Baseline Report
USDA McGovern-Dole International 
Food for Education and Child 
Nutrition Program’s Support (Fiscal 
Year 2014-2016) to WFP Nepal’s 
Country Program:
Baseline Survey Report
Nairobi
January 21, 2016
Agreement Number: FFE-367-2014/050-00
Submitted by:
WFP Asia Project Coordinator
Kimetrica LLC
80 Garden Center, Suite A-368
Broomfield, CO 80020, USA
Submitted to:
Head of School Feeding (Education 
Support)
WFP Nepal
Chakupat, Pata Dhoka, Lalitpur
P.O. Box – 107; Kathmandu, Nepal
www.kimetrica.com
i
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the World Food Programme (WFP), the Ministry of Education, the Food 
for Education Project, the Department of Education and District Education Office staff for their 
time, thoughtful input, and guidance in relation to this process. We would also like to thank WFP’s 
implementing partners in Nepal, specifically World Education for sharing Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA) tools and related resources. Without their help in sharing documents, 
providing insight into the history and evolution of the School Feeding Programme (SFP), and 
support during the field data collection, it would not have been possible to conduct the survey. 
We appreciate all of the in-country stakeholders who took the time to meet with the Kimetrica 
team, sharing their candid thoughts and reflections about the SFP. 
We are grateful for Development Vision Nepal, Kimetrica’s local partner, and its management, 
staff and enumerators who travelled to remote, hilly areas to access respondents. They worked 
tirelessly to ensure high data quality and to complete the work on time. 
We would especially like to thank WFP Washington and the Regional Bureau in Bangkok for 
introducing Kimetrica to the country focal points for their coordination and for their facilitation 
role with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
Finally, thanks to USDA for their inputs in finalizing the survey instruments and indicators covered 
by this baseline and subsequent surveys. 
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views 
expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
ii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CSB+ Corn Soya Blend Plus (also known as Supercereal)
CWPM Correct Words Per Minute
DDS Dietary Diversity Score
DoE Department of Education
DVN Development Vision Nepal
ECD Early Childhood Development
EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment
FFE Food For Education
FFEP Food For Education Project
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTF Feed the Future
GoN Government of Nepal
MGD McGovern Dole
MoE Ministry of Education
NRCS Nepal Red Cross Society
ODK Open Data Kit
ORF Oral Reading Fluency
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PPS Probability Proportional to Size
SE Standard Error
SFA School Feeding Attainment
SFP School Feeding Programme
SMC School Management Committee
SO Strategic Objective
SRS Simple Random Sampling
SSRP School Sector Reform Plan
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WE World Education
WELA World Education Learning Assessment
WFP World Food Programme
iii
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 School Feeding Program in Nepal.......................................................................................... 6
1.2 Scope of the Consultancy ...................................................................................................... 7
2 Methodology......................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Sampling Approach and Data Collection Instruments...........................................................8
2.2 Data Collection ...................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Data Cleaning and Analysis.................................................................................................. 10
3 Key Findings .........................................................................................................................11
3.1 School Performance Indicators ...........................................................................................11
3.1.1 MGD SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children ....................................................11
3.1.2 MGD 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers...............................................12
3.1.3 MGD 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of administrators .....................................13
3.1.4 MGD 1.2: Improved attentiveness.................................................................................14
3.1.5 MGD 1.2.1: Reduced short-term hunger.......................................................................15
3.1.6 MGD 1.3: Improved student attendance.......................................................................16
3.1.7 MGD 1.3.1: Increased economic and cultural incentives (or decreased disincentives) 17
3.1.8 MGD 1.3.4: Increased student enrollment....................................................................17
3.1.9 MGD 1.3.5: Increased community understanding of benefits of education.................18
3.1.10 MGD 1.4.4: Increased engagement of local organizations and community groups .....19
3.1.11 MGD SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices.............................................19
3.1.12 MGD 2.1: Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices.................................20
3.1.13 MGD 2.2: Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage practices.........21
3.1.14 MGD 2.4: Increased access to clean water and sanitation services..............................21
3.2 School Variables .................................................................................................................. 22
3.2.1 School facilities .............................................................................................................. 22
3.2.2 Food preparation and storage facilities.........................................................................22
3.2.3 Teacher training history and background......................................................................22
3.2.4 Teacher attendance ....................................................................................................... 23
3.2.5 Food Utilization.............................................................................................................. 23
3.3 Associations between SFP Indicators and School Variables................................................24
3.4 School Feeding Attainment (SFA)........................................................................................25
4 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................26
iv
5 Recommendations................................................................................................................27
Annex 1: References ............................................................................................................................. 29
Annex 2: Sampling Strategy .................................................................................................................. 30
Annex 3: EGRA Test Background........................................................................................................... 32
Annex 4: Training and Quality Assurance .............................................................................................35
Annex 5: Key Indicators and Calculation............................................................................................... 37
Annex 6: EGRA Test Results.................................................................................................................. 44
Annex 7: Dietary Diversity Results........................................................................................................ 48
Annex 8: Student Attendance............................................................................................................... 51
Annex 9: Knowledge Level of Food Preparers......................................................................................53
Annex 10: School Variables................................................................................................................... 54
Annex 11: Teacher Attendance and Training History ...........................................................................58
Annex 12: Data Collection Tools........................................................................................................... 60
v
Tables
Table 1 - Tools and techniques used by the school administrators......................................................14
Table 2: Change in enrollment and gender ratio over last four academic years..................................18
Table 3: Percentage of students regularly receiving mid-day meals at school by district....................24
Table 4: Association between regular student attendance and school variables................................24
Table 5: Summary of sample................................................................................................................. 31
Table 6: EGRA sub-tests and their measurement approach.................................................................33
Table 7: WFP SFP performance indicators and calculations.................................................................38
Table 8: Background demographic characteristics of EGRA students from grade three .....................44
Table 9: Average scores obtained by students in different EGRA sub-tests.........................................45
Table 10: Mean correct words per minute (CWPM).............................................................................46
Table 11: Reading comprehension scores............................................................................................47
Table 12: Frequency of consumption of Feed the Future ten food groups in last 24 hours................49
Table 13: Mean DDS of primary school students..................................................................................49
Table 14: Dietary diversity status.......................................................................................................... 49
Table 15: Average student attendance during last academic year by district and gender ..................51
Table 16: Percentage of students regularly attending school during last academic year....................52
Table 17: Percentage of food preparers passing the safe food preparation and storage test.............53
Table 18: Key school-level indicators.................................................................................................... 54
Table 19: Key school-level indicators.................................................................................................... 55
Table 20: Background characteristics of teachers................................................................................58
Table 21: Percentage of teachers with ≥80% and ≥90% attendance in last academic year.................59
Table 22: Types of information collected in baseline survey and tools used.......................................60
vi
Figures
Figure 1: Mean ORF score (correct words per minute) by district .......................................................12
Figure 2 Percentage of children within each ORF class........................................................................12
Figure 3: Percentage of inattentive students .......................................................................................15
Figure 4: Percentage of students who regularly consume a meal before the school day....................15
Figure 5: Percentage of students regularly attending schools by district ............................................17
Figure 6: Percentage of parents who mentioned ≥3 benefits of primary education ...........................19
Figure 7: Average DDS of students, with standard error bands...........................................................20
Figure 8: Average teacher attendance rate ..........................................................................................23
Figure 9: Percentage of students achieving each reading comprehension score ................................46
Figure 10: Relationship between mean ORF and mean reading comprehension score.......................47
Figure 11: Average student attendance rates during last academic year by grade .............................51
Figure 12: Average student attendance rates during last academic year............................................52
Figure 13: Trends in average teacher and student attendance during last academic year .................60
1
Executive Summary
Objective and Scope of the Consultancy
The objective of the consultancy was to undertake a baseline assessment of the McGovern Dole 
(MGD)-funded School Feeding Programme (SFP) in Nepal, implemented by the World Food 
Programme (WFP) in collaboration with the Government of Nepal (GoN). The baseline survey 
aimed to collect baseline data on all of the approved Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and the 
Evaluation Plan’s key indicators. It collected data to measure education, food security, nutrition,
and other indicators at individual, household, and school levels in accordance with the PMP. In 
addition, data on a range of variables (e.g. school infrastructure, school location, teacher 
attendance etc.) that could potentially affect or explain program outcomes were also collected.
Background
WFP introduced school feeding programme in Nepal in 1974 but it wasn’t until 1996 that the 
programme was mainstreamed into the Ministry of Education’s (MoE) through Food For 
Education Project (FFEP). Recently, under the MGD International Food for Education (FFE) and 
Child Nutrition Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provided WFP Nepal’s SFP
with a grant of $26,958,500 for the fiscal year 2014-16 to cover activities until 2017.
Under the MGD-supported SFP, WFP, in partnership with the FFEP, provides mid-day meals, 
known as diva-khaja, to targeted pre-primary and primary school students across 10 districts in
the mid- and far-western regions of Nepal. The mid-day meals consist of a 110 grams portion of 
hot fortified porridge which is prepared with: 90 grams of corn soya blend (also known as 
supercereal), 10 grams of sugar, and 10 grams of vegetable oil. In addition to the nutritional 
benefits to enhance cognitive learning, WFP and its partners, in collaboration with the MoE, are 
executing a range of supplementary interventions to reduce health-related absences, promote 
literacy, raise community and parent awareness of good health and hygiene practices and the 
importance of education, and build the capacity of the GoN. Through the provision of mid-day 
meals and these additional interventions, WFP aims to contribute to increasing student 
enrollment, school attendance, literacy skills (measured by reading and understanding skills of 
primary school students), and health and nutrition outcomes (measured by dietary diversity). 
