. Unprotected spring
8. Cart with small tank/drum
9. Tanker truck
10 Surface water (river, dam, lake,
pond, stream, canal, or irrigation
channel)
11 Bottled water
12. Children carry water from home
13. Other
Q308 Does the school have toilets for pupils?
OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No (go to section 4)
Q309 Do the toilets have hand washing facilities
within or nearby?
OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. Some of them
3. No
Q310 How many toilets blocks have hand washing
facilities within or nearby?
Q311 Do girls have separate toilets from boys?
OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
What type of toilet does the school have Does your
school have this
type of toilet?
1. Yes
2. No (go to
next)
Number of boys’
toilets
Number of girls’
toilets
Number of mixed
toilets
Q312 Q313 Q314 Q315 Q316
1 Flush or pour/flush facilities
connected to a: (Piped sewer,
septic, pit latrine)
2 Flush or pour/flush toilets without
a sewer connection
3 Pit latrines with a slab
4 Pit latrines without slab/open pit
5 Ventilated improved pit latrines
6 Composting toilets
7 Bucket latrines
8 Hanging toilets/latrines
9 No facilities, open defecation
119
School Questionnaire C:
Observation of Attendance in School
To be conducted by an interviewer during the school visit
Section 1: School Identification:
Section 2: Observation School Survey
(To be administered by interviewer during the actual school visit)
Pupils attending class during survey Day of Interview
Compute from Roster
2 days before
interview
Compute from
Roster 2 days
before interview
Total Number
of Registered
Pupils in Class
Q501a Q501b Q501c Q501d
Standard 1
Standard 2
Standard 3
Standard 4
Standard 5
Standard 6
Standard 7
Teachers present in school during survey
Day of Interview Compute from Roster
1 day before interview
Compute from
Roster 2 days
before interview
Total Number
of Teachers
employed in
the school
Q502a Q502b Q502c Q502d
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q105 School Name
Q106 Latitude
Q107 Longitude
Q111 What is the school category 1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
Q112 Kindly indicate your Mobile Phone
number
Q113 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q114 Name of Enumerator
120
6.1.1.1.2 School Questionnaire D:
Observation of Lunch Serving in the School
To be conducted by an interviewer during the school visit during lunch hour
Section 1: School Identification:
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q105 School Name
Q106 Latitude
Q107 Longitude
Q111 What is the school category 1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
Q112 Kindly indicate your Mobile Phone
number
Q113 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q114 Name of Enumerator
Section 2: Observation of the Lunch Servings
The enumerator weighs 20 random pupils’ rations
(in grams)
Which Standard (class)
is the pupil
Observations
Day of Interview Day 2
Q503 Q504
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
121
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
How many teachers eat lunch with food coming from the same pot used to feed the pupils?
(FROM OBSERVATION)
Day 1
Q510
122
6.1.1.1.3 School Questionnaire E:
Observation of Commodities Provided for Cooking
To be conducted by an interviewer during the school visit during the provision of
Commodities
Section 1: School Identification:
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q105 School Name
Q106 Latitude
Q107 Longitude
Q111 What is the school category 1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
Q112 Kindly indicate your Mobile Phone
number
Q113 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q114 Name of Enumerator
The enumerator weighs commodities cooked on each school survey day (distinguish
between commodities provided by WFP and by School/Parent contribution)
(in grams)
No Items
WFP School Parents
Q513 Q514 Q515
1 Maize
2 Bulgar Wheat/Rice
4 Pulses
5 Vegetable Oil
6 CSB/CSM/UNIMIX
7 Salt
8 Fruits
9 Vegetables
10 Meat
11 Other (specify)
12 Other (specify)
123
No Non-food item contribution by School/Parents
Observed during visit
1. Yes
2. No
Q520
1 Water
2 Firewood
3 Cooking Utensils
4 Cleaning Products
5 Plates and cutlery for pupils
6 Cooks Salary
7 Other (specify)
8 Other (specify)
9 Other (specify)
6.1.1.1.4 Teacher Questionnaire
Respondent Identification
# Question Response
Q101 County
Sub-County- District
Zone
School name
Q102 Date of Interview / /
Q103 Name of Enumerator
# Teacher Name
(optional)
Class In your observation, on
average in 2015, what
percentage of students
in your classes was
inattentive?
According to you, what is the
main reason for students’
inattentiveness?
1. Hunger
2. Tiredness from domestic or
income-generating work
3. Sickness
4. Perceived unimportance of
primary education
5. Other (specify)
According to you, if WFP
SMP would stop today,
what would be the
consequence on pupil
attendance?
1. No consequence,
attendance remains the
same
2. Attendance will drop
slightly (10%)
3. Attendance will drop
drastically (over 30%)
Q104 Q105 Q106 Q107 Q108 Q109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
124
9
10
Comment:
Note to World Food Program: In as much as the above was used to measure attentiveness at midline and end line, we would
like to propose an additional approach that considers each and every pupil who had been sampled as opposed to general
assessment of the entire class by the class teacher. At analysis, engagement will be measured as percentage of sampled pupils
who were rated positively by their teachers out of all pupils sampled in the survey. Additionally, an average index ranging
from 1 to 5 will be used to represent engagement score.
This will be an additional measure beyond the above.
For each and every Class Teacher: As in relation to the specific pupil who was sampled
Question
On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 Never, 2 Rarely, 3 Don’t Know, 4 Sometimes, 5 Always, 98 -Not
Applicable)
Pupil 1 (Female) Pupil 2 (Male)
The student asks questions or contributed to discussions in class?
The student seeks advice from academic staff?
The student makes class presentation?
The student uses library resources in school?
The student comes to class having completed readings or assignments?
The student keeps up to date with your studies?
The student works with other students on projects during class?
The student works with other students outside class to prepare assignments?
The student is attentive in class?
125
6.1.1.1.5 Pupil Questionnaire
Respondent Identification
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Q102 Sub-County- District
Q103 Zone
Q101 School name
Q102 Student name
Q103 Sex 1=Male
2=Female
Q104 Age
Q105 Current Grade/Class
Q106 Father' name
Q107 Mother's name
Q108 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2016)
Q109 Name of Enumerator (alias/code
name)
Section 2
Question Response Code
Q201 Did you eat a meal during lunch time
yesterday/last school day?
1=Yes
2=No (go to Q205)
Q202 Where did this meal come from? 1. Lunch provided by school
2. Bring own food and eat at
school
3. Pay for lunch e.g. kiosk or school canteen
4. Went home for lunch and then came back
5. Other
Q203 Were you still hungry after the meal? 1=Yes
2=No
Q204 Did you leave anything on the plate? 1=Yes
2=No
Q205 In the past 5 school days, how many days
did you eat breakfast before going to
school?
0 to 5
Q206 In the past 5 school days, how many days
did you eat a meal after going to school
(and before going to bed)?
0 to 5
Q207 Normally, if you become aware that the
school food is finished, do you come to
school the next day?
1=Yes
2=No
126
Q208 How long does it take to
get to school?
1=less than 15 minutes,
2=between 15 and 30 minutes,
3=between 30 and 60 minutes,
4=more than 1 hour
Q209 How do you travel to school? 1=on foot,
2=by bicycle,
3=by car,
4=by bus,
5=by motorbike,
6=other
6.1.1.1.6 Household Questionnaire
Respondent Identification
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Sub-County- District
Zone
School Name
Q102 Household address
Q103 Household size
Q104 Number of pupils in pre-primary and primary school within
the HH
Q105 Number of school years attended by the head of the
household?
Q106 What is the main occupation of the head of the household? 1=Too old to work
2= Student
3= Farmer
4= Pastoralist
5= Salaried Employee
6= Casual Labourer
7= Self-employed business
8= Not currently working
9= Other
Q107 What is the head of the household’s current marital status? 1 = Married or living together
2 = Divorced or separated
3 = Widowed
4 = Single
Q108 Date of Interview
Q109 Enumerator Name
Section 1: Demographics
127
# Name of Respondent Age of
Respondent
Sex
1=Male
2=Female
Phone Number Relationship to the head of the
household
1= head
2=spouse
3=elder son/daughter
4=brother/sister
5=other relative
Q110 Q111 Q112 Q113 Q114 Q115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
128
Section 2: Questions are related exclusively to the pupil through which this HH member was selected
Respondent
ID (from
previous
section)
Which
class/grade
does child
attend?
In the past 5 school
days, how many days
did the child eat
breakfast before
going to school?
(0 to 5)
In the past 5 school
days, how many days
did the child eat ameal
after going to school
(and before going to
bed)?
(0 to 5)
On school days, when
school meals are
provided, do you
reduce the portion of
food provided to the
pupil compared to the
week end?
1. Yes
2. No (go to Q207)
On average how much
do you reduce the
portion compared to
the week end?
1. 25%
2. 50%
3. 75%
Was there a time in
2015 when the school
did not provide a
meal?
1. Yes
2. No (go to Q209)
3. I don’t know
If yes, how did the child eat lunch at
school?
1. Child brought own food and eat at
school
2. Gave cash to child to buy lunch
4. Child came home for lunch and
then
went back to school
5. Child remained home and eat
home
6. No lunch
7. Other (Specify)
Q201 Q202 Q203 Q204 Q205 Q206 Q207 Q208
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
129
Section 3: Questions are related exclusively to the pupil through which this HH member was selected (CONTINUE)
Respondent ID
(from previous
section)
Did the school asked
payment specific for
school meals during the
academic year 2015?
1. Yes (go to Q210)
2. No (go to Q211)
How
much?
(In Kshs)
During the
academic year
2015,
approximately
how many days
was the child
absent from
school?
Days absent
for school
closure
during the
school
terms
Days absent
for child
work on
farm or
livestock
tending
Days absent
for child
looking
after
siblings or
domestic
work
Days
absent
because of
lack of
food
Days absent
because of
insecurity,
fear of going
to school
Days
absent for
sickness
Days absent for
ceremonies
and family
events
Days
absent due
to skipping
school
Q201 Q209 Q210 Q211 Q212 Q213 Q214 Q215 Q216 Q217 Q218 Q219
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
130
Section 4: School related questions
Question Response Code
Q301 Please list at least 3 benefits of Primary education? 1. Improves literacy rate
2. Social Skill Development
3. Increases ability to learn new skills (adoption of technology)
4. Girls remain more in school and early marriages are delayed
5. Improves cohesion in the community
6. Helps break the cycle of poverty
7. Increases the chances of the pupils' future economic self-reliance
8. Through girls' education, improves the general wellbeing of households (nutrition, health etc)
Q302 Do any avenues exist through which you can get
information or make complaints on the SMP?
1=Yes
2=No (go to Q304)
Q303 If yes, which avenues exist? 1 .Regular meetings with SMC
2. Regular meetings with School Administrators
3. Suggestion Box
4. Hotline
5. Other (specify)
Q304 Are you aware of the existence of the School Meal
Committee (SMC)?
1=Yes
2=No (go to Q306)
Q305 If Yes, what is your perception of the SMCs involvement in
the SMP.