Methodology
The methodology used for this baseline survey focused primarily on quantitative data collected 
via a cross-sectional survey of a sub-sample of program schools and SFP beneficiaries. Data was 
collected in June 2015 from 112 schools across six program districts (Baitadi, Bajhang, Bajura, 
Dadeldhura, Dailekh, and Doti) in the mid-western and far-western regions. Given the logistical 
constraints in the country following the April 2015 earthquake, it was agreed to sample only six 
out of the ten operational districts. Bajhang and Dadeldhura were purposively selected
considering that all three implementing partners were present in these two districts. The other 
four were randomly selected. The schools were then randomly selected from these districts using 
2
a stratified multi-stage sampling technique. The reference period for the school survey was the 
2014 Nepali academic year which began in from mid- April 2014 to mid-March 20151 . Ten 
students, ten parents, one cook, one storekeeper, and one teacher were interviewed from each 
school, using separate questionnaires. Data on students’ dietary diversity was collected from 
parents using a 24-hour recall. In addition, the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) test was 
conducted with ten third grade students. School-level information was collected using a school 
questionnaire, interviews with school principals, and reviews of school records.
Key Findings
The major findings of the baseline study were as follows: 
School Variables 
• The average class size is 20 (±1.1 SE) students.
• Teacher attendance is a major concern, with only 42 percent (±2.7 SE) of teachers 
regularly attending (90 percent of school days). This may undermine the ability of the SFP 
to increase student attendance and achieve an impact on literacy rates. 
• Less than half of the schools (44 percent ±4.7 SE) have a library.
• Most schools have a separate storeroom for food (72 percent ±4.2 SE) and store food off 
the ground (88 percent ±3.1 SE).
• Half of the schools have a proper dedicated kitchen (51 percent ±4.7 SE). The other 
schools do not have a defined kitchen per se, but construct a makeshift fire place and cook 
in the open air.
SFP Indicators
• Students’ literacy skills are very low, with only 0.5 percent (±0.2 SE) of students classifying
as fluent readers according to the national benchmark of 45 words per minute. There is a 
long way to go to reach the 2017 target of 30 percent.
• The dietary diversity scores (DDS) of school aged children are very low: 4.6 (±0.07 SE) out 
of 10, on average. Less than one in every five students has a high dietary diversity score 
(DDS>7). More than half of the students consumed less than five food groups, and only 
17 percent consumed more than seven food items during the 24 hour recall period. There 
is no variation between boys and girls.
• Three-quarters of students (77 percent ±1.3 SE) reported consuming a school mid-day 
meals regularly. This figure matches closely with that calculated from school records on 
food utilization.
• More girls are enrolled than boys. The gender ratio is 1.18±0.04 SE (118 girls for every 100 
boys enrolled). 
1 Nepali calendar Baisakh to Chaitra, Bikram Sambhat 2071 
3
• Student attendance is low, with only 60 percent (±1.5 SE) of students attending school 
regularly (at least 80 percent of school days). There is substantial work to be done to meet 
the target of 80 percent regular attendance. There is no significant difference between 
boys and girls.
• Teachers perceive low student inattentiveness (12 percent ±1.0 SE), with no difference 
between male and female students but variation between districts. 
• Less than half (47 percent ± 2.8 SE) of the teachers report having received training on new 
teaching and learning techniques, and only 20 percent (±3.8 SE) of teachers use at least
three new and improved quality teaching technologies or tools2
. This might explain and 
could be correlated with students’ low literacy levels. 
• Most schools (89 percent ±3.0 SE) have functioning toilets for students. However, less 
than half of schools have separate toilet facilities for boys and girls. On average, there is
one toilet per every 33 students (ratio 0.031±0.004 SE). This ratio is higher for boys than
girls (1:29 for boys and 1:38 for girls). Despite this difference, access to toilet facilities is
well within the national target of one toilet for every 50 students.
• Nine out of ten schools have a safe source of drinking water at the school or nearby, and 
77 percent (±4.0 SE) of schools have a piped water supply.
• Food preparers’ knowledge is below standard. Only 20 percent (±3.8 SE) of the cooks 
passed the food preparation and storage test3
, far below the target of 80 percent. 
• The frequency of School Management Committee (SMC) meetings is high, with little 
variation across districts.
• Indicators related to student and parent understanding of the benefits of primary 
education, health, and hygiene are also high, with little variation across districts.
• Gender disparities are not significant for most of the WFP school performance indicators, 
though girls have lower access to toilet facilities than boys.
• Average dietary diversity of students, student’s consumption of a meal before and after 
school, regular student attendance, levels of inattentiveness, and average reading score 
in EGRA assessment vary markedly across districts, but there are no obvious trends that 
can identify districts with consistently poor performance. The high variability in many key 
SFP indicators between districts requires further investigation, as it cannot be explained 
by variations in school facilities.
• Teacher and student attendance is affected by seasonality: both drop sharply from July￾August (due to the rainy season and migration for the collection of Yarsagumba) and again 
October-November (linked with the festivals of Dashain and Tihar)
2 A checklist was prepared with WFP’s support in order to assess three areas of teaching:
1. applying participatory teaching techniques during class
2. using audio-visual aids
3. engaging actively with students.
The enumerator recorded the use of these techniques as a result of directly observing one teacher per school (112 teachers total)
in a class setting. For the checklist please refer to the teacher questionnaire.
3 The passing score is 80 percent.
4
• Regular student attendance is higher in schools with regular teacher attendance and 
piped water. There is no significant relationship between dietary diversity or attentiveness 
and better school facilities.
School Feeding Attainment (SFA)
Retrospective monthly information4 about the meals provided to the students by the school was 
explored in an effort to calculate a School Feeding Attainment (SFA) score which could be used in 
a regression analysis to attribute outcomes of interest to the SFP intervention. For full details 
about the analytical approach for the regression please refer to Annex B of final “Evaluation Plan”. 
Unfortunately, the availability of feeding and food utilization data was not satisfactory due to 
poor record keeping at the school level and was not robust enough for a comprehensive analysis. 
Overall, 50 percent of the monthly data points showed a value of zero (utilization was not 
recorded) and six percent showed negative values (which is not possible). No secondary data was 
available to supplement the primary data. For this reason, the output of the regression analysis 
might lead to misleading interpretations, and hence any baseline level impact analysis was not 
included in this report.
Recommendations
1. Revise final target for Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-aged children, 
measured as: Percentage 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. Considering 
a very low baseline status (0.5 percent), the 30 percent final target of the outcome indicator 
for SO1 appears to be highly ambitious and is unlikely to be achievable with the existing 
project activities and resources. We recommend that WFP approach USDA to revise the final 
target downward. We also suggest that WFP raise this issue with the Ministry of Education 
and look for a strategic partnerships by which to improve the literacy status of early grade 
students through interventions beyond the SFP scope, such as increasing and improving
teacher training and expanding EGRA (or similar intervention) coverage in program areas.
2. Agree on final target for Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices, 
measured as Average Dietary Diversity Score of school aged children. This indicator was 
updated during the design stage and, as such, does not have a target defined. We 
recommend that WFP Nepal approach USDA to agree on a reasonable final target.
3. Address teacher absenteeism: With less than half of the teachers attending regularly (90 
percent of school days), teacher absenteeism needs to be reduced in order to increase 
4 For the whole of the last academic year and one month of the current academic year.
5
student attendance and literacy. We recommend that WFP raise this issue at the senior MoE 
level.
4. Invest in school infrastructure: More resources should be channeled toward improving 
school facilities. In particular, investment in the repair and construction of kitchens and in 
setting up libraries and e-libraries with sufficient reading materials should be prioritized. 
5. Scale up training for cooks on safe food preparation and storage techniques. With only 20 
percent of the cooks passing the food preparation and storage test (80 percent threshold) it 
is recommended to increase the coverage and effectiveness of these trainings.
6. Ensure proper record keeping at the school level: School level record keeping, especially 
tracking of food distribution, utilization, and stock management must improve in order to
allow for monitoring, evaluation, and impact attribution. Current data availability is not 
sufficient enough to be used for rigorous impact analysis without resulting in misleading 
interpretations. However, the GoN and WFP have recently put a system in place to capture 
date at school level (electronic System for Project Reporting). If implemented properly, the 
available tools can capture the food utilization information required for evaluation and 
regular monitoring of the program. WFP should continue to work with the FFEP, MoE, DoE,
and other necessary stakeholders to ensure that every school can maintain proper records
through applicable training.
7. Mid-term evaluation: For the next survey round, we recommend that the evaluation team 
collect detailed qualitative data using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and stakeholder 
interviews in order to supplement the findings from the quantitative survey (i.e. the low 
literacy rates). Qualitative information can provide additional context and enable the 
evaluators to understand and dissect the factors that underpin the differences between
many of the WFP SFP indicators. All mid-term data collection should be scheduled to be 
completed before May 2016, when the schools close for holidays and monsoons. 
6
1 Background
More than 20 million children around the world receive school meals from the World Food 
Programme (WFP) every year (WFP, 2015). Through its School Feeding Program (SFP), WFP works 
with governments and development partners to support education, reduce malnutrition, and 
promote overall development. Provision of regular mid-day meals at schools is the main 
component of the SFP, although in some cases it also provides high-energy biscuit snacks
prepared offsite. In some contexts, WFP also provides take-home rations to the families of 
students who attend school regularly. 
Although the provision of a mid-day meal, biscuits, or take-home rations at the school level is 
designed to attract and keep students in school, thus improving their literacy levels, the benefits 
of the SFP can reach far beyond school boundaries (WFP, 2013). For example, by emphasizing
girls’ education, the SFP can help address the gender gap. Through the provision of regular,
nutritious meals, often combined with deworming and micronutrient fortification, the SFP also 
aims to improve children’s nutritional intakes. Furthermore, the SFP can have a safety net effect, 
directly by protecting food security during times of crisis and indirectly by offsetting household 
education and food costs (WFP, 2013). These benefits are generally the effects of systematic 
incorporation of additional strategic programmatic interventions that reduce economic, social,
and cultural constraints to health and learning (Finan, 2010). 
1.1 School Feeding Program in Nepal
WFP has been supporting the Government of Nepal’s (GoN) implementation of an in-kind school 
feeding program and complementary activities since 1974. The Nepal SFP aims to incentivize and 
improve access to education by increasing enrollment and attendance at Government schools. 
The overarching goal is to improve the nutritional status of children and, thereby, improve 
attention spans and learning outcomes.
Given previous success of WFP-supported mid-day school meal programs as well as the 
documented educational and nutritional benefits, the GoN expanded the SFP to an additional 19 
districts in 2008. The 29 districts currently offering the SFP operate using one of two modalities: 
in-kind or cash. For the cash-based program, supported by the Government in 19 districts, cash is 
disbursed to schools in order to purchase meal ingredients. For the in-kind program, supported 
jointly by the Government and WFP in 10 districts, food commodities are provided directly to the 
schools. 
The Nepal SFP currently reaches nearly 500,000 students in pre-primary and primary schools, 
about 11 percent of net enrolled students. As per WFP Nepal’s current country program action 
plan (2013-2017), WFP supported SFP aims to reach 330,000 children per year with a total budget 
of USD 59,018,221. 
Under the McGovern Dole (MGD) International Food For Education (FFE) and Child Nutrition 
Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) granted a sum of USD 26,958,500 to WFP’s 
7
SFP in Nepal for the US federal fiscal years 2014-20165
. The grant is meant to provide school 
meals; early grade reading assistance; digital learning; and water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH)
interventions in ten districts in the mid-western (Dailekh, Rukum, and Jajarkot districts) and far￾western (Doti, Dadeldhura, Bajhang, Baitadi, Achham, Bajura, Darchula districts) regions of Nepal.
In addition, the support is meant to cover capacity development activities including two pilot 
projects: School Feeding Modalities and Nutrition-Sensitive Literacy. 
For the first two years of the USDA-WFP agreement, WFP plans to provide a 110 gram portion of 
hot fortified corn soya blend (supercereal) porridge, prepared with sugar and vegetable oil, to 
190,000 pre-primary and primary school students on 200 days of the 220 planned school days per 
year. In the third year of the program, two of the districts will be handed over to the GoN, such 
that WFP coverage will decrease to 160,000 students. According to the 2014-15 list of WFP￾supported schools, the SFP currently covers 2,154 schools, with projected enrolled population of 
191,750 (101,322 girls and 90,428 boys).
WFP is implementing a range of activities in collaboration with the GoN’s Ministry of Education 
(MoE), Food for Education Project (FFEP), Department of Education (DoE), Regional and District 
Education Officers, Resource Persons, and development partners to achieve educational 
outcomes under the School Sector Reform Plan (SSRP) framework. The GoN contributes to WFP’s 
SFP by providing MoE staff to support the SFP operation and by allocating funds (estimated to be 
around USD 637,734 per Nepali fiscal year) for food transportation costs. In addition to providing
school meals, WFP is also:
• distributing school supplies, furniture, and materials
• establishing libraries
• training teachers, school administrators, storekeepers, and food preparers
• rehabilitating and building school infrastructure (e.g. building or rehabilitation of latrines, 
wells and water stations/system, kitchens etc.)
• raising awareness about education, health, and nutrition through local implementing 
partners.
• building capacity across local, regional, and national-level GoN staff as support towards 
the transition of a fully nationally-owned sustainable school feeding program.
1.2 Scope of the Consultancy
The objective of the consultancy was to undertake a baseline assessment of the MGD-funded SFP
in Nepal, implemented by the WFP in collaboration with the GoN and non-governmental partners. 
This report presents the main findings, which will constitute benchmark values against which 
progress can be compared during the mid-line and end-line surveys.
5 October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2017.
8
Specifically, the aims of this baseline evaluation were to:
1. present baseline values for key WFP SFP performance indicators
2. determine whether these indicators vary across schools and districts
3. present school-related variables that may be affecting variation in indicators across 
schools.
2 Methodology
2.1 Sampling Approach and Data Collection Instruments
In line with the final evaluation plan, the methodology focused on quantitative data collection
using a cross-sectional survey of the program schools and beneficiaries. This was complemented 
by an extensive desk review during the design phase, which involved reviewing existing program 
documents and holding meetings with WFP officials and the MoE.
A total of 112 primary and early childhood development (ECD) schools across six districts (Baitadi, 
Bajhang, Bajura, Dadeldhura, Dailekh, and Doti) in the mid-western and far-western regions of 
Nepal were sampled. Given the logistical constraints following the April 2015 earthquake in the 
country, it was agreed to sample only six out of the ten operational districts. Bajhang and 
Dadeldhura were purposively selected considering that all three implementing partners were 
present in these two districts. The other four were randomly selected. The schools were randomly 
selected from six districts using a stratified multi-stage sampling technique (for information on 
the sampling strategy please refer to Annex 2). 
Retrospective data collection from school recordsfocused on the preceding year, covering the full
academic year for 2014, from mid- April 2014 to mid-March 2015 6 . Data collection was 
undertaken in June 2015.
Student attendance was measured in two ways: 1) by counting the number of students present
on the day of the survey and 2) by examining the annual attendance records of the ten sampled 
students from each school for the last academic year.
The Nepali EGRA test was administered in 99 schools. This was due to the fact that 13 out of the 
112 sampled schools were Early Childhood Development (ECD) schools that only teach younger 
students. Due to the post-earthquake national emergency context and temporary migration of 
many families for yarsagumba7 collection in some regions, there was a low student attendance, 
Nepali calendar Baisakh to Chaitra, Bikram Sambhat 2071 
7 Yarsagumba is a small, fragile, mummified body of the Himalayan bat moth caterpillar that has been invaded by a fungus. 
Yarsagumba is believed to have special medicinal quality and has been used in Chinese medicine for centuries. It can be found 
in high pastures of the Himalayas above 3,500m and is very expensive; one kilogram can cost as much as USD 10,000. Every 
9
which meant that it was not always possible to sample ten students per school. As a result, 866 
grade three students took part in the EGRA test compared with the planned number of 990
students8
. Girls and boys share similar characteristics, with few reading extracurricular books (17
percent) or speaking a native language other than Nepali at home (20 percent). Annex 6 provides 
a more detailed summary of the characteristics of the students, along with the results from the 
EGRA sub-tests.
Data related to training received by teachers was collected for 324 teachers via the School 
Questionnaire.
Quantitative data was collected in each sampled school using the following seven questionnaires 
developed by Kimetrica and translated into Nepali (please refer to Annex 12 for samples of each 
questionnaire).
• The School Questionnaire was used to collect school-level information through interviews 
with the head teacher, direct observation of the school facilities, and data from school 
records. 
• The Student Questionnaire was administered to a sample of ten randomly selected 
students in each school.
• The Household Questionnaire was administered to parents of the ten randomly selected 
students (one parent per student).
• The Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) was administered to ten randomly selected 
third grade students from each school (see Annex 3 for more details on EGRA).
• The Teacher Questionnaire was administered to one teacher from each school. Teaching 
data was also collected through observation of teaching techniques. 
• The Cook Questionnaire was administered to cooks in each school. It included test 
questions on safe food preparation and storage.
• The Storekeeper Questionnaire was administered to the person responsible for the 
storage of SFP food in each school. Data collection also included direct observation of the 
storeroom. 
2.2 Data Collection
Development Vision Nepal (DVN), a Nepali consulting firm, pre-tested the questionnaire in 
Dadeldhura district and implemented the surveys under Kimetrica’s supervision. The training and 
quality assurance methods employed are summarized in Annex 4.
spring, many families and tribes move up into the mountainous regions before the monsoon rain in search of yarsagumba (Jolly, 
2011).
8 Initially at the design phase, the minimum sample size calculated for the Early Grade Reading Assessment was 448 (4 students 
per school from grade three). However, following on the discussion with World Education in Nepal, in order to achieve greater 
precision and power, the baseline survey team decided to interview 10 students per school. 