1=High
2=Medium
3=Low
Q306: In the past 30 days, please indicate the number of cases of physical and/or emotional threats to the safety of your child that he/she was exposed to when walking to and from school or at school.
ID Type of threat Number of cases child was exposed to this threat
Q306_1 Q306_2 Q306_3
1 Rape
2 Sexual Harassment
3 Robbed
4 Animal Attacks
5 Bullying
6 Abuse of drugs
131
6.1.1.1.7 Cook Questionnaire
Respondent Identification
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Sub-County- District
Zone
School name
Q102 Respondent name
Q103 Sex of the Respondent: 1. Male
2. Female
Q104 Respondent's Position: 1. Cook
2. Food Preparer
Q105 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q106 Name of Enumerator
132
Section 2: School feeding program information
# Question Response Code
Q201 Are you trained in safe food preparation and storage
practices (confirm with any records, if available)?
1. Yes
2. No (go to Q203)
Q202 If Yes, how many times have you received training in
2015?
Q203 Do you have a valid health certificate? 1. Yes (go to Q205)
2. No
Q204 if no, what is the main reason? 1. Cannot afford the fee
2. Didn't have time to go to the health centre
3. Don't know how to get one
4. Don't think I need one
5. Other (specify)
Q205 Do children wash their hands before the meal? 1. Yes
2. No
Q206 When is the last time you received your salary? / MONTH/YEAR
Q207 Do you receive your salary regularly every month? 1. Yes
2. No
Q208 Do you use energy saving stoves? 1. Yes
2. No
Q209 Are the cooks clean and well groomed?
DIRECT OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Section 3: Safe Food Preparation Practices (for Cook)
# Question Response Code
Q301 Do you have a uniform or apron for use in the kitchen? 1. Yes
2. No
Q302 When do you clean your kitchen? 1. Every morning before food preparation,
often during the day and after use
2. After food preparation
3. At the end of the week
Q303 Which is the best source of water for cleaning and
cooking food?
1. Piped water, rain water and boreholes
which are well protected
2. Water from the river/streams
3. Water from a pond
Q304 When do you usually wash your hands for food
preparation?
1. Before handling food and often during
food preparation
2. After using the latrine
3. After finishing food preparation
4. Never
Q305 How do you ensure that food is clean before cooking? 1. Rinse it in water and cook
2. Remove foreign matters then cook
3. Use clean containers to collect it from the
store, remove foreign matters and then
wash it with clean water thoroughly before
cooking
133
Q306 When do you wash your cooking utensils (cooking pots,
lids, scoops, knives, plates etc.) with clean water and
soap
1. After use
2. Prior to using them
3. Prior to, after using them and drying them
in a rack before storage
Q307 Are there measures in place to prevent food from
contamination from pests and rodents? Name them:
1.
2.
Q308 What is the most important thing to check in food
before cooking?
1. Expiry date, packaging, color of the food,
presence of pests
2. Source of food
3. Colour of the package
Q309 How do you store cooked food prior to serving the
pupils?
1. Store cooked food in covered cooking pots
in a clean, safe place before serving the
pupils
2. Store cooked food in open containers
3. Store cooked food outside the kitchen
without covers
134
6.1.1.1.8 Storekeeper Questionnaire
Respondent identification
# Question Response Code
Q101 County
Sub-County- District
Zone
School name
Q102 Respondent name
Q103 Sex of the Respondent: 1. Male
2. Female
Q104 Date of Interview / / Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
Q105 Name of Enumerator
Section 2: School feeding program information
# Question Response Code
Q201 Does your school have a dedicated food store room? 1. Yes
2. No
Q202 Is the food store room lockable?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q203 Is the store room properly ventilated?
DIRECT OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q204 Is there any evidence of presence of rodents in the store?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q205 Is there any evidence of presence of insects (weevil and others)?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q206 Is there any evidence of mould and excess of humidity?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q207 Is there any evidence of spillage or leakage?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q208 Is the food stored off the ground?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No (go to Q210)
Q209 If yes, does the school use improvised raised pallets for commodities'storage?
ASK QUESTION + OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
Q210 Does the school carry out pest/insects control measures? 1. Yes
2. No
Q211 Are you trained in safe food preparation and storage practices? 1. Yes
2. No (End of interview)
Q212 If Yes, how many times have you received training in 2015?
135
Annex 9: Qualitative data collection tools
6.1.1.1.9 Key Informant Documentation and Introduction Form
My name is and I work for TNS RMS East Africa, a research agency
conducting economic and social research in different disciplines. We are currently conducting 
an evaluation of the School Meals Program implemented by World Food Programbetween 
2014 and 2016. The main of the evaluation is to assess the achievements, if any, of the program 
and document the lessons learnt by the program. You have been selected as one of the key 
informants who could provide relevant information for the evaluation. Your participation in 
this evaluation is voluntary. Your responses will be treated with confidence since the 
information you provide will be combined with other responses to give a general picture of the 
assessment. During this interview, I will record the interview to allow for later transcription 
and analysis of data. If you have any questions please feel free to call TNS Public Affairs team, 
specifically Stephen Aloo or Bernard Nyauchi who are the team leaders on +254 (0)709 842 
000 during office hours. Do you have any questions for me? Do you agree to participate in this
evaluation?
Moderator Document Consent: Yes/No
Name of Key Informant
Organisation
Position in the Organisation
Years with the organisation
Current Location of Key Informant
Date of Interview
Method of Interview 1. Phone Based Interview
2. Face to Face Interview
Name of Interview
6.1.1.1.10 Key Informant Guide WFP Staff
WFP Officers Nairobi
Logistics Team:
1. Location: where are you currently based?
2. What is your role in in the project? (Probe for how long they have been
involved inthe specific component on the project)
3. Whom do you work with in the
project?Food Distribution
4. How is the quantity of food to be distributed to the schools calculated at DEOs' level?
o Probe: Is it based on enrolment information received from the
schools or onfood availability only?
136
5. Regarding the Distribution Plans, is data on actual food received by the
schoolsrecorded following the delivery?
6. Confirm the pipeline supply chain, particularly the secondary transport￾are thelogistics teams in Nairobi able to control the timely delivery of 
the secondary transport?
7. Does WFP ever experience delays in the dispatch of food due to
customs andclearance issues?
o If yes, what are the main reasons for the pipeline breaks when they occur?
o Probe: Tender process for identification of trucks for primary
transport-experiences and lessons learned.
Food Storage
8. Relationship with DEO and local government officials – lessons learnt and
recommendations.
9. What are some of the losses that WFP have experienced in its own
warehouses?(Probe for when) If so, due to what reasons?
10. What are the procedures adopted for pest control and management in the
DEOswarehouse?
o How common is it for these warehouses to incur food losses due to
pest/insectattacks?
o What are the main reasons for food losses in DEOs
warehouses?Program Handover
11. In terms of the handover of the program to the government (HGSMP), are
there any plans for WFP to handover some of the logistics
aspects/arrangements?
o If yes, elaborate which aspects
o If no, which aspects would you recommend
Recommendations
12. In your opinion, are there any areas where WFP could provide additional
support? i.e. procurement and logistics aspects, technical assistance
13. What are some of the factors that have affected implementation of the SMP?
o Negative
o Positive
14. Do you have any recommendation regarding specific aspects that should be
addressed by the TNS Evaluation team?
6.1.1.1.11 Key Informant Guide WFP Staff
This guide will be administered to the School Meal program team based in Nairobi and
at the counties
School Meal Program Team:
1. Location: where are you currently based?
2. What is your role in in the project? (Probe for how long they have been
involved inthe specific component on the project)
3. Brain storm main points for benefits of primary education (related
to thequestionnaires).
4. According to your observations, is there an actual difference in the ration size 
of pre-primary and primary children or do they all receive the same amount of
food?
137
o Probe: if and how the schools record these different ration sizes 
distributed tochildren?
5. Regarding the meal rations, what are the schools' coping mechanisms if they
receiveless food? Do they re-calculate the rations based on food available?
6. According to your observations, what has been the general experience with
o Teachers' attendance?
o Pupils’ attendance?
7. What are the community’s contribution to the SMP
o Probe: Food and non-food items
8. What are WFP's generic impressions on the hygiene conditions of the
differentschools across counties? Are the basic standards generally met?
9. Do schools usually have both a cook and a store keeper or are these functions 
coveredby the same person?
10. According to your experience, do schools have energy efficient stoves?
11. Do you have any recommendations regarding specific aspects that
should beaddressed by the TNS Evaluation Team?
6.1.1.1.12 Key Informant Guide WFP Staff
Senior Management and Key Program Staff: Director Level
1. Location: where are you currently based?
2. What is your role in in the project? (Probe for how long they have been
involved inthe specific component on the project)
Targeting
1. Generally, what are your views about the targeting for the WFP SMP?
(Probe fortarget population, success, challenges)
2. Which category of respondents or counties benefited the most from the
program(Probe for reasons)
3. What changes in the targeting did your team implement along the progamme?
(Probefor reasons for the specific mentions).
Success:
4. What would you say are some of the successes of the WFP SMP program?
5. What are the major reasons for the successes of the WFP SMP
program?Challenges
6. What are some of the key challenges experienced in the implementation
of theprogram? (Probe for specific responses?)
7. What were the coping measures for each challenge?
8. What recommendations would you make for improving the challenges in
future?SMP Handover
9. How is the handover process going?
o Probe: whether it is going according to WFP Country Progam plans
o If no, what are the changes?
10. What are the plans to capacity build the GoK for the HGSMP in relations
tosecondary transport in particular Commodity Management and Bidding 
process to select transporters as well as Quality Assurance? What are some of 
the successes around thesame? What are some of the challenges around this?
Sustainability
11. What is your understanding of the sustainability of the SMP? (Probe for
what theymean by sustainability)
Recommendations
138
12. What recommendations would you give to improve any future 
implementation ofSMP?
6.1.1.1.13 Key Informant Guide for Donors
USDA Representative in Nairobi and Washington (Donor)
1. Location: where are you based?
2. What is role of USDA in the project?
3. Whom do you work with in the project?
o Probe for synergy with WFP and other stakeholders
4. How has your experience WFP management of current agreement been like?
5. What are the major challenges with the implementation of the SMP
6. What is your view on the pipeline breaks and delay of commodity?
7. What is your view on the handover strategy and the involvement of USDA
in theSMP beyond 2016?
o Probe for difference in cash versus the in-Kind
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada (DFATD) – (Donor)
1. What is role of DFATD in the SMP?
2. Whom do you work with in the project?
o Probe for synergies with WFP and other stakeholders
3. What is your view on the handover strategy?
4. What is the DFATD’s future funding plan for SMP?
5. What are the key lessons learnt?
6. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
6.1.1.1.14 Key Informant Guide for MoE
County Directors of Education (CDE) and District Education Officers (DEOs) (MOE):
1. Location: where are you currently based?
2. What is your role in in the project? (Probe for how long they have been
involved inthe specific component on the project)
Targeting
3. Generally what are your views about the targeting for the WFP SMP?
(Probe fortarget population, success, challenges)
4. Which category of respondents or counties benefited the most from the
program(Probe for reasons)
5. What changes in the targeting did your team implement along the progamme?
(Probefor reasons for the specific mentions).