10
The surveys were administered using Android powered mobile phones and the Open Data Kit 
(ODK) ecosystem. A combination of Kobo and Enketo Smart Paper was used to collect data using 
a Chrome browser, which allowed both online and offline data collection. Data collected through 
mobile phones was directly uploaded to the server when a 3G or Wi-Fi network was available. 
This permitted the data to be monitored on a near real-time basis by both Kimetrica and DVN, 
enabling the option for immediate feedback to the data collection team. When no internet 
connection was available, data was collected offline and uploaded when the team returned to the 
district headquarters or other locations with an internet connection. On a few occasions, due to 
data overload on the mobile phones, the enumerators collected data using paper questionnaires, 
then entered the data when they had internet access.
2.3 Data Cleaning and Analysis
During data cleaning, range and consistency checks were performed to identify outliers and to 
check whether responses were consistent with previous information. When outliers were 
identified, they were verified with the field team.
The data collected was used to inform the USDA MGD school performance indicators (see Annex 
5) as well as other indicators related to school feeding performance and outcomes. Data on key 
student and school variables that might influence performance indicators (such as school 
facilities) were also collected to help understand the key determinants of performance and 
outcomes. Indicators were calculated for all schools and disaggregated by district and gender. 
Associations between indicators and school variables were investigated. Statistical analysis was 
performed using IBM SPSS version 21 and Stata 13. Findings are reported statistically significant 
if the p-value is less than 0.05.
11
3 Key Findings
3.1 School Performance Indicators
This section covers the main findings related to the SFP performance indicators that were
identified jointly by WFP and USDA (please refer to Annex 5 for detailed results presented in 
tabular format). 
3.1.1 MGD SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children 
Indicator 1: Percentage 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
A total of nine sub-tests were undertaken. However, only Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) is reported 
here, as ORF can be used as a direct indicator of a child’s reading and understanding ability (Fuchs 
et al., 2001). The national fluency benchmark set by the GoN is 45 correct words per minute 
(CWPM, Abadzi, 2011). Only 0.5 percent (±0.2 SE) of the students who administered the test 
reached this benchmark and are therefore considered to be fluent readers. This is drastically 
short of the USDA / MGD final target of 30 percent by 2017.
The reasons behind this poor performance are not clear and were not within the scope of this 
study. A separate thorough survey/study should be undertaken in this regard. The mid-line 
survey, where more qualitative interviews with various stakeholders will be carried out, could be 
a good venue for exploring possible causes of these low literacy rates. 
The average ORF score is 18 (±0.6 SE) correct words per minute (CWPM; see Figure 1). This is
similar to the average ORF of 16.8 CWPM reported by the World Education (WE) Learning 
Assessment, which used a similar test module in Nepal (World Education, 2014)9
. Conversely, it is 
much lower than the average ORF score (27.2 CWPM) published by RTI in 2014. However, RTI 
used a different questionnaire than WE and this baseline survey. Please see Annexes 3 and 6 for 
more detailed results. Average scores are similar for boys and girls but vary by district, with the 
average in Dadeldhura being less than half the survey average and roughly a third of the highest 
scoring district (Bajhang with mean 22.2± 0.5 SE, Figure 1).
9 The World Education survey reported results for intervention and control groups. As the intervention group had received 
approximately two years of special literacy instructions and scored significantly higher (23.9 CWPM vs 16.8 CWPM) compared 
to the control group (who didn’t receive support), the value for the control group is compared here against the baseline value.
12
Figure 1: Mean ORF score (correct words per minute) by district
Figure 2 shows that one in ten students cannot read a single word of connected text. Only about 
one-third of the students can read more than 20 CWPM.
Figure 2 Percentage of children within each ORF class
3.1.2 MGD 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of teachers
3.1.2.1 Indicator 2: Percentage of teachers/educators/teaching assistants at target 
schools who received training
WFP training on new and quality teaching techniques and tools had not started by the time the 
baseline survey was conducted. We therefore requested information on teachers’ previous in￾service or on-the-job training beyond the context of the project. This data was collected for 324 
teachers via the School Questionnaire. Around half (47 percent ±2.8 SE) of the teachersreported 
having received training on teaching and learning techniques and tools in the past. Of these 50 
percent are male and 43 percent are female.
On the other hand, 51 percent of teachers (57 percent male and 43 percent female) have 
previously received training on health, hygiene and nutrition.
13
3.1.2.2 Indicator 3: Percentage of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of 
new and quality teaching techniques or tools
A checklist was prepared with WFP’s support in order to assess three areas of teaching techniques 
through observation:
1. application of participatory teaching techniques during class
2. use of audio-visual aids
3. active engagement with students.
The enumerator recorded the use of these techniquesthrough direct observation in a class setting
for one teacher per school (112 teachers in total). The aim of this exercise was to understand the 
percentage of teachers that are already applying these techniques prior to WFP training
implementation.
Only 20 percent (±3.8 SE) of teachers use all three assessed techniques. However, more than 
two thirds (68 percent) of the teachers use at least one. Forty-four percent of teachers use
participatory teaching techniques, 37 percent use audio-visual aids, and 46 percent make an 
active effort to engage students in classroom discussions. There is a significant variation between 
male and female teachers; 26 percent of male teachers use all three techniques compared to only 
11 percent of female teachers. There are no statistically significant differences across districts.
3.1.3 MGD 1.1.4: Increased skills and knowledge of administrators
There are two standard indicators specified in the performance monitoring plan (PMP) related to 
administrators: 
1. Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA 
assistance 
2. Number of school administrators and officials in target schools who demonstrate use of 
new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance
WFP training on new and quality teaching techniques and tools had not started by the time the 
baseline survey was conducted. Contrary to the previous indicators related to skills and 
knowledge of teachers, at the time of baseline, WFP did not develop a checklist to assess these 
indicators. Nevertheless, in agreement with WFP officials in Nepal, Kimetrica prepared a list of 
questions aimed at exploring the techniques or tools used by the school administrators at the 
time of baseline. The list of the questions and the basic statistics for each are provided in the 
Table 1 below.
14
Table 1 - Tools and techniques used by the school administrators
Techniques used by school administrators Percent
What does the school administrator do to improve teaching / classroom environment?
Regularly evaluates classroom instructions 73
Regular monitoring of teaching techniques of teachers 65
Provide feedback to teaches on teaching technique 76
What does the administrator do for quality assurance for improving literacy skills?
Ensure teaching instruction materials are available for all the teachers 66
Ensure supplementary reading materials are available for students 68
Encourage teachers to use audio-visual aid during class 36
Encourage teachers to prepare handmade posters or locally made visual aids 46
Encourage teachers to use participatory teaching techniques 46
What measures are in place for management and discipline of the school?
Regular attendance for teachers 73
Timely attendance for teachers 71
Regular attendance for students 74
Timely attendance for students 63
School uniform worn by students 38
What measures are in place for improvement and maintenance of infrastructure and 
physical environment of the school?
Cleanliness of the school surrounding 71
Regular cleaning of classrooms 70
Regular cleaning of teacher’s room 58
Proper maintenance of school latrines 50
Proper maintenance of classroom and furniture 35
Maintenance of the source of clean drinking water 34
3.1.4 MGD 1.2: Improved attentiveness 
3.1.4.1 Indicator 4: Percentage of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by 
their teachers
Attentiveness was measured in two ways.
1. Teachers from each school were asked about the level of attentiveness of a sample of ten 
students; a student was classified as inattentive if two out of the three teachers responded 
positively.
2. Teachers were asked about their general perceptions of the proportion of students that 
appeared inattentive in their classes. 
Only 12 percent (±1.0 SE) of students were identified as inattentive by teachers using the first 
method, while 22 percent were identified as inattentive using the second method. There are no 
gender differences, in inattentiveness (reported by teachers) but significant variations are evident 
across districts, with inattentiveness ranging from 24 percent (±3.2 SE) in Baitadi to only 3 percent
(±1.5 SE) in Doti (Figure 3). 
Given these low figures, we suggest that a new target be set, as the current target of 30 percent 
has already been met. This will allow the project to measure the effectiveness of its hypothesized 
15
outcome pathway: providing mid-day meals during school time are expected to relieve students 
from short-term hunger, which should help them to concentrate better in the classroom and thus 
improve attentiveness. 
3.1.5 MGD 1.2.1: Reduced short-term hunger 
3.1.5.1 Indicator 5: Percentage of students in target schools who regularly consume a 
meal before the school day
Seventy-four percent (±1.3 SE) of students regularly consume breakfast. “Regular” consumption 
was defined as consuming a meal before the school day on all six of the previous school days. 
Data was collected through students’ interviews whereby the sampled boys and were interviewed
separately. There is no significant difference between male and female students, but there is 
significant variation across districts, with Bajura having the lowest breakfast consumption (29
percent ±3.4 SE) and Dadeldhura having the highest (100 percent, see Figure 4). Further
investigation to confirm the low breakfast consumption in the respective regions could be done 
through the WFP regular monitoring activities.
Figure 3: Percentage of inattentive students Figure 4: Percentage of students who regularly 
consume a meal before the school day 
3.1.5.2 Indicator 6: Percentage of students in target schools who regularly consume a 
meal during the school day
A total of seventy-seven percent (±1.3 SE) of students regularly consume a meal during the 
school day. Again, “regular” consumption was defined as consuming a school day meal on all six 
of the previous school days. 