6. What is the position and relevance of the SMP within the broader education
policiesand programs?
7. What are the education policies updated, issued or are under discussion
between 2014and 2015?
o Probe: number and examples of the policies
8. What is the involvement of MoE in the design of WFP M&E tools and the
selectionof USDA indicators?
Collaboration
9. How does MoE collaborate/interact with MoH in regards to the SMP?
o Probe: how they are linked and distinct role for each
o Probe for policy linkages between MoE and MoH
139
Effect
10. What is the impact of the SMP on enrolment?
o Probe: inflated figures and how it has been addressed
11. What is the impact of SMP on attendance of pupils?
12. What is your view on the methods used to assess literacy level?
o Probe for the methods used to assess literacy
13. What is the impact of SMP on attendance of teachers and the quality of teaching?
14. Were any of the MoE officials trained by WFP in 2014?
o If yes, probe on number of people trained, type of trainings,
frequency andperceived impact
Success:
15. What would you say are some of the successes of the WFP SMP program?
16. What are the major reasons for the successes of the WFP SMP
program?Challenges
17. What are some of the key challenges experienced in the implementation
of theprogram? (Probe for specific responses?)
o Probe for: Practice/implementation challenges
o Probe for policy challenges
18. What were the coping measures for each challenge?
19. What recommendations would you make for improving the challenges in
future?Sustainability
20.What is your understanding of the sustainability of the SMP? (Probe for
what theymean by sustainability)
21. Probe what they consider the devolved governments could do to improve the SMP
22.What measures have been put in place by the national government towards the
futureof SMP? (Probe for the next 5 years; ask for any documentation)
23.What measures have been put in place by the county government towards the
futureof SMP? (Probe for the next 5 years; ask for any documentation)
Recommendations
24.What recommendations would you give to improve any future 
implementation ofSMP?
6.1.1.1.15 Key Informant Guide for Other Respondents
Section A of this guide is applicable to Parents, Head teachers, and partners. However,
Section B varies based on additional questions that need to be addressed by specific
respondents.
Section A
Icebreaker
1. Location: where are you currently
based?Relevance of the Program
2. Generally what would you say are the key needs of children in arid and
semi-aridcommunities? (Probe for specificity)
3. To the best of your knowledge, what is currently being done to address the
needs thatyou have mentioned and who is implementing it? (Probe for each 
and every need mentioned)
4. What is your understanding of the WFP 
SMP?Effectiveness of the SMP
5. What would you say were some of the achievements of the School Meals 
Program(SMP)?
140
6. What contributed to achievements you just mentioned? (Probe for each
achievement)Efficiency
7. In your opinion what would you say about the time taken in the implementation
of theSMP program? (Probe for entire project, delivery of food, trainings for 
teachers etc.; base this on the respondents understanding of SMP).
8. How easy was it for WFP to implement the various activities? (Prompt 
based onunderstanding of WFP SMP)
9. If respondent mentions delays, what could have caused the delays
in theimplementation?
10. What is your comment about WFP involving the community in decision
making forthe SMP program? (Probe specific for respondent, community, 
teachers, parents, stakeholders)
11. What has been the coordination and cooperation of various partners who
are doingsimilar projects to WFP? ( Base this on response to 3 above and 
understanding of WFP) Duplication of effort and management of
duplication
Sustainability
12. In your opinion who should be responsible for the School Meals Program?
(Probe forhow)
13. Generally speaking, what measures have been put in place by the national 
governmenttowards the future of SMP? (Probe for the next 5 years; ask for any
documentation)
14. Generally speaking, what measures have been put in place by the county
governmenttowards the future of SMP? (Probe for the next 5 years; ask for any
documentation)
15. Generally speaking, what measures have been put in place by schools
towards thefuture of SMP?
16. Generally speaking, what measures have been put in place by the community
towardsthe future of SMP?
17. What is your understanding of the sustainability of the SMP? (Probe for
what theymean by sustainability)
Challenges
18. What are some of the key challenges experienced in the implementation
of theprogram? (Probe for specific responses?)
19. What were the coping measures for each challenge?
20.What recommendations would you make for improving the challenges in
future?Recommendations
21. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
Section B
Additional Questions Specific to MoH (National Level)
1. What are the child health and nutrition policies updated, issued or under
discussion in2015 and 2016?
Probe: number and examples of the policies
2. Which MoH officials were trained by WFP in 2015? (probe on number of
peopletrained, type of trainings, frequency and perceived impact)
3. What is the MoH collaboration/interaction with MoE in regards to the SMP?
141
Additional questions to feed the Children
1. Have you ever experienced pipeline breaks i.e. delays in food deliveries?
o Probe: what is the average delay time?
o Probe: What were the reasons for the delay?
2. What are the timelines for delivery by FTC once you receive food from WFP?
3. What is the condition of the storage facilities in Nairobi?
o Probe for pest infestation and fumigation procedures
4. Does FTC play a role in the monitoring procedure?
o If yes, what is the role of FTC?
5. What is the view on the SMP implementation and its performance?
o Probe for the following
o Ration size,
o Enrolment versus attendance,
o Actual feeding days
o Hygienic standards and storage procedures
6. What are the key lessons learnt?
Additional questions to Public Health Officers (PHOs) (MoH): (County Level)
1. Relationship with WFP and SMP implementation – discussion on
frequency/type of interaction, confirmation of roles and responsibilities,
lessons learnt and recommendations.
2. Training received through the support of WFP in 2014 – frequency, type,
number of people trained.
3. Discussion of status of facilities (store room, kitchen, etc) and storing
procedures in SMP schools.
4. Discussion of monitoring procedures for quality of the food delivered and
main challenges, if any.
5. Lesson learnt, areas of improvements, suggestions and recommendations to
improve SMP.
6. In your opinion, are there any areas where collaboration with WFP could be
strengthened?
7. Any recommendations or suggestions you may have for the evaluators.
Additional questions to Education officials (Quality Assurance Standard Officer, School
feeding Officer, Inspectors, TSC):
1. Relationship with WFP and SMP implementation – discussion on
frequency/type of interaction, confirmation of roles and responsibilities,
lessons learnt and recommendations;
2. Perceived impact of SMP on pupils’ attendance and education;
3. Discussion on main education constraints in the county and how these are
addressed by SMP;
4. In your opinion, what is the status of facilities in SMP schools (store room,
kitchen, etc).
5. In your opinion, are there any areas where WFP could provide additional
support?
6. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
142
Additional questions to Evidence action –Deworm the World Initiative (Complementary
partner)
1. Confirmation of Evidence Actions’ main role and activities implemented
within the education and child support sector, how their activities
complement the SMP and contribute to its relevance.
2. Frequency and geographic coverage of Evidence Action activities linked to the
SMP; main issues and recommendations.
3. What is the future fundraising trends and the effect on continuation of
Evidence Action Programs
4. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
Additional questions to UNICEF (UN Counterpart in Education)
1. What is the main role of UNICEF’s in the SMP?
o Probe for complementarity and synergies with WFP, MoE and GoK
o Probe for geographic coverage in relations to SMP
2. What activities is UNICEF implementing within the education and child
support sector in Kenya.
3. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
Additional questions to Partnership for Child Development (Complementary partner)
4. What is the main role of PCD in the SMP?
o Probe for complementarity and synergies with WFP
o Probe for geographic coverage in relations to SMP
o Probe for challenges encountered
5. What activities is PCD implementing within the education and child support
sector inKenya.
6. What recommendations would you give to improve any future
implementation of SMP?
Additional questions to SNV (complementary partner)
1. What is role of SNV in the project?
2. Whom do you work with in the project?
o Probe for complementarity and synergies with WFP and other
stakeholders
3. What is your view on the impact of the SMP?
4. What is your view on the handover strategy?
5. What is the SNV’s future funding plan for SMP?
6. What are the key lessons learnt?
143
Annex 10: List of schools selected for field visits
County District School Name
1. NAIROBI MAKADARA KALOLENI PRIMARY
STAREHE MATHARE NORTH PRIMARY SCHOOL
WESTLANDS KANGEMI YOUTH CENTRE
LANGATA MAKINA SELF HELP PRIMARY
STAREHE NDURURUNO PRIMARY SCHOOL
DAGORETTI KAGIRA PRIMARY
STAREHE VALLEY BRIDGE PRIMARY
LANGATA STARA RESCUE CENTRE
LANGATA LAINI SABA (CHRIST THE KING)
WESTLANDS WARUKU PRIMARY
LANGATA MAKINA BAPTIST PRIMARY
LANGATA LANGATA PRIMARY
2. GARISSA GARISSA NAJAH PRIMARY
GARISSA AL NUR PRIMARY
GARISSA SANKURI PRIMARY
GARISSA HYUGA PRIMARY
GARISSA ATHELEY PRIMARY
GARISSA BALICH PRIMARY
GARISSA ALFAROUQ PRIMARY
GARISSA JARIROT PRIMARY
GARISSA RAYA PRIMARY
GARISSA LANGO PRIMARY
GARISSA KAZUKO PRIMARY
GARISSA JARIBU PRIMARY
3. BARINGO EAST POKOT SUKUT
EAST POKOT TAMKAL
EAST POKOT CHEMERIL
EAST POKOT CHEWARA
EAST POKOT NYAKWAL PRIMARY
EAST POKOT NYAUNYAU
EAST POKOT AKWICHATIS
EAST POKOT LEMUYEK
EAST POKOT CHEPTURU
EAST POKOT KREZEE
EAST POKOT LOSIKIRIAMOI
EAST POKOT CHEPKARERAT PRIMARY
4. MARSABIT MARSABIT CENTRAL QACHACHA PRIMARY
MARSABIT CENTRAL SEGEL PRIMARY
MOYALE /SOLOLO MUKH GURA PRIMARY
LAISAMIS LAISAMIS PRIMARY
LAISAMIS MARTI PRIMARY
144
MARSABIT CENTRAL ILPUS PRIMARY
MARSABIT CENTRAL LAKARTINYA PRIMARY
LAISAMIS ARGE PRIMARY
MOYALE QATE PRIMARY
MOYALE /SOLOLO D/ELELE PRIMARY
LAISAMIS GUURAM PRIMARY
MOYALE /SOLOLO HAWECHA PRIMARY
5. ISIOLO MERTI KORBESA PRIMARY SCHOOL
MERTI DOLOLODAKIYE PRIMARY SCHOOL
MERTI GODA PRIMARY SCHOOL
ISIOLO ST. KIZITO PRIMARY SCHOOL
GARBATULLA KULAMAWE PRIMARY SCHOOL
ISIOLO DAABA PRIMARY SCHOOL
GARBATULLA WAKO WARIO PRIMARY SCHOOL
ISIOLO AKILI PRIMARY SCHOOL
ISIOLO PEPO LA TUMAINI PRIMARY SCHOOL
GARBATULLA DABASITI PRIMARY SCHOOL
ISIOLO TUALE PRIMARY SCHOOL
GARBATULLA YAQ BARSADI PRIMARY SCHOOL
6. SAMBURU SAMBURU CENTRAL NKORIKA PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL LPARTUK PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL AMAIYA PRIMARY
SAMBURU NORTH SUMURWAI PRIMARY
SAMBURU NORTH SIMITI PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL LPUSI PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL SEKETET PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL SUNONI PRIMARY
SAMBURU NORTH SERERIT PRIMARY
SAMBURU NORTH BARAGOI PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL LOKUTO PRIMARY
SAMBURU CENTRAL LEIRR PRIMARY
7. TURKANA TURKANA SOUTH LOUPWALA PRIMARY
TURKANA SOUTH KAEKUNYUK PRIMARY
TURKANA SOUTH NAMORTUNGA PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL NAPUU PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL NADOTO PRIMARY
TURKANA NORTH AIC LOKICHOGGIO GIRLS PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL KOONO PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL NASEKON PRIMARY
TURKANA NORTH TODONYANG PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL KALOKOL MIXED PRIMARY
TURKANA NORTH ABUR PRIMARY
TURKANA CENTRAL KALIMAPUS PRIMARY
8. TANA RIVER TANA DELTA BILISA PRIMARY
145
TANA RIVER ANOLE
TANA RIVER TITILA
TANA RIVER HOSINGO
TANA RIVER MATAGALA
TANA DELTA DIDAADE PRIMARY
TANA RIVER DARIME
TANA DELTA KINYADU PRIMARY
TANA DELTA GOLBANTI PRIMARY
TANA DELTA KILELENGWANI PRIMARY
TANA DELTA MNAZINI PRIMARY
TANA DELTA MAREMBO PRIMARY
9. WEST POKOT NORTH POKOT KALUKUNA PRIMARY
NORTH POKOT WASAT
NORTH POKOT NGOTUT
NORTH POKOT TIGHOT
NORTH POKOT KASITET
NORTH POKOT KONYAO DORCAS
NORTH POKOT MORWEBONG
NORTH POKOT KOSIA
NORTH POKOT NAPITIRO
NORTH POKOT ROCK-VALLEY
NORTH POKOT LOPUSHENIKOU
NORTH POKOT KIWAWA
146
Annex 11: Detailed methodology
General Approach
The evaluation used a cross-sectional study design that adopted both quantitative and
qualitative approaches to collection, analysis and reporting from both primary and
secondary data sources. The methodology used offered comparability to baseline and
midline assessment on most of the parameters and made some improvements aimed 
at improving reliability and segmented analysis context for the evaluation. The 
evaluation was implemented in four (4) distinct and overlapping methodological
steps:
Figure: Methodological Steps for the Evaluation
M1: Desk Based Review of Surveys, Reports, and Data
Desk based review of previous reports and data (baseline and midline), other program
monitoring reports and data that were availed by WFP, data and reports from other 
relevant bodies such as MoE to establish some background information about SMP 
and education. In addition, analysis of data/reports from the UWEZO was undertaken 
to benchmark literacy and numeracy127. The secondary review of reports and data was
broadened to cover reports/data that were relevant to the evaluation subject but not
within the categories mentioned. The desk review was guided by the evaluation 
questions. The desk review was conducted alongside the M2 and M3 components.
M2: School Based Assessment
School-based assessment was conducted using an interviewer administered face-to￾face survey with pupils, parents, teachers, cooks and storekeepers. The interviewers 
used a semi- structured interview approach that allowed for collection of both 
quantitative and some qualitative data. Data was collected using electronic data 
collection approach. Interviewers ensured that specific focus on gender was 
incorporated at all times during the questioning to deduce any gender related issues.
M3 and M4: Qualitative Data Collection Approach
The M3 and M4 segments used Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) which were 
conducted by highly experienced moderators. The approach allowed for content￾focused collection of information from the Key Informants based on the informant’s 
role in the implementation ofthe 2014-2016 SMP. The moderators used KII guides
that were linked to evaluation questions and structured based on the category of
informants. With consent from the respondents, the interviews were audio-recorded
and then later transcribed for analysis using N-Vivo. The survey achieved a sample of
158 Key Informant Interviews and 9 Complete Case Studies
Sampling 
Approach
Study
Population
The study population for the M2 component of the evaluation was pupils, parents, 
head teachers, patrons and cooks from the implementation schools of the WFP SMP.
Local administrators, education officers, school management committee (SMC)
M3: County Based M4: National Based
M1: Desk Based Review of
Surveys, Reports and Data
M2: School Based
Assessment of Pupils,
Parents, and Teachers Implementers an
Assessment of
d Implementers an
Assessment of
d
Stakeholders Stakeholders
147
members also referred as Board of Management (BOM) and other stakeholders within 
the catchment area of the M2 sampled schools was considered for M3. Geographically 
this evaluation considered nine of the 11-implementation counties (excluding Wajir
and Mandera) due to security reasons.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
During the evaluation, only the project targeted counties and schools were included in 
this evaluation. For the specific respondents, the inclusion criteria considered; 
respondents who provided verbal informed consent for participation in this 
evaluation. While for the specific respondents, the exclusion criteria entailed;
• Respondent’s from counties where the government authority denied consent to have the
county included in the study
• Respondents who had been exposed to the baseline and midline survey (this was only
applicable for the pupils and parents)
• Respondents with diminished autonomy
Sample Size for Pupils, Parents and Schools under M2
The total pupils used to assess on pupils related indicators was the overall determinant 
of how many parents, schools, and pupils were included in the sample. We proposed
a minimum sample size of 900 pupils (450 girls and 450 boys) and 900
parents/guardians. The sample size of 900 was based on the following 
assumptions; a response rate of 95 %, a design effect of 1.5, a power of 70 %, detection 
of 7 % difference in desired behaviour indicator from midline, and an average 50 % 
value of indicator at midline. We however managed to achieve a sample size of 552 
boys and 557 girls. The split of the sample into boys and girls was to allow for gender￾based comparison of the pupils related indicators being considered in this evaluation.
Ninety schools were sampled with each school providing 10 pupils. The end line 
allowed us a power to offer any additional insights based on segmentation of the 
sample during analysis. Given the bias towards this approach, we calculated school 
based weights that adjusted for the school’s distribution per county based on the list 
of schools provided by WFP. These weights were applied while calculating totals for
various indicators.
Sample Size for Head Teachers, Program Patrons and Cooks
The evaluation included all the head teachers and school feeding teachers/heads from 
the 90schools selected above. We interviewed 90 heads and 85 store keepers and 87 
cooks.
Sample Size Determination for Qualitative Component (M3, M4)
Considering that, the qualitative component is designed to answer additional
componentsfor the evaluation, and give explanatory elements of the study. For the M3 
methodology, the evaluation considered 175 key informant interviews. Specifically,
each county had local administrators, education officers, school management 
committee members and Program Partners included in this component.
127UWEZO is the Government of Kenya’s recognized source of numeracy and literacy data.
148
Sampling the Counties and Schools
The primary sampling unit was the schools, since this determined the subsequent
respondents to be sampled under proximity of the school. The evaluation used a 
multistage sampling approach to be able to achieve a sample of the desired schools:
All the 10 intervention counties were purposively selected except Wajir and 
Mandera due to security reasons. Within each county, the schools were clustered based 
on the sub counties. (WFP provided a list of all schools that benefited from the 
intervention). The number of schools included per sub-county was determined 
through a direct division of the 10 schools desired by the number of sub-counties. To 
be able to avoid thinning out of the sample, we further clustered sub-counties to ensure 
that at any time, we have at least three schools within a sub county/ cluster i.e. a county 
had a maximum of three sub-counties or clusters. A random sampling approach was 
used to select the schools. This was mutually exclusive for each sub-county/cluster. 
From the selected schools, a catchment radius of 5km and 10 km was assumed for 
urban and rural respectively (except Nairobi, which had a radius of 2 km).
Sampling the Pupils and Parents
Pupils at the school were stratified into eight classes according to the education system 
in Kenya. The pupils interviewed were selected using simple random sampling using 
class registers. A random sampling table was used to identify two pupils (1 girl and 1 
boy) to sample in each class in the schools.
It should be noted that as opposed to the midline, each school had a different
randomnumber for selection of a pupil in each class i.e. the sampling within each
school wasmutually exclusive. Midline assessment used same index number for the
same classes acrossall schools. To address the gender sensitivity in data collection,
the evaluation ensured to thebest extent possible the boys and girls are interviewed 
by data collectors of the same gender. The evaluation team contacted the school
administration (at least 5 days in advance) torequest the randomly selected pupils
to invite their parents on specific dates for theinterview while giving very limited 
information about the study to avoid bias.
In case the pupils or parents were not willing to participate in the survey, they were 
not be replaced since the selection of 2 pupils per class per school allowed for 16 pupils 
while we only needed a minimum number of 10 pupils. This is how the evaluation 
ended up with 1119 pupils and 1119 parents.
Sampling Respondents for M3 and M4 Qualitative Interviews
Only respondents drawn from the nine selected counties were included in the survey. 
Where a county has more than one potential respondent per category of responded
e.g. local administration, the evaluation team gave priority to the respondents drawn
from the proximity of the randomly selected school. However, where the respondents
were from within the County an attempt were made to interview the primary 
respondents using face-to-face approach unless the respondent was not available or 
had been snowballed for some minor confirmation then the interviewer booked a
telephonic interview with the respondents. Similarly, the national based respondents 
were interviewed using face-to-face approach and telephonic interviews used only in 
extreme scenarios. A detailed list of the specific respondents is presented as Annex of
this document.
Data 
Management
Data
Collection
Tools
The data collection tools were aligned to the methodology above, with the evaluation 
149
having broadly had two categories of data collection tools. The quantitative 
questionnaires were semi-structured in nature and were electronically scripted using 
TNS’ N-Field Mobile Data Collection Software. While the qualitative ones used key
informant guides.
Data Processing
Quantitative data was collected using tablets in the field. These allowed the data to be
transmitted immediately to a centralized cloud database that is owned by TNS. The 
data was checked for consistency and quality controlled. Use of electronic data 
eliminated some paper based data cleaning elements like wrong skip application and
thus minimised the data cleaning while on field and allowed for day to day data 
cleaning from a central place; this increased comparative assessment of data from the 
different teams and individuals while cleaning. The qualitative data was audio
recorded, transcribed, and later analyzed.
Data Cleaning
The Data Management team conducted rigorous data checking and cleaning on the 
data using an edit specification and cleaning rules. Checking involved checking filter, 
subgroups and different breakdowns of various cells checked on live data. Entries with
mistakes/routing problems were identified and feedback given to Field Department. 
15 % of the primary collected data was quality controlled. The main objective of QC
checks as follows;
• To ensure the best quality and professional ethics of data collection throughout all project
phases.
• Ensure project execution is in conformity with the WFP’s specifications, methodology
and other briefing instructions are met.