There is no difference between girls and boys, but there is considerable variation across districts, 
with the lowest consumption in Bajhang (47 percent ±3.1 SE) and the highest in Dailekh (97 
percent ±1.1 SE) and Baitadi (97 percent ±1.2 SE). Interestingly, 19 percent of parents reported 
giving less food to their child when meals were provided at school. Further investigation to 
16
confirm the low meals consumption in the respective regions could be done through the WFP 
regular monitoring activities.
3.1.6 MGD 1.3: Improved student attendance 
Student attendance was measured in two ways.
1. Using the school questionnaire, school attendance on the day of the survey was taken. This 
was compared to the number of students enrolled in each school (see Annex 8). 
2. The school attendance records of ten students per school for the last academic year were 
assessed. From this, we calculated both average attendance and regular school attendance 
(more than or equal to 80 percent of school days).
3.1.6.1 Indicator 7: Average student attendance
Based on school records (method 2), average school attendance10 for the last academic year
was 81 percent (±0.4 SE). There is no difference between boys’ and girls’ attendance. However,
there are slight variations between districts (from 76 percent in Dailekh to 85 percent in Doti) and 
grades (76 percent in Grade 1 to 83 percent in Grade 5). 
Based on observation (method 1), on the other hand, 75 percent (±1.9 SE) of enrolled students 
were present on the day of the survey.
There are also seasonal differences according to the school records. For instance, attendance
dropped to 75 percent during the July-August and October-November periods but was relatively 
constant for the rest of the year. The July-August declines may be due to the occurrence of the 
rainy season, which can inhibit access to the schools. Students may also spend this time helping 
their families harvest barley, plant rice, or collect yarsagumba, the latter of which involves
temporarily moving up to higher mountains. The October-November declines may be linked with 
the festivals of Dashain and Tihar (UNICEF, 2010). 
3.1.6.2 Indicator 8: Percentage of students regularly attending schools (≥80 of the 
school days)
Only 60 percent (±1.5 SE) of the students attended school regularly over the last year. “Regular”
attendance was defined as attending at least 80 percent of school days. There is no significant 
difference between boys (61 percent ±3.8 SE) and girls (59 percent ±2.0 SE), but there is a 
significant difference between districts, with Dadeldhura having the lowest proportion of 
10 Attendance was calculated based on the number of days student was present versus the number of days the school was open. 
Number of holidays/school closure days were collected from each school, and holidays were accounted for during analysis.
17
students regularly attending school (51 percent ±5.3 SE) and Doti having the highest (72 percent
±3.7 SE, see Figure 5). 
Figure 5: Percentage of students regularly attending schools by district
3.1.7 MGD 1.3.1: Increased economic and cultural incentives (or decreased 
disincentives)
3.1.7.1 Indicator 9: Percentage of target schools that have separate latrines for boys 
and girls
Only 45 percent (±4.7 SE) of schools have separate toilets for boys and girls. This varies across 
districts, from 22 percent (±8.6 SE) in Dailekh to 59 percent (±9.5 SE) in Bajhang and in all cases
compares poorly with the recent national status of 69 percent of schools (WaterAid & GoN, 2014). 
3.1.8 MGD 1.3.4: Increased student enrollment11
3.1.8.1 Indicator 10: Average enrollment ratio of girls to boys at target schools
In general, more girls are enrolled in target schools than boys. This gender ratio (1.2±0.04 SE)
has remained close to constant over the four previous academic years (Table 2) and is consistent
across districts. 
3.1.8.2 Indicator 11: Percentage change in students enrolled in WFP supported schools
The percentage change in student enrollment between academic years was calculated from the 
annual student enrollment data collected from the sampled schools’ registers (Table 2). In 
general, enrollment has not changed significantly over the last few years, aside from a slight 
11 The baseline survey team collected retrospective enrolment data from the school records to capture changes in student 
enrolment in the sampled WFP supported schools. Collecting data on gross enrolment rate (i.e. the number of children of official 
primary school age who are enrolled in primary education as a percentage of the total children of the official school age population) 
would require a population census (or at least a large enough survey) of the catchment areas. Although this would be a nice 
addition to the results, it is far beyond the scope of the baseline survey. 
18
decline of 2 percent during the last academic year. It is not possible to identify the reasons behind 
this decline from the survey. These might be eventually explored further during the mid-line 
survey. The percentage change in student enrolment in one academic year compared to the 
previous academic year was calculated from the annual student enrolment data collected from 
the 112 sampled schools’ registers (see Table 2).
Table 2: Change in enrollment and gender ratio over last four academic years
3.1.9 MGD 1.3.5: Increased community understanding of benefits of 
education
3.1.9.1 Indicator 12: Percentage of parents in program schools who can name at least 
three benefits of primary education
Almost all of the parents (97 percent ±0.5 SE) can name at least one benefit of primary 
education, with 78 percent (±1.3 SE) able to note at least three benefits. We recommend that 
WFP and USDA revise the target for this indicator upwards, as it has already exceeded the 
initially established target of 60 percent.
According to parents, major benefits of education include improved literacy rate (79 percent) and 
future economic security for students (67 percent). Fathers tend to note more benefits than 
mothers, with 84 percent (±1.5 SE) of fathers mentioning at least three benefits compared to only 
69 percent (±2.0 SE) of mothers. Aside from schools in Doti district, where only 30 percent (±3.8 
SE) of parents can list three or more benefits of primary education, there is little variation across 
districts for this indicator (Figure 6).
Enrolment indicators
Year 2011 
(Bikram 
Sambhat 
2068)
Year 2012 
(Bikram 
Sambhat 
2069)
Year 2013 
(Bikram 
Sambhat 
2070)
Year 2014 
(Bikram 
Sambhat 
2071)
Percent enrolment
Girls 54 54 54 54
Boys 45 46 46 46
Enrolment ratio (girls : boys) 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Percent change in enrolment
Girls - 0.4 1.8 -2.1
Boys - 2.6 2.2 -1.6
Total - 2.1 3.2 -2.0
19
Figure 6: Percentage of parents who mentioned ≥3 benefits of primary education
3.1.10MGD 1.4.4: Increased engagement of local organizations and 
community groups
3.1.10.1Indicator 13: Percentage of school management committees (SMCs) 
contributing to their schools and meeting at least four times during the school 
year
A total of 86 percent (±3.3 SE) of SMCs have met at least four times over the last year.
Involvement and engagement of SMC members was investigated through interviews with head 
teachers, who reported that only around a quarter (27 percent ±4.2 SE) of SMCs are highly 
engaged in the SFP. Only one school does not have an SMC.
3.1.11MGD SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices
3.1.11.1Indicator 14: Average dietary diversity score (DDS) of school-aged children
Dietary quality was assessed using the dietary diversity score (Feed the Future, 2014). Complete 
information on all the food and drink consumed by the child during the previous 24 hours was 
collected for 1,098 school children through interviews with parents. Twenty-two parents could 
not be interviewed. As agreed with WFP and USDA, this analysis does not propose any cut-off 
values for a minimum DDS. Details on the process of estimating dietary diversity scores are 
included in Annex 7.
The mean dietary diversity score (DDS) is 4.6 (±0.07 SE) out of a maximum score of 10. It does 
not vary between male and female students (both having average DDS 4.6±0.09 SE), however 
there are marked differences between districts, with average scores varying from 3.6 (±0.15 SE) 
in Doti to 5.9 (±0.17 SE) in Baitadi (Figure 7, with bands showing standard errors). Only one in 
every five children have high dietary diversity (DDS≥7). More than a third have low dietary 
diversity (DDS ≤3). Results vary significantly between districts (see Table 14, Annex 7).
20
Figure 7: Average DDS of students, with standard error12 bands
3.1.12MGD 2.1: Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices
3.1.12.1Indicator 15: Percentage of parents in target communities who can identify at 
least three important health/hygiene practices (e.g. use of latrines)
Eighty percent (±1.2 SE) of parents and 66 percent (±1.5 SE) of students can mention at least 
three good health and hygiene behaviors. There is no difference between male and female 
students, but a lower percentage of mothers (71 percent ±2.0 SE) can identify three good 
behaviors than fathers (84 percent ±1.6 SE). Responses are similar for students and parents, with 
‘no open defecation’ being the most popular answer, mentioned by 87 percent of students and 
84 percent of parents.
3.1.12.2Indicator 16: Percentage of students and parents in target communities who 
can identify at least one local source of information on good health practices 
(e.g. community health clinic)
All parents and students can identify at least one source of information on good health 
practices. The most common is‘school/teachers’, followed by ‘local FM radio’ among parents and 
‘local hospital’ among children.
12 The standard error (SE) of the mean is the standard deviation of the sample-mean's estimate of a population mean. It can 
also be viewed as the standard deviation of the error in the sample mean with respect to the true mean, since the sample mean 
is an unbiased estimator. SE was estimated by the sample estimate of the population standard deviation (sample standard 
deviation) divided by the square root of the sample size.
21
3.1.13MGD 2.2: Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage 
practices
3.1.13.1 Indicator 17: Percentage of food preparers at target schools who achieve a 
passing score in a test of safe food preparation and storage
Only 20 percent (±3.8 SE) of the 112 cooks scored at least 80 percent13 on a multiple choice test 
of ten questions related to safe food preparation and storage. This falls far short of the final 
target of 80 percent of cooks achieving a passing score. However, as 73 percent (±4.2 SE) of the 
cooks scored at least 60 percent, we anticipate that with some additional training, the target is 
achievable by the end of the project period (see Annex 9). There is variation across districts, with 
44 percent of cooks in Doti passing compared with only 11 percent in Baitadi and Bajura. 
3.1.14MGD 2.4: Increased access to clean water and sanitation services
3.1.14.1Indicator 18: Percentage of schools with toilet facilities for students
Information about water and sanitation facilities available in schools was obtained through direct 
observation by the enumerators. A total of 89 percent (±3.0 SE) of schools have toilet facilities 
for students, and 53 percent (±4.7 SE) of the toilets have hand-washing facilities within the toilet 
or nearby. This is slightly better than the national average of 80 percent of schools with toilet 
facilities (GoN & UNDP, 2013) but below the GoN’s aim of WASH coverage in every school. 
3.1.14.2Indicator 19. Average ratio of latrines to students at target schools
On average, schools have one toilet for every 33 students (toilet : student 0.031±0.004 SE). This 
compares well with the Department of Education’s minimum standard of one toilet for every 50 
students (WaterAid & GoN, 2014). There is a significant difference between districts: Dadeldhura 
has an average of one toilet for every 69 students, whereas Bajura has an average of one toilet 
for every 19 students. For schools with separate toilets for girls and boys, the availability of 
latrines for girls is significantly lower than for boys; overall, there is only one toilet for every 38 
girls compared with one toilet for every 29 boys.
3.1.14.3Indicator 19: Percent of schools with a source of drinking water at or near 
school
Ninety percent (±2.8 SE) of schools have a safe source of drinking water at or near the school14. 
This suggests that schools are on-track to meet the GoN’s target of water and sanitation for all 
(including all schools) by 2017 (WaterAid & GoN, 2014). 
13 Passing score recommended by Kimetrica.
14 “Near” was defined as being approximately five minutes’ walking distance, one-way, from the school campus.
22
Three quarters of schools (77 percent ±4.0 SE) have a piped water supply. Two percent have no 
access to any water source. There is no significant difference between districts.
3.2 School Variables 
The questionnaires also recorded information on key characteristics related to the school and 
students that may explain differences in the WFP SFP school performance indicators across 
schools and districts. A breakdown of the key variables is given in Annex 10, and the main results 
are summarized here.
3.2.1 School facilities
• On average, there are 4.7 (±2.0 SE) classrooms per school and one classroom for every 20 
students. This indicator was calculated based on the number of students enrolled in the 
sampled schools. Figures are consistent across districts and are much better than the 
national target of a maximum of 33 students per classroom (School Standard and 
Management Directives, 2012; Educate Nepal, 2012).
• On average, 44 percent (±4.7 SE) of schools have a library or library corner. On average,
these libraries contain around 50 supplementary books, although the range is quite large,
from one school with 3 supplementary books stored in a corner library to another with
400 books. Only some schools in Dadeldhura (22 percent ±13.8 SE) and Bajhang (19
percent ±7.5 SE) have an e-library. All the others don’t have libraries.
• The distance from the schools to the nearest markets is 5.5 km (±0.4 SE) on average, and 
the distance to the nearest food distribution centers is 8.2 km (±0.6 SE) on average. There 
is no variation between districts.
• The average distance to the nearest education office is 47 km (±2.6 SE), with schools in 
Bajura being closest to the education office (26 km ±4.1 SE) and those in Baitadi being the
furthest away (71 km ±5.4 SE). 
3.2.2 Food preparation and storage facilities
• More than two thirds of schools (72 percent ±4.2 SE) have a dedicated storeroom. Of the
schools without a storeroom, 68 percentstore food in the teachers’ room, and 19 percent
store it in a classroom. 
• The majority of the schools (88 percent ±3.1 SE) store food off of the ground.
3.2.3 Teacher training history and background
• Of the 324 teachers interviewed in the 112 sample schools, 40 percent are female and 60
percent are male (see Annex 11).
• Male teachers are, on average, nine years older and have seven more years of teaching 
experience (P<0.001) than their female colleagues. 
• Head teachers have an average of 11 years of teaching experience. 
23
• Overall, three quarters (76 percent) of the teachers have diplomas and 22 percent have a 
bachelor’s degree or some other form of higher educational qualification. One in every 
four male teachers (25 percent) has a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to only one 
in every five female teachers (18 percent). 
3.2.4 Teacher attendance
Regular teacher attendance is crucial for improving students’ learning outcomes. Teacher 
absenteeism deprives children of being taught in the classroom and undermines the effort of 
sensitizing communities, parents, and children to the importance of education. Teacher 
attendance data15 (covering a total of 324 teachers) for the last academic year was collected from 
112 schools (see Annexes 11).
The average teacher attendance rate for academic year 2014 (Bikram Sambhat 2071) is 85 percent
(±0.7 SE). The average attendance of female teachers is higher (87 percent ±1.0 SE) than that of 
their male colleagues (83 percent ±1.0 SE). Teacher attendance varies significantly across the 
surveyed districts, from 77 percent in Baitadi to 92 percent in Dailekh (Figure 8).
Figure 8: Average teacher attendance rate
Overall, only 42 percent (±2.7 SE) of teachers attend school regularly (at least 90 percent of school 
days). More female teachers(46 percent ±4.4 SE) attend regularly than male teachers(39 percent
±3.5 SE). There is substantial variation between districts, with only 26 percent (±6.0 SE) of teachers 
in Baitadi attending regularly compared to 64 percent (±7.8 SE) in Dailekh. Teacher attendance
mimics the seasonality of student attendance, decreasing during the July-August and October￾November periods (see Annex 11).
3.2.5 Food Utilization
15 Teacher attendance was calculated only for those days when the school was open. School closures due to holidays were 
excluded from the analysis. 
24
Of the 112 schools, two schools in Bajura had not started cooked mid-day meals distribution at 
the time of the baseline survey. For this reason, the proportion of students receiving regular food
distributions over the previous academic year was calculated from the school records of 110 
schools. 
Overall, three quarters of the students (76 percent ±3.2 SE) received regular meals over the 
previous academic year (Table 3). There was significant variation across districts, with food 
distribution being lowest in Dailekh (43 percent) and highest in Baitadi and Bajura (92 percent). 
Table 3: Percentage of students regularly receiving mid-day meals at school by district
The school records on regular meal distribution match closely with the consumption information 
collected from student interviews.
3.3 Associations between SFP Indicators and School Variables
Given the marked variability in some key indicators and school variables by district, further 
analysis was undertaken to determine if differences in SFP indicators were associated with 
differences in school variables. The analysis concentrated on comparing key indicators that vary 
substantially by district (DDS, student attentiveness, regular school attendance, teacher 
attendance, and consumption of a pre-school meal) with the following school variables: library 
facilities, source of drinking water, availability of toilet facilities for students, availability of 
separate toilet for girls, number of classrooms, distance to market, distance to nearest education 
office, distance to food distribution center, experience of head teacher, availability of a SMC, 
whether the SMC members met at least four times during the last academic year, and the 
proportion of students receiving regular meals at schools.
No relationship was found between the school variables and student attentiveness, nor average 
DDS. However, regular student attendance is significantly associated with regular teacher 
attendance and availability of tap water at school (Table 4). 
Table 4: Association between regular student attendance and school variables
District N (Schools) Percent (Mean±SE)
Baitadi 19 92 (3.2)
Bajhang 27 91 (3.8)
Bajura 16 92 (6.3)
Dadeldhura 9 77 (10.8)
Dailekh 23 43 (4.9)
Doti 16 60 (12)
Total 110 76 (3.2)
School variables
Proportion of students attending regularly 
(≥80% of school days)
≤50% >50% P 
25
3.4 School Feeding Attainment (SFA)
We aimed to calculate a School Feeding Attainment (SFA) score, which could be used in a 
regression analysis to attribute the effect of the program on the WFP performance indicators. The 
SFA calculation requires monthly meal provision data from the 2014 academic year plus one 
month (mid-April to mid-May 2015) from the 2015 academic year. For full details about the 
analytical approach for regression please refer to Annex B of final “Evaluation Plan”. 
Unfortunately, the availability of food utilization data was not robust enough for a comprehensive 
analysis due to poor school-level record keeping. Overall, 50 percent of the monthly data points 
were values of zero (indicating that utilization was not recorded), and six percent were negative 
values (indicating a quality issue). For this reason, baseline impact analysis is not included in this
report.
Proportion of teachers regular attending school (≥90% of school days)
≤50% 53% 47% 0.037 >50% 33% 67%
Source of drinking water
Piped water supply at school 36% 64% 0.005 Other or no sources 45% 55%
26
4 Conclusions
• As found from school records and student interviews, all schools provide mid-day meals; 
and most students (77 percent) regularly consume the meal at school. 
• Student literacy is extremely low, with only 0.5 percent reaching the national benchmark 
of 45 words per minute compared to the target of 30 percent by 2017. 