• Ensure collaboration and uniformity of all fieldwork operation in all manners is achieved.
Data Analysis Approach
Quantitative data was analyzed using IBM SPSS. Indicators measured at a single point 
in time were analyzed using univariate analysis to give frequencies, means and/or 
proportions as appropriate. In determining, the significance of changes in indicators 
between baseline, midline, and end line appropriate test for significance was used 
depending on the statistical nature of the indicator. A further statistical analysis was 
conducted to assess for possible causal relationships.
Qualitative data was analyzed using the N-Vivo application using Miles and 
Hubberman (1994) approach towards qualitative analysis. The resulting product was 
a detailed thematic ordered matrix the themes being the main evaluation criteria with 
the sub-themes being the specific evaluation questions and variants of issues coming
from them. The qualitative findings are presented as general summaries and where 
necessary reported as verbatim quotes.
Given that the baseline and midline did not have as much gender considerations,
comparison to the two was done on aggregated gender level.
Limitations and Risks
The study was conducted in the selected counties, schools and households around the
program schools. The survey instrument was developed in English and was translated 
into the local language during the interviews, which could have potentially been 
misinterpreted. To reduce this challenge a pre-test was conducted in nearby non￾selected schools to look at the context relevance, while pilots study done within the 
selected counties to assess for methodological relevance and flaws. This was not wide 
spread as the teams of data collectors understood local languages and culture.
The prior sampling approach applied previous evaluations for the pupils and parents 
was subject to bias however, during the end line evaluation the interviewers verified
school register to ascertain that the selected respondent was actually the one 
150
contacted by the school administration. In addition, the evaluation team ensured that
they limit the information provided to the school on recruitment.
During the evaluation, there was need to collect some recall information since
implementation (2014) and given the recall bias, this was problematic. The evaluation 
team therefore, limited the recall to a shorter period dependent on the information
being requested.
Research ethics
TNS RMS is a member of various research organizations and completely complies with 
the ethical guidelines on the conduct of research that this entails, and other laws of
the countryin which we are operating. The TNS research team has received training in 
Human Subjects Protection (HSP), and this is renewed annually. As an active member 
of ESOMAR, the world organization for the promotion of best practice with respect to 
market and social research and advocating self-regulation, TNS fully adheres to the 
International Code of Market and Social Research. The details of the ESOMAR
guidelines for interviewing children and minors are presented as Appendix D. TNS 
will also adhere to the Plan’s Child protection Policy and Code of Conduct
Guiding principles in the Belmont Report that TNS is fully cognizant of and applies 
when conducting social research includes respects for persons, beneficence and justice 
(fairness in the selection of potential respondents). At the individual level – TNS seeks 
verbal and/ or written consent from all respondents to any study or assessment. The 
voluntary nature of participation in the research is made clear in the recruitment 
process. TNS does not subject respondents to any form of coercion, any undue
inducement, or intimidation. The respondents will be enlightened on the purpose and 
procedure of the survey before the interview commences. The end-benefits of 
participating in the survey will also be clearly explained to the respondents.
Dissemination of Findings
TNS proposes a delta (participatory) approach to dissemination of the findings of this
evaluation; this is a participatory approach where the participants interact with some 
of the raw findings and make deductions around key evaluation questions. As
opposed to most disseminations, this give the chance to the participant to better 
appreciate the findings and conclusions drawn from the findings. The delta approach
allows the evaluators to structurally put the feedback from the workshop into the main 
report of the evaluation. A delta approach provides better ways of ensuring that where
multiple stakeholders wereinvolved, the team is able to arrive at more or less similar 
understanding and consensus of the findings
This approach utilizes the use of a participatory workshop, which follows the following
distinct steps:
• Participants are grouped into various groups and then given analyzed findings from the
report
• The groups then come up with key issues based on the findings and recommendations
from the data using groupings for similar findings.
• The groups present the key issues and recommendations
• TNS then presents its findings, analysis, and recommendations
• The larger group then discusses and adopts the findings and recommendations
It is envisioned that WFP will be responsible for identifying and inviting the 
participants for the one day dissemination workshop while TNS will only offer 
technical facilitation and pay for the actual workshop venue of the dissemination
workshop.
Annex 12: Secondary data on education outcomes in the SMP counties
• UWEZO enrolment rankings for the targeted SMP counties (2013)
151
County Enrolment (%) Poverty (%) Rank Nationally
(out of 47
Counties)
Nairobi 93.5 4.5 1
Baringo 90.0 78.9 34
Tana River 83.9 81.7 37
Isiolo 83.3 85.8 40
West Pokot 87.3 87.1 41
Wajir 85.2 79.0 42
Garissa 78.8 59.8 43
Marsabit 75.6 84.1 44
Turkana 86.6 93.3 45
Samburu 80.8 90.1 46
Mandera 84.1` 82.6 47
Source: UWEZO 2015 report
159
50
45.2
46.3
45
40
36.3
35
34.4 33.9
30.6
30 28.2
25 23.7
20.5
20
17
15
10
5
0
Nati
• Mean pass rate, combined literacy and numeracy test, SMP targeted counties (2015)
onal averNagaeirobi
North Central
Baringo Marsabit Moyale GarissaTana Rive
Central West North East
r Pokot
East
Samburu
East Central South North
Turkana
West South
Wajir
East Central West
Mandera
Source: UWEZO, 2015
160
Annex 13: Household survey findings re commuity needs
Source: EoPE key informant interviews 2016
Frequency
Hunger
Food Insecurity
Poor Health Care Water Shortage
Unemployment Gender Exclusion
Malnutrion
Insecurity
Illiteracy
Distance to Schools
-ve Intensity +ve
161
Annex 14: Other development actors working in the SMP locations
Development actor Activity
Partner
location
Action Against
Hunger/United States
(AAH/USA)
Humanitarian Coordination and
Information Management, Humanitarian
Studies, Analysis, or Applications
National
Catholic Diocese Food and nutrition, water and sanitation,
public health and human livelihoods
National
FAO Agriculture and food security National
Feed Kenya
(feed the children)
Food and nutrition. Trainings on health Nairobi, Rift
valley and
Western
Netherlands Development
Organization (SNV)
HGSMP Kenya ASALs
Partnership for Child
Development (PCD)
HGSMP, health and nutrition, human
livelihoods
National
UNESCO Access to quality education National
UNICEF Nutrition National
UNICEF Nutrition National
Welthungerhilfe (German
Agro-Action)
Agriculture Kenya ASALs
World Vision Food and nutrition, water and sanitation,
public health
National
162
100%
80%
60%
40% 29%
20% 10% 14% 15% 18% 16% 16%
6% 10% 13%
2%
9%
0%
Annex 15: Additional UWEZO education data (2015)
• UWEZO literacy and numeracy figures, SMP counties (2015)
Percentage of illiterate children
Source: UWEZO 2015
Percentage of innumerate children
Source UWEZO 2015
100%
80%
60%
40% 28%
20% 20%
20% 10%
16% 15% 15% 17% 17% 21%
11%
3%
0%
163
Annex 16: Additional analysis re attentiveness in class
• Causes of inattentiveness in Schools
Lack of food at school accounts for 70.7% of the variation in student
inattentiveness (r2 =0.707, p < 0.01)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .841a .707 .666 3.836
a. Predictors: (Constant), Ever reported that food was not provided at school
Coefficients
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
Model B
Std.
Error Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) 1.199 3.971 .302 .772
Ever reported
that food was
not provided at
school
43.220 10.505 .841 4.114 .004 1.000 1.000
a. Dependent Variable: Inattentiveness
164
Annex 17: Activity indicator – Number of boys and girls receiving school
meals (2014-2016)
Planne
d
Actua
l
% Achievement
Male Femal
e
Total Male Femal
e
Total Mal
e
Femal
e
Tota
l
Pre￾primary
and 
primary
children
receiving
school
meals.
201
4
440,000 375,00
0
815,000 417,86
5
378,251 796,116 95.0 100.9 97.7
Pre￾primary
and 
primary
children
receiving
school
meals.
201
5
326,150 266,85
0
593,000 328,21
6
257,884 586,100 100.
6
96.6 98.8
Primary
school 
children
receiving
school meals
201
6
243,000 207,00
0
450,000 244,32
1
186,088 430,409 100.
5
89.9 95.6
TOTAL 1,009,1
50
848,85
0
1,858,0
00
990,4
02
822,22
3
1,812,6
25
98.7 96 97.6
165
Annex 18: Additional analysis re parental reporting of meals before and
after school
• Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal
before and after school (as reported by parents)
County
Before
school
After
school
Meal 
consumed
every day of
thelast 5 
days
Meal
consumed at
least 3 days 
out oflast 5
Meal 
consumed
every day of
thelast 5 
days
Meal
consumed 
at least 3
days out
of last
5
Samburu 81.1 95.5 84.1 96.2
Isiolo 72.7 83.9 65.7 86.0
Nairobi 63.0 75.9 86.1 99.1
Garissa 59.2 83.5 80.6 90.3
Tana River 49.4 75.0 75.0 91.9
West Pokot 44.2 67.4 54.7 85.3
Baringo 25.7 61.4 34.3 73.6
Turkana 24.4 31.1 83.2 87.4
Marsabit 29.8 69.4 35.5 71.0
Average 50.1 71.8 66.2 86.6
166
Annex 19: Activity indicator – Total quantity of commodities provided to
SMP from all sources
Commodit
ies
distribute
d
2014 2015 2016 TOTAL
Target Achieve
d
Targe
t
Achieve
d
Targe
t
Achieve
d
Targe
t
Achieved
Wheat 5,725.174 5,394.45 303.35 11,422.97
Oil 531.786 332.082 109.179 973.05
Pulses 4,699.67
2
2,201.6 1046.52
7
7,947.80
Maize 11,539.94 3,121.3 3,366.11
8
18,027.36
Rice 308.966 0 0 308.97
Corn soya blend 1,261.02
5
503.35 0 1,764.38
Micro￾nutrient
powder
0.014 0 5.528 5.54
Iodized salt 290 181 73.95 544.95
Total quantity 
of commodities
(tons)
provided
6,364 24,356.
58
8,320 11,733.7
8
3,083 4,904.
65
17,76
7
40,995.0
1
% Achieved 382
%
141% 159% 230
%
167
Annex 20: Parental reporting of whether there were times that meals
were not provided at school, by county
County Yes No I don’t know Total
Baringo County 61.4% 33.6% 5.0% 100%
Tana River County 43.8% 48.8% 7.5% 100%
Isiolo County 43.4% 49.7% 7.0% 100%
Marsabit County 37.1% 41.9% 21.0% 100%
Garissa County 35.9% 48.5% 15.5% 100%
Samburu County 29.5% 69.7% 0.8% 100%
West Pokot County 27.4% 71.6% 1.1% 100%
Turkana County 26.9% 63.9% 9.2% 100%
Nairobi County 16.7% 74.1% 9.3% 100%
Total 37.0% 54.6% 8.4% 100%
• Reported reduction in food portions on week days compared to
weekends
County
Food proportion reduction
25% 50% 75%
Baringo County 50.0 47.1 2.9
Garissa County 67.7 25.8 6.5
Isiolo County 78.0 19.5 2.4
Marsabit County 18.9 56.8 24.3
Nairobi County 46.8 46.8 6.4
Samburu County 68.4 23.7 7.9
Tana River County 78.9 21.1 0.0
Turkana County 68.4 31.6 0.0
West Pokot County 75.0 25.0 0.0
Total 57.5% 36.3% 6.2%
168
Annex 21: Additional analysis re school attendance (students)
• Causes of Absenteeism in Schools
Responses from household interview County Days Absent School Closure Working on farm or livestock
tending
Looking after
siblings or
domestic work
Lack of food
Insecurity
Sickness
Ceremonies
and family
events
Skipping
school
Baringo 2664 864 1349 1340 1489 2158 884 1366 1053
Tana River 689 82 52 14 33 61 605 67 34
Isiolo 493 958 0 2 11 68 411 15 51
West Pokot 385 2 10 13 23 6 346 0 0
Samburu 257 7 25 23 15 9 225 9 2
Marsabit 192 166 9 10 32 12 218 4 2
Turkana 192 32 1 0 12 31 261 0 82
Garissa 172 118 16 8 48 36 246 10 11
Nairobi 146 1803 2 2 5 4 101 32 2
Family events and sickness account for 99.7% of absenteeism (r2 = 0.997, p < 0.001)
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1 .980a .961 .955 169.455
2 .998b .997 .996 53.434
a. Predictors: (Constant), Family Events
b. Predictors: (Constant), Family events, Sickness
Coefficients
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t Sig.
Collinearity
Statistics
B
Std.
Error Beta Toleranc
e
VIF
1 (Constant) 284.544 60.701 4.688 .002
Family Events 1.749 .133 .980 13.14
2
.000 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) -37.302 44.439 -.839 .433
Family Events 1.266 .073 .710 17.26
7
.000 .327 3.054
Sickness 1.099 .137 .330 8.025 .000 .327 3.054
169
• Student Profiles
Students that recorded high absenteeism were also high on the following 9 attributes:
Attribute Coefficient p value
1) Absent due to ceremonies and family events .980** 0.000
2) Absent Working on farm or livestock tending .979** 0.000
3) Absent due to Insecurity .979** 0.000
4) Absent looking after siblings or domestic work .975** 0.000
5) Absent for lack of food .975** 0.000
6) Absent for skipping school .975** 0.000
7) Absent due to sickness .912** 0.001
8) Ever reported that food was not provided at school .825** 0.006
9) Inattentiveness .804** 0.009
170
Annex 22: Additional analysis re school enrolment
• Percentage increase in boys and girls enrolled in school as a result
of USDA assistance
Statisti
c
Std.
Error
Boys Change Endline Mean 7.5259 6.01353
95% 
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound -4.5115
Upper Bound 19.5633
5% Trimmed Mean 3.8077
Median 1.0000
Variance 2133.593
Std. Deviation 46.1908
3
Minimum -80.29
Maximum 283.33
Range 363.63
Interquartile Range 24.80
Skewness 3.714 .311
Kurtosis 21.889 .613
Statistic Std.
Erro
r
Girls 
Change
Endline
Mean 8.9437 4.97713
95% 
Confidence
Interval for
Mean
Lower Bound -1.0228
Upper Bound 18.9102
5% Trimmed Mean 6.0798
Median 3.1578
Variance 1436.765
Std. Deviation 37.90468
Minimum -65.08
Maximum 145.45
Range 210.53
Interquartile Range 21.56
Skewness 1.751 .314
Kurtosis 5.259 .618
171
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null
Hypothesis
Test Sig. Decision
1 The median of
Boys Change
EoP equals
4.00.
One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test
0.850 Retain the null
hypothesis.
2 The median of
Girls Change
EoP equals
4.00.
One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test
0.323 Retain the null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
Primary school net enrolment rates – Kenya
Primary
School
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Total 112.63 112.3 113.27 ... 116.55 116.13 ... 111.4 108.97
Female 111.85 111.17 112.04 ... 116.89 116.47 ... 111.58 108.68
Male 113.4 113.42 114.48 ... 116.22 115.79 ... 111.22 109.26
Total 86.33 82.08 82.78 ... ... 84.87 ... ... ...
Female 86.39 82.65 83.31 ... ... 86.6 ... ... ...
Male 86.27 81.5 82.26 ... ... 83.17 ... ... ...
Source: UNESCO (http://uis.unesco.org/country/KE)
Notes
1). One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicate that the enrolment rates for 
boys was within the set threshold of 4-percentage point increase between baseline
and end of project(p = 0.850 - the observed median percentage was NOT 
significantly different from the projected median percent change).
2). One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicate that the enrolment rates for 
girls was within the set threshold of 4-percentage point increase between baseline
and end of project(p = 0.323 - the observed median percentage was NOT 
significantly different from the projected median percent change)
172
Annex 23: Percentage of households able to name benefits of education,
by county
County 3 Benefits Less than 3 benefits
Garissa County 99.0 1.0
Baringo County 92.1 7.9
Samburu County 81.8 18.2
Marsabit County 64.5 35.5
Turkana County 62.2 37.8
Isiolo County 59.4 40.6
Tana River County 55.6 44.4
West Pokot County 51.6 48.4
Nairobi County 42.6 57.4
Total 67.8% 32.2%
173
Annex 24: Additional analysis re WFP provided training on food
preparation and storage practices
• Activity indicators - Training: Food preparation and storage practices
2014 2015 2016 TOTAL
Indicator
Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved
Number of
trainings
provided in
food
preparation
and storage
practices
11 54 6 17 5 15 22 86
Number of
teachers
trained in
food
preparation
and storage
practices
600 3,455 1,000 1,753 1,000 1,870 2,600 7,078
• Percentage of schools in target counties that store food off the ground
County Yes
Isiolo 100.0
Garissa 90.9
Baringo 90.0
Samburu 90.0
Turkana 80.0
Marsabit 80.0
Tana River 60.0
Nairobi 60.0
West Pokot 50.0
Total 76.5%
174
• Percentage of schools in target counties with dedicated food store rooms
County Yes
Nairobi 100.0
Garissa 90.9
Tana River 90.0
Turkana 90.0
Samburu 90.0
West Pokot 75.0
Isiolo 75.0
Baringo 50.0
Marsabit 50.0
Total 78.8%
• Photos of inappropriate food storage in visited schools
Illustration of inadequate storage within a classroom (a) and a proper storage (b)
175
Annex 25: Additional analysis re food preparation and hygiene
• Percentage of schools with a dedicated kitchen, by county
County Yes
Isiolo 100.0
Nairobi 100.0
Tana River 88.9
Turkana 88.9
Samburu 88.9
Marsabit 85.7
Baringo 83.3
West Pokot 60.0
Garissa 50.0
Total 82.3%
• Percentage of schools using energy saving stoves, by county
County Yes
Isiolo 100.0
Nairobi 100.0
Samburu 70.0
Marsabit 60.0
Garissa 50.0
Turkana 50.0
Tana River 45.5
Baringo 0.0
West Pokot 0.0
Total 52.9%
• Photos of substandard kitchen facilities in visited schools
176
Annex 26: Additional data re sanitation (toilet) facilities in surveyed
schools
• Does the school have toilets for pupils?
County Yes
Baringo 100%
Tana River 100%
Garissa 100%
Turkana 100%
West Pokot 100%
Samburu 100%
Isiolo 100%
Marsabit 100%
Nairobi 100%
Total 100%
• Do girls have separate toilets from boys?
County Yes
Marsabit 100.0
Nairobi 100.0
Isiolo 90.0
Tana River 88.9
Turkana 88.9
Samburu 88.9
Baringo 83.3
West Pokot 80.0
Garissa 70.0
Total 87.3%
• Toilet Type (Multiple Responses allowed)
Toilet Type N Percent of
Cases
Pit latrines with a slab 57 72.2%
Ventilated improved pit latrines 39 49.4%
Piped sewer, septic, pit latrine 16 20.3%
Pit latrines without slab/open pit 11 13.9%
Flush or pour/flush toilets without a sewer connection 2 2.5%
No facilities, open defecation 2 2.5%
177
Annex 27: Activity indicator – Capacity building: local, regional and
national level
2014 2015 2016 TOTAL
Target Achieved Targe
t
Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved
Number of
Home
Grown
School
Feeding
Program
manuals
distributed
3,500 1,770 0 824 3,000 5,770 6,500 8,364
Number of
MOE
Officers
benefiting
from
distribution
3,500 6,000 3,000 4,232 2,000 5,770 8,500 16,002
178
Annex 28: Additional data re reported security threats by county
• School- and commuter-related threats by county
County School Related Commuter Related Total
f % f % f %
Marsabit County 0 0% 239 100% 239 32%
Tana River County 39 19% 166 81% 205 27%
Isiolo County 62 47% 71 53% 133 18%
Baringo County 24 35% 44 65% 68 9%
Samburu County 19 33% 39 67% 58 8%
Garissa County 15 58% 11 42% 26 3%
Turkana County 6 55% 5 45% 11 1%
Nairobi County 2 22% 7 78% 9 1%
Total 167 22% 582 78% 749 100%
• Reported security threats, by county
County Number of households mentioning threats
Bullying Animal Total
attacks
Robbery Rape Sexual
harassment
Drug
abuse
Marsabit County 0 228 0 1 2 8 239
Tana River County 39 157 8 1 0 0 205
Isiolo County 62 1 70 0 0 0 133
Baringo County 24 36 8 0 0 0 68
Samburu County 19 39 0 0 0 0 58
Garissa County 15 2 8 0 1 0 26
Turkana County 6 4 1 0 0 0 11
Nairobi County 2 0 6 0 1 0 9
Total 167 467 101 2 4 8 749
179
Annex 29: Additional data re locations of households reporting
knowledge of the feedback hotline
County f %
Isiolo County 4 29%
Turkana County 4 29%
Marsabit County 2 14%
Tana River County 2 14%
Nairobi County 1 7%
Samburu County 1 7%
Baringo County 0 0%
Garissa County 0 0%
West Pokot County 0 0%
Total 14 100%
180
Annex 30: Updated performance monitoring plan
Theme Outcome Performance
Indicator
Data Source Methodology Details/Analysis
Plan
Baseline Value Mid-line Value EoP Evaluation
Increased
performan
ce
MGD SO 1 –
Improved
literacyof
school age
children
1. Proportion of
students who by 
theend of two
grades ofprimary 
schooling,
demonstrate that
they can read and
understand the
meaning of grade
level text.
UWEZO Annual
Learning Report 2014
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 7:School & 
Student Performance
MOE Secondary data
Service Delivery
Indicators (SDI) 
Survey2012 (World
Bank)
Baseline used UWEZO report 
2012. For the mid-line 
evaluation, the UWEZO report 
2014 was used. We propose use
of UWEZO 2015 report.