• Less than half of the teachers reported having previously received training on new 
teaching and learning techniques. This might explain and could be correlated with the low 
literacy levels.
• Regular student attendance is low, at 60 percent, but the target of 80 percent seems 
feasible. 
• Teacher attendance is a major concern, with only 42 percent of teachers regularly 
attending. This may undermine the ability of the SFP to increase student attendance and 
achieve an impact on literacy rates. 
• Teacher and student attendance is affected by seasonality: both drop sharply from July￾August (due to the rainy season and migration for the collection of Yarsagumba) and again 
October-November (be linked with the festivals of Dashain and Tihar).
• The average dietary diversity score is very low. More than half of the students has 
consumed less than five food groups during the recall period; only 17 percent had 
consumed more than seven food items.
• There are no significant gender disparities for any of the WFP school performance 
indicators, though females had marginally lower access to toilet facilities than boys.
• SFP infrastructure and facilities vary by school. There is a clear need for increased 
investment in kitchen construction and library facilities.
• Food preparers’ knowledge is below standard, with only 20 percent passing a safe food 
preparation and storage test -- far below than the target of 80 percent. This emphasizes
the need for additional training in these areas.
• The high variability in many key SFP indicators between districts requires further 
investigation, as they cannot be explained by variations in the assessed school facilities.
• One particular challenge that the data collection team faced was during the extraction of 
food utilization data from the school records, as they were found to be only partially 
complete or even unavailable for certain periods. However, the GoN and WFP have
already introduced a system to help schools maintain proper records. If implemented 
properly, the available tools can capture the food utilization information required for 
evaluation and regular monitoring of the program.
27
5 Recommendations
1. Revise final target for Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-aged children, 
measured as: Percentage 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. Considering 
a very low baseline status (0.5 percent), the 30 percent final target of the outcome indicator 
for SO1 appears to be highly ambitious and is unlikely to be achievable with the existing 
project activities and resources. We recommend that WFP approach USDA to revise the final 
target downward. We also suggest that WFP raise this issue with the Ministry of Education 
and look for a strategic partnerships by which to improve the literacy status of early grade 
students through interventions beyond the SFP scope, such as increasing and improving
teacher training and expanding EGRA (or similar intervention) coverage in program areas.
2. Agree on final target for Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices, 
measured as Average Dietary Diversity Score of school aged children. This indicator was 
updated during the design stage and, as such, does not have a target defined. We 
recommend that WFP Nepal approach USDA to agree on a reasonable final target.
3. Address teacher absenteeism: With less than half of the teachers attending regularly (90 
percent of school days), teacher absenteeism needs to be reduced in order to increase 
student attendance and literacy. We recommend that WFP raise this issue at the senior MoE 
level.
4. Invest in school infrastructure: More resources should be channeled toward improving 
school facilities. In particular, investment in the repair and construction of kitchens and in 
setting up libraries and e-libraries with sufficient reading materials should be prioritized. 
5. Scale up training for cooks on safe food preparation and storage techniques. With only 20 
percent of the cooks passing the food preparation and storage test (80% threshold) it is 
recommended to increase the coverage and effectiveness of these trainings.
6. Ensure proper record keeping at the school level: School level record keeping, especially 
tracking of food distribution, utilization, and stock management must improve in order to 
allow for monitoring, evaluation, and impact attribution. Current data availability is not 
sufficient enough to be used for rigorous impact analysis without resulting in misleading 
interpretations. However, the GoN and WFP have recently put a system in place for schools 
to maintain a proper record keeping system. If implemented properly, the available tools can 
capture the food utilization information required for evaluation and regular monitoring of 
the program. WFP should continue to work with the FFEP, MoE, DoE, and other necessary 
stakeholders to ensure that every school can maintain proper records.
7. Mid-term evaluation: For the next survey round, we recommend that the evaluation team 
collect detailed qualitative data using Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and stakeholder 
interviews in order to supplement the findings from the quantitative survey (i.e. the low 
28
literacy rates). Qualitative information can provide additional context and enable the 
evaluators to understand and dissect the factors that underpin the differences between
many of the WFP SFP indicators. All mid-term data collection should be scheduled to be 
completed before May 2016, when the schools close for holidays and monsoons. 
29
Annex 1: References
Abadzi, H. (2011). Reading fluency measurements in EFA FTI partner countries: Outcomes and 
improvement prospects. EFA FTI, (1). Retrieved 14 September 2015 from http://www￾wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/07/26/000356161_
20130726161417/Rendered/PDF/797780WP0readi0Box0379789B00PUBLIC0.pdf
Educate Nepal. (2012). Directives to determine standard size of classrooms, school buildings. 
Retrieved 16 October 2015, from http://www.educatenepal.com/news/detail/directives-to￾determine-standard-size-of-classrooms-school-buildings
Feed the Future. (2014). Volume 11: Feed the Future M&E Guidance Series: Guidance on the first 
interim assessment of the feed the future zone of influence population-level indicators (Vol. 
11). Retrieved 15 September 2015 from 
http://www.feedthefuture.gov/sites/default/files/resource/files/ftf_guidanceseries_vol11b_i
nterim_report_template_sept2015.docx
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of 
reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of 
Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
Finan, T. (2010). Impact Evaluation of WFP School Feeding Programmes in Kenya (1999-2008): A 
Mixed-Methods Approach. Rome: World Food Programme. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from 
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/ wfp219433.pdf
GoN, UNDP (2013). Nepal Millennium Development Goals: Progress Report 2013. Retrieved 01 
December 2015 from http://www.np.undp.org/content/nepal/en/home/library/mdg/mdg￾progress-report-2013.html
Jolly, J. (2011). Yarsagumba: Curse of Himalayan Annapurna region. Retrieved 15 September 2015, 
from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12110240
Ministry of Education, Government of Nepal. (2014). Program Document: National Early Grade 
Reading Program (2014/15 – 2019/20), March 19, 2014. Retrieved 16 October 2015, from 
http://www.moe.gov.np/SoftAdmin/content/NEGRP_Final_Document.pdf
UNICEF. (2010). Assessing the Impact of Seasonal Factors on School Attendance in the Karnali Zone. 
Retrieved 15 October 2015, from http://unicef.org.np/uploads/files/103625489872830643-
karnali-assessment-report-final.pdf
Water Aid, Government of Nepal. (2014). WASH Financing in Community Schools of Nepal, 
Retrieved 14 September 2015 from www.wateraid.org/.../Nepal/.../WASH-financing-in￾community-schools
World Education and Health Research and Social Development Forum (2014). World Education 
Learning Assessment (WELA), September, 2014
World Food Programme (2013). Revised School Feeding Policy 2013, Retrieved 15 September 
2015 from 
http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/resources/wfp260186.pdf
World Food Programme, (2015). School Meals. Retrieved 15 September 2015 from
https://www.wfp.org/school-meals 
30
Annex 2: Sampling Strategy
A1.1. Sample size determination
The sample size calculation was conducted considering effect size and predictors, along with the 
more widely used power and significance/probability level. Holding the power to 0.8 and 
probability to 0.5 and assuming that the program has an effect size of at least 0.1516, incorporating 
six predictors in each model would require data from 97 schools17. A sample of 112 was chosen 
to allow for a 15 percent non-response rate. If the program effect were lower, sampling 112 
schools would allow the measurement of an effect size of 0.1 with three predictors. Feasibility 
and financial factors were also considered when selecting the sample size: a sample size of 112 
schools was found to be reasonable from both a technical and financial point of view.
A1.2. Sampling of schools
The 112 schools were randomly selected from six districts using a stratified, multistage sampling 
technique (Table 5). WFP provided information on the number of supported schools in each
district along with enrolment data. Given logistical constraints following the April 2015 
earthquake, it was agreed that only six districts of the ten operational districts would be sampled. 
Bajhang and Dadeldhura were purposively selected, given that interventions from all three 
implementing partners were channeled to these two districts. The remaining four districts were 
randomly selected. The schools within these districts were selected using PPS. 
A1.3. Sampling of students and their families
In each sampled school, a total of ten students from grades one to five were selected for 
interviews using the simple random sampling (SRS) procedure. The selected students’ parents (or 
close relatives of the parents) were included for the household interview. Another ten students 
were selected from grade three for EGRA using the same SRS process. The procedure is detailed 
below, with the sampling unit being the whole school for the sample of ten students and only 
grade 3 for EGRA
• If available, the student register was obtained from each classroom or from the school 
principal; otherwise the total number of students in the class was counted.
• Sampling difference was defined as the number of students to be interviewed (in our case, 
ten are to be selected from third grade for the EGRA). 
• A random number was selected between one and the sample difference using a random 
number table. 
16 Sullivan, G. M., & Feinn, R. (2012). Using effect size-or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 
4(3), 279–282. 17 Soper, D. S. (2013). A-priori sample size calculator for multiple regression [software]. Retrieved from 
http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
31
• This figure was used to count from the class lists and select each “X”th student to be part 
of the sample. 
• If a student was absent or refused to participate, the next number on the class list was 
selected. If that student was absent or refused, the following number was selected. This 
provides the sample of ten students distributed across the grade three classes. The 
number of both refusals and absences were recorded. 
Students were pulled out from their classes in small groups, one student per enumerator, in 
order to minimize class disruption. 