Considering that literacy test 
was discouraged by MOE during 
the midline, we propose to use 
similar approach where proxy
indicators areused:
- Average KCPE Score (2014)
versus(2015)
- Average mark for Class 2
pupils(out of 500)
- Average mark for Class 8
pupils(out of 500)
Average Performance rate of
pupilsby gender at County level 
obtainedfrom MOE.
Average - 48.8
Between 
33.8%
(Samburu) 
and 62.6%
(Baringo)
Uwezo: 64% average
(Samburu East 30.6,
Baringo 63.7%)
Average KCPE 
Score(2014):
188.21128
Average mark for
Class2 pupils (out of
500):
274.73129
Average mark for
Class8 pupils (out of
500):
220.56130
Average KCPE at
national level for
2013:
250.05 (253.23 for boys
and 246.88 for
girls)(MOE 2013)
Average literacy
(Kiswahili) – 46.1
Average numeracy
andliteracy for class 
3 children: 32%
Who can read letters 
- between 71%
(Turkana)
and 98% (Nairobi)
Who can read numbers
- between 72%
(Turkana) and
97%(Nairobi)
2. Number total
individuals
benefiting
directly
from USDA￾funded
interventions
School monitoring
data(SMP 8)
WFP Reports
Secondary data review of
WFPrecords
2013-
Girls: 341,673
Boys: 425,435
Total: 767,108
753,139 763,490
3. Number of total
individuals
benefiting
indirectlyfrom 
USDA-funded
interventions
WFP reports
Endline
Survey:
HH/Parent 
Questionnaire,Q104.
Use method applied during the
baseline and midline survey.
Interviews with parents will
determine the average number of
children per HH going to school.
HHaverage size is will be
computed say
X. Number of HHs= direct
beneficiaries (Indicator No. 2) 
/the number of children per HH
going to
536,758 Average number of
children per HH
goingto school: 
2.84.
Indirect beneficiaries 
=838,000
527,984
181
128 The average KCPE 2014 score per county was: Garissa: 163.25, Marsabit: 200, Nairobi: 91.75, Tana River: 159.25, Turkana: 257.28, West Pokot: 264.33. 129 Garissa had the worst performance among the sampled counties with the average mark for Class 2 pupils being 203.25. 130 From lowest to highest, the sampled counties’ performance for average Class 8 pupils’ mark was: Tana River: 163.75, Nairobi: 184.28, Marsabit: 200.5, Garissa: 225, Turkana: 257.37 and West
Pokot: 262.83.
182
school (obtained from
HHquestionnaire
Q104).
Number of indirect
beneficiaries =number of HHs
* (X- number of
children per HH going to school).
MGD 1.1.1 –
More
consistent
teacher
attendance
4. Percent of 
teachers in target 
schools who 
attend school and 
teach at least 90
percent of
scheduledschool
days per year.
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 4Teacher￾Head Teacher (Q410) 
and Section 5:
Observation School
Survey (Q504-Q506)
SDI Survey 2012 –
WorldBank
Data will be collected directly 
from the Head teacher and will be
triangulated with data from the 
SDI 2012 survey. It will also be 
comparedwith teacher attendance 
during the field survey.
51% Attendance of at least
90% of scheduled
days:74.8% (323 
teachers)131General 
attendance of
teachers: 88.79%132
Average teacher
attendance during
the 3day surveys:
81.88%133
Average pupil teacher
ratio from MOE data 
forKenya: 34.5134
89.7%
5. Number of 
MOE officers 
trained in
promoting
consistent 
teacher
attendance
WFP reports The baseline data reported zero
meaning that no teachers’ 
trainings onpromoting consistent 
teacher attendance were
conducted.
For the mid-line value,
secondarydata from WFP will
be analysed.
0 200 Year
2014:
200
2015: 295
2016: 89
Total: 584
6. Number of trainings
in promoting
teacherattendance
conducted for 
MOEofficers
WFP reports 0 17135 Year
2014: 12
2015: 15
2016: 15
Total: 42
MGD 1.2 –
Improved
Attentiven
ess
7. Percent of
studentsin 
classrooms
identified as
inattentive by 
theirteachers
Endline Survey:
TeachersQuestionnaire
The data will be collected using 
the teachers’ perception. 
Teachers from all classed will be 
interviewed. The average
percentage will be calculatedfor 
this indicator.
20%
20.05%136
Main reason for
inattentiveness:
hunger
(43.7%)
15%
Main reason for
inattentiveness:
(hunger38%).
Participati
onin
Education
MGD 1.3 –
Improved
student
8. Percent of
students
(girls/boys)
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 7.
School data on attendance will be
captured for the ten sampled
pupils in
85.6% 88% (attendance
vsenrolment as
for
86.4%
131Nairobi and Turkana counties achieved exceptionally high values for this indicator, while Garissa’s performance was quite low. Breakdown by county: Garissa: 42.2%, Marsabit: 87.03%, Nairobi:
183
97.7%, Tana River: 68.3%, Turkana: 98.6%, West Pokot: 76.6%. 132 The breakdown by county is as follows: Garissa: 56.95%, Marsabit: 88.27%, Nairobi: 96.88%, Tana River: 81.7%, Turkana: 97.08%, West Pokot: 92.57%. 133 Average teacher attendance during the survey, by county: Garissa: 97.91%, Marsabit: 69.66%, Nairobi: 97.19%, Tana River: 68.12%, Turkana: 81.66%, West Pokot: 88.15%. 134 Average pupil teacher ratios in the sampled counties for 2014 (MOE): Garissa 46.5, Marsabit 37.4, Nairobi 36.2, Tana River 36.6, Turkana 71.7, West Pokot 37.2. 135In 2014, the SMP Management Training was carried out in East Pokot, Garissa, Marsabit, Tana River, West Pokot and Samburu Counties. 136 Percent of inattentive students by county: Garissa: 11.95%, Marsabit: 25.26%, Nairobi: 15.58%, Tana River: 19.87%, Turkana: 20.73%, West Pokot: 26.37%.
184
attendance regularly 
attending
supported 
schools
School &
Student
Performance
each school. baseline)
72.5% 
regularly
attending
(Girls: 73.02%137
Boys: 72.28%138)
9. Percent of 
students in target
schools who start 
grade one and
complete the last
grade of primary
school
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 6:Student 
record (Q614- Q621)
SDI Survey 2012 –
WorldBank
At school level the calculation will
bebased on school records and
interviews with head teachers
following backwards the co-hort 
of pupils who graduated in the 
year 2014. In the count, students 
who initially enrolled in the 
sampled school but completed the 
Primary Education with another 
school shouldbe considered. 
Average % will be applied.
This will be triangulated with
datafrom the SDI Report.
2013:
Girls 72.8%
Boys 78.7%
Total 76.2%
56.44% 54.4%
MGD 1.3.4 –
Increased
student
enrolment
10. Percent increase in
girls enrolled in
schools
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 6:Student 
record (Q601- Q613)
MOE data at county level
At school level, the trend will be
calculated from the enrolment 
figurefor the last 4 years (2012-
2015) fromheadmaster records.
This data will be triangulated 
withMOE data at county level.
3%
7.7%139
3.8%
11. Percent increase in
boys enrolled in
schools
3% 9.2%140 6.1%
12. Number of events,
radio spots, and
campaigns held
WFP reports Secondary data from WFP. 0 20 radio spots 119
13. Number of
community
members
benefitingfrom
events, radio
spots, and
campaigns
held
WFP reports 0 65,204 134,426
MGD 1.3.5 –
Increase
d
communi
ty
14. Percent of parents in
target 
communitieswho
can name at
Endline Survey:
HH/parent 
Questionnaire,Section
3: School related
Parents will be asked to name the
benefits of education they are 
awareof. Parents should mention
at least 3
66% 87.8%141 68%
137 The breakdown by county was: Garissa: 80.95%, Marsabit: 100%, Nairobi: 21.42%, Tana River: 83.78%, Turkana: 100%, West Pokot: 41.17%. 138 The breakdown by county was: Garissa: 91.66%, Marsabit: 85.71%, Nairobi: 29.41%, Tana River: 85.36%, Turkana: 81.48%, West Pokot: 41.37%.
185
139 This figure is only for pupils in primary school. The corresponding value for the increase in enrolment from 2012 to 2013 is 17.3% and for 2014 to 2015, 0.9%. The percent increase in enrolment
for pre-primary girls from 2013 to 2014 was 2.7%. 140 This figure is only for pupils in primary school. The corresponding value for the increase in enrolment from 2012 to 2013 is 13.4% and for 2014 to 2015, 14.9%. The percent increase in enrolment
for pre-primary boys from 2013 to 2014 was 7.4%. 141 Data from Garissa were not included in the analysis as enumerators misinterpreted the way they were supposed to pose the question.
186
understandin
g ofbenefits of
education
least three 
benefitsof 
primary
education.
questions (Q301) benefits. This is consistent with
baseline but we shall use a pre￾defined standard list (while 
baseline was kept open). The
average % fromrespondents will
be used to calculate
this indicator.
Provision 
ofschool
meals
MGD 1.2.1
Reduced
shortterm
hunger
15. Percent of
studentsin target 
schools who 
regularly
consume a meal
before the school
day
Endline Survey: Pupil
Questionnaire
(Section 2
– Q205); HH/Parent
questionnaire (Section
2:Questions are 
related exclusively to 
the pupil through 
which this HH
member was selected
–
Q203)
Data to be collected through 
pupil’s interviews in each sampled 
school as well as from interviews 
with parents. Students consuming
a meal before theschool day are 
considered those who regularly
had that meal during the last5
days (answer is 5).
Always: 41%
Sometimes: 39%
59.1%142143
Girls: 57.3%
Boys: 61.5%
53%
16. Percent of
studentsin target 
schools who 
regularly
consume a meal
during the 
school day
Endline Survey: 
School Questionnaire, 
Section 8.Record 
attendance & Food 
Utilization (SMP Form
6)
WFP reports:
SMPmonitoring
system
Data collected from all terms on 
a daily basis from form SMP 
Form 6Data will be triangulated
with WFPMonitoring data.
70% 68.1%144 67%
MGD 1.2.1.1 –
Increased
access tofood 
(school
feeding)
17. Number of daily
school meals
(breakfast, snack,
lunch) provided
as a
result of
USDA
assistance*
WFP reports Secondary data from WFP N/A 76,000,000 15,529,293
18. Total quantity of
commodities
provided for 
schoolmeals 
provided to
students as a
result
of USDA assistance
WFP reports: SMP
monitoring system,
WFPSPRs
Review of WFP secondary data
andreports.
19,017mt 14,810mt 19,260 mt
19. Number of students
receiving school
meals as a result
of
USDA assistance
WFP reports: SMP
monitoring system,
WFPSPRs
Secondary data review of
WFPrecords
767,108 753,139 763,490
187
20. Percent of students WFP Records At school level we shall take 100% 100% 91.5%
142 The percent of students who regularly consume a meal before the school day by county: Garissa: 78.8%, Marsabit: 78.8%, Nairobi: 54.1%, Tana River: 73.8%, Turkana: 24.3%, West Pokot: 36.2%. 143 Only 49.3% of parents said that their child had had breakfast in the last 5 days. 144 The percentage of school feeding days in 2014 as reported in the SMP 6 forms in each county were: Garissa: 66.1%, Marsabit: 69.8%, Nairobi: 75.7%, Tana River: 50.9%, Turkana: 71.6%, West
Pokot: 74.6%.
188
in targeted 
schools
consuming daily
meals (lunch)
Endline Survey using 
the school’s records
related toschool
information from interviews with
teachers and head teachers. In
addition, observations will be 
made during the school survey to 
verify what proportion of students
present in
school eats
a meal.
21. Number of trainings
provided in food
preparation and
storage practices
WFP Training reports The data will be obtained from 
theWFP training reports.
This data will be triangulated 
and counterchecked though 
interviews atschool level with 
cooks and head teacher.
54 17145 15
22. Number of teachers
trained in food
preparation and
storage practices
Endline Survey 
throughinterview 
with head teacher, 
cooks and store
keeper,
WFP Training reports
3,455 1,753 1,870
Feed the 
Future
indicators
23. Number of
socialassistance
beneficiaries
participating in
productive 
safetynets as
a
result of
USDA support
WFP reports: SMP
monitoring system,
WFPSPRs
Analysis from secondary data 767,108 753,139 763,490
Increas
ed
nationa l
capacity
MGD 1.4.1
–
Increased
capacityof
government
institutions
24. Percent of 
districts in which 
food
procurement and
distribution
procedures and
infrastructure are
in
place.
MOE data
Ministry of 
Educationthrough 
the county
education office
Key informant
interviewsthrough visit
at Turkana
and Garissa Counties
Analysis of secondary data
fromMOE.
85.4% 100% 100%
25. Number of MOE
officers 
benefitingfrom 
home
-grown
school feeding
manuals distributed
MOE data Analysis of secondary data
fromMOE.
6,000 4,232146 8,364
MGD 1.4.2
–
Improved 
Policyand 
Regulatory
Framework
26. Number of child
health and 
nutritionpolicies, 
regulationand/or
administrative
procedures in place
MOE data Analysis of secondary data
fromMOE.
3
(Food and
Nutrition
Security 
Policy;
National
Social
Protection
2 policies at Stage 
2: Drafted and
presentedfor 
public/stakeholder
consultation147
.
8 policies at Stage 5:
2 policies at Stage 
2: Drafted and
presentedfor 
public/stakeholder
consultation149
.
8 policies at Stage 5:
189
145 In 2014, the SMP Management Training was carried out in East Pokot, Garissa, Marsabit, Tana River, West Pokot and Samburu which covered also food preparation and storage practices. 146 This indicator was calculated by multiplying the number of home grown school feeding manuals distributed (2,116) times an average of two beneficiaries per manual. 147Child Health Policy (being finalized in 2015) and National School Health, Nutrition And Meals Program Strategy (drafted in 2011).
190
Policy; 
National
School Health
Policy)
Passed for which
implementation
hasbegun148.
Passed for which
implementation
hasbegun150.
27. Number of Home￾grown feeding
manuals
distributed
MOE data Analysis of secondary data
fromMOE.
1,770 824 16,002
1.4.4 –
Increased
Engagement of
Local
Organizations
and
Community
Groups
28. Number of PTAs
and SMCs
contributing to 
theirschool (use
percentage)
Survey through 
interviewwith Head 
teacher and
HH/Parents
Data obtained through interview
withheadmaster and
HH/Parents.
Particular emphasis will be given 
in understanding the frequency
and type
of the contribution (food and
non-food items).
70% 93.8% of PTAs, 66.7%
of SMCs151
82% PTAs
81% SMCs
29. Number of public￾private
partnerships
formed as a result
ofUSDA
assistance*
WFP reports Secondary data from WFP N/A 13152 13
30. Value of new public
and private sector
investments
leveraged as a
resultof USDA
assistance*
WFP reports Secondary data from WFP N/A USD 15,381,303 USD 15,381,303
Food
utilizati
onand 
food
safety
MGD SO 2 –
Increased use 
of health and 
dietary
practices
31. Percent of schools 
intarget 
communities that
store food off the
ground
Endline Survey at 
schoollevel through 
physical observations, 
interviews with person
in charge of
the store.
Interview store keeper and
observation of storage. Criteria
thatwill be used: off ground/on
ground,aeration, vermin and
pest free.
67% 96%153 76.5%
MGD 2.2 –
Increased
32. Percent of food
preparers at 
target
Endline Survey 
throughinterview
with cooks
Kimetrica will administer the 
same test to cooks used during
the baseline
87% 97.9%154 100%
149Child Health Policy (being finalized in 2015) and National School Health, Nutrition And Meals Program Strategy (drafted in 2011). 148 School Health Nutrition Policy – (being reviewed in 2015), Diarrhoea Policy (updated in 2014), Basic Education Act (2014), National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011) (being reviewed in
2015), Kenya National Social Protection Policy (2011), National School Health Policy (2009) and Kenya Health Policy 2012-2030 (2012). 150 School Health Nutrition Policy – (being reviewed in 2015), Diarrhoea Policy (updated in 2014), Basic Education Act (2014), National Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011) (being reviewed in
2015), Kenya National Social Protection Policy (2011), National School Health Policy (2009) and Kenya Health Policy 2012-2030 (2012). 151 While water, firewood, cooking utensils, cleaning products and plates were provided for children in 2014 in at least 87% of cases, during the survey, no fruits and meat were contributed and
191
vegetables in only 2 schools in Turkana. 152 New partnerships with: International Paper, DSM, FEED, Caterpillar, Earth Holdings, Government of Kenya, Unilever, Drew Barrymore, Princess Haya WPD, IRB, JAWFP, LG Electronics and
Goodeed Association. 153 The break down by county is as follows: Garissa: 100%, Marsabit: 96%, Nairobi: 87.5%, Tana River: 100%, Turkana: 100%, West Pokot: 100%. 154 The mid-term evaluation recommends using in the future a passing threshold should be 80%. Using this threshold, only 29.2% of cooks passed the test. The break down by county is as follows:
Garissa: 12.5%, Marsabit: 14.3%, Nairobi: 50%, Tana River: 37.5%, Turkana: 33.3%, West Pokot: 25%.
192
knowledge of 
safefood 
preparation
and storage
practices
schools who 
achievea passing 
score on a test of 
safe food
preparation and
storage
WFP records survey with some 
improvements. Threshold for
passing: 50% correctanswers.
MGD 2.6
Increased
access to
requisite food
preparation 
and storage 
tools and
equipment
33. Percent of target
schools with
improved food
preparation and
storage
equipment
Endline Survey 
through interviews 
with headmaster 
(School Questionnaire) 
and cook and physical
observations
Data obtained from interviews
withHead teachers and cooks 
through questionnaires. 
Indicators will be calculated 
from our sample by dividing the 
schools with improvedstorage 
equipment by the total number 
of schools visited.
Food 
preparation:
60%
Food stores: 67%
-Energy saving
stoves:37.5% of
schools155156
-Food preparation
(schools with
kitchens)81%.
-Food store 80%.
-Raised wooden pallets:
95.8% of schools.
80% of schools 
havededicated
storerooms
82% of schools
havededicated
kitchens
WFP 
Protection
indicator
Proportion of
assisted people
whoexperiences 
threats to safety 
problems
travelling to, from
and/or at
WFP
program site
Endline Survey 
through Household
Questionnaire
Parents were asked whether their
child had been exposed to any 
threatsto his/her safety in the past
month.
N/A rape: 4.9%, sexual
harassment: 4.9%,
robberies: 3.7%, animal
attacks: 8.2%,
bullying:3.5%, abuse 
of drugs: 4.4%157
Rape: 0.2%, Sexual
harassment: 0.4%,
Robbery 9%, Animal
attack: 41.5%, Bullying
14.9%, Drug abuse
0.7%
155 The break down by county is as follows: Garissa: 12.5%, Marsabit: 37.5%, Nairobi: 87.5%, Tana River: 12.5%, Turkana: 12.5%, West Pokot: 62.5%.
193
156 27.1% of cooks confirmed that they use energy saving stoves. 157 Rape : Nairobi 12.7%, Garissa 1.2%. Sexual harassment: Nairobi 14.5%. Robbed: Nairobi 5.4%. Animal attacks: Turkana: 22.7%, Nairobi 9.1%, Tana River 2.5%. Bullying: Tana River 2.5%. Abuse
of drugs: Nairobi 11%.
Annex 31: Additional data - Significance test results
Significance Testing - Enrolment
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null
Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
1
The median of
Boys Change
EoP equals
4.00.
One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test 0.850
Retain the
null
hypothesis.
2
The median of
Girls Change
EoP equals
4.00.
One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank
Test 0.323
Retain the
null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
Significance Testing – USDA Direct Beneficiaries
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
1
The median of Number of total
individuals benefiting directly from
USDA-funded interventions equals
1,020,480
One-Sample
Wilcoxon
Signed Rank
Test
0.102
Retain the
null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
The median number of beneficiaries benefiting directly from USDA-funded 
interventions is 763,490 which is below the set target of <1,020,480. There is a slow (p 
=0.102) regression of thetotal individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded 
interventions. The variance change is within the set target given that p > 0.05.
Significance Testing – USDA Indirect Beneficiaries
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
1
The median of Number of total
individuals benefiting indirectly from
USDA-funded interventions equals
1,135,470.
One-Sample
Wilcoxon
Signed Rank
Test
0.180
Retain the
null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
Notes
1). One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicate that the enrolment rates for boys
was withinthe set threshold of 4-percentage point increase between baseline and end of 
project (p = 0.850 -the observed median percentage was NOT significantly different 
from the projected median percent change).
2). One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicate that the enrolment rates for girls
was withinthe set threshold of 4-percentage point increase between baseline and end of 
project (p = 0.323 -the observed median percentage was NOT significantly different 
from the projected median percent change)
The median number of beneficiaries benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions is 777,373 which is below the set target of <1,020,480. There is a slow (p 
=0.180) regression of thetotal individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions. The variance change is within the set target given that p > 0.05.
Significance Testing - Teachers in target schools who attend school and 
teach atleast 90 percent of scheduled school days per year
ONE-SAMPLE TEST
Teachers in target
schools who attend
school and teach at
least 90 percent of
scheduled school days
per year
Test value = 90
t df
sig. (2-
tailed)
Mean
difference
95% Confidence interval
of the difference
lower upper
-.366 34 .717 -.27200 -1.7823 1.2383
The overall mean attendance for the teachers is 89.7% (Test value + Mean Difference) 
of scheduled school days in a year. This is 0.3 percentage point below the target of 
90%. However,the difference is statistically insignificant (p>0.05). In this regard, the 
target was attained. Thismeans that the 36% of the teachers that attend less than 90% 
of the scheduled sessions do not adversely affect the overall mean teacher attendance.
WFP Kenya Country Office