Table 5: Summary of sample
SL District No. of schools No. of sampled 
schools
No. of sampled 
households
1 Baitadi 213 19 190
2 Bajhang 245 27 270
3 Bajura 209 18 180
4 Dadeldhura 150 9 90
5 Dailekh 257 23 230
6 Doti 182 16 160
32
Annex 3: EGRA Test Background
The ability to read simple text fluently and understand its meaning is fundamental to learning; 
without this skill, a child has little chance at succeeding in school and beyond. Evidence indicates 
that learning to read early and at a sufficient rate, with comprehension, is essential for learning 
to read well. A substantial body of research documents the fact that children need to be able to 
read by the end of grade two in order to be successful in school18. Importantly, children who do 
not learn to read in grades one to three are likely to fall further and further behind as they grow 
older. Not only does learning to read become more difficult with age, but after grade three, the 
school system no longer teaches reading explicitly. Students who do not learn to read in the first 
few grades are more likely to fall behind in other subjects, to repeat grades, and eventually to 
drop out of school19.
One of the two strategic objectives (SOs) of the MGD-supported FFE program in Nepal is to 
improve the literacy of school-aged children. WFP and USDA have identified the indicator 
“Percentage 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” to measure children’s reading 
abilities. This indicator can be measured using any assessment system with adequate 
psychometric validity and reliability. Based on discussions with WFP and implementing partners, 
the assessment team chose to use the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) to measure 
literacy in the baseline survey.
EGRA is a method-independent approach that aims at measuring a child’s reading ability at the 
initial stages of their learning process. Through a series of tests, EGRA measures various skills that 
are necessary building blocks for children to read fluently and comprehend text. For the baseline 
survey, the team adopted the EGRA component of the World Education Learning Assessment 
(WELA) developed by World Education. This methodology is accepted by the Nepali MoE’s 
National Assessment of Student Achievement committee. 
A summary of the EGRA sub-tests administered during the baseline survey and their associated
measurement approaches is given in Table 6.
18 (1) Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of Reading Development. New York: McGraw-Hill. (2) Roskos, K., D. Strickland, J. Haase, and 
S. Malik. 2009. First Principles for Early Grades Reading Programs in Developing Countries. Prepared for USAID/EQUIP1 
Project. Retrieved from http://www.equip123.net/docs/e1-EarlyGradesToolkit.pdf. 19 Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew Effects in Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of 
Literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1.
33
Table 6: EGRA sub-tests and their measurement approach
Oral reading fluency and reading comprehension provide information about the reading and 
comprehension abilities of the students. The other sub-tests measure underlying skills that lead 
to fluency—phonemic awareness, decoding, and listening comprehension—and can be useful for 
gaining a more specific understanding of the children’s abilities and can help to explain their
reading and comprehension outcomes.
Internal consistency, or reliability, of the test instrument was measured by calculating Cronbach’s 
alpha20 for the nine sub-tests used. The results indicate a very strong overall reliability. In our 
20 Cronbach's alpha a measure of the internal consistency of a test or scale; it is expressed as a number between 0 and 1. It 
describes the extent to which all of the items in a test (in this case the EGRA sub-tests) measure the same concept or construct 
and is thus connected to the inter-relatedness of the items within the test. An α value of over 0.8 is considered very good for 
EGRA instruments (RTI International (2011) Nigeria Northern Education Initiative: Results of the Early Grade Reading 
Assessment in Hausa.)
EGRA sub-tests Measurement approach
Listening comprehension Students were asked four questions to assess their listening 
comprehension skills after a story was read in Nepali by the 
enumerators. 
Knowledge of consonants Students were asked to correctly read as many of the 36 Nepali 
consonants as possible.
Knowledge of vowels Students were asked to correctly read as many of the 11 Nepali 
vowels as possible.
Simple words This sub-test assessed how many words (out of five) the students 
could read correctly.
Matra (vowel signs) This sub-test assessed how many Matras (out of 11) the students 
could read correctly.
Joint words This sub-test assessed how many joint words (out of five) the 
students could read correctly.
Vocabulary Students’ comprehension was assessed by asking them to match 
five words with five corresponding images. 
Oral reading fluency (ORF) Reading fluency is a measure of accuracy and speed. For this sub￾test, students were asked to read two paragraphs as correctly and 
as quickly as possible. Enumerators recorded the time it took the 
students to read paragraphs and the number of words they read 
correctly. The correct number of words read per minute was 
calculated by averaging the rates from the two paragraphs. 
Reading comprehension Students were asked three questions about each of the two 
paragraphs they read in order to test their level of reading 
comprehension. 
34
analysis, α = 0.9121. Given the widely accepted threshold of α > 0.8 is considered highly reliable22, 
we can conclude that the instrument was extremely reliable. In addition, we calculated the 
contribution of each of the sub-tests to the overall consistency by removing each of the sub-tests 
from the model in turn and obtaining the value of α. This was done to make sure that each of the 
sub-tests positively contributed to the overall reliability. 
The objective of the EGRA was to assess students’ reading skills after two grades of primary 
schooling. For this reason, as per the USDA guidelines, only students from grade three were 
sampled for the test. Before administering it, administrators were asked to give students explicit 
information about the test and how it would be used. Students were then asked to provide their 
consent to participate in the assessment. Consent was also taken from parents and teachers 
before conducting the tests. The administration of all EGRA tests also included a ‘stop’ rule, which 
required assessors to discontinue the administration of a sub-test if a student was unable to 
respond correctly to any of the items at any point (e.g. the first ten letters, or the first line of the 
oral reading fluency stories). This rule was established to avoid frustrating students who did not 
understand the task or lacked the skills to respond.
21 Cronbach’s alpha for instrument reported here was calculated by converting all the sub-tests into a standardised scale. All the 
sub-tests were converted into a scale of 0-100 and then interval consistency was checked. Without conversion, reliability of the 
raw responses was 0.71, indicating good internal consistency. 22 RTI International. Nigeria Northern Education Initiative (NEI): Results of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) in 
Hausa. September 2013.
35
Annex 4: Training and Quality Assurance
Before the baseline survey, a week-long training with 25 enumerators and five supervisors was 
conducted in the last week of May 2015. The training covered both the paper and digital versions 
of the questionnaire. During training, efforts were made to ensure that all enumerators were 
competent in interviewing and observation.
Data quality was assured through intensive training and maintenance of a strict data collection 
protocol. The baseline survey team ensured the accuracy, validity, and reliability of the survey 
data by employing various quality assurance mechanisms at every stage.
• Direct monitoring by Kimetrica: The whole data collection process was directly monitored 
by the survey manager to ensure that the local survey firm was following the agreed 
quality control steps. The survey manager maintained a presence in the field throughout 
the data collection period, actively taking part in the enumerator training and the 
questionnaire pre-test. 
• Recruitment of qualified enumerators and supervisors: DVN recruited experienced and 
trusted enumerators from their pool. During enumerator selection, those with previous 
experience with data collection using mobile phones and working in the hilly areas of mid￾and far-western Nepal were given priority. 
• Proper training of enumerators and supervisors: A seven-day training was conducted 
prior to the survey in order to give the enumerators proper orientation. The training 
included instruction in using the paper-based and digital versions of the questionnaires
(translated into local language) as wells as field practice. The training was conducted by 
DVN, who invited key stakeholders from the Ministry of Education to provide a detailed 
explanation of school feeding operations in Nepal.
• Direct observation: A team of supervisors was delegated to observe the interviews and 
provide feedback on training techniques as necessary. Kimetrica’s survey manager
provided guidance on how to observe interviews and report on interview observation. 
The survey manager also participated in the direct observation and provided feedback. 
• Re-interviewing: The survey manager re-interviewed a sample of the questionnaires to 
validate the accuracy of the data collected. 
• Non-response: Every effort was made to avoid non-response. For example, schools were 
informed of the survey effort in advance. With the support from District Education Offices, 
areas most affected by monsoons were surveyed first in order to ensure that they could 
be reached before schools closed due to monsoons. At the household-level, efforts were 
made to ensure that the data collection team revisited households in which parents could 
not be reached on the first day. Supervisors kept track of all pending interviews using 
survey control sheets and sent enumerators back later to complete data collection.
36
• Cross-checking: Every questionnaire was cross-checked by other team members and/or
supervisors prior to being uploaded. 
• Logical and consistency checking: As the data was collected using a mobile device, logical 
and consistency checks were put into place to minimize human error. Uploaded data was 
regularly reviewed by the survey manager to check its consistency.
Annex 5: Key Indicators and Calculation
The SFP performance indicators and calculations from the PMP are summarized in Table 7
alongside the average value for all schools and households as well as the values disaggregated by 
gender and district.
38
Table 7: WFP SFP performance indicators and calculations
39
Indicator ID
Indicator details Source and backgrounde and 
Measurement
Sample size
Average (range)
By gender By district
Male Female
Baitadi
Bajhang
Bajura
Dadeldhura
Dailekh
Doti
MGD 
SO1
Percent 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
Children’s ability to read and 
understand text was measured 
using ORF tests, with those who 
achieved ≥45 correct words per 
minute reported here.
866
0.5% 
(±0.2 
SE)
0.5% 
(±0.3 
SE)
0.5% 
(±0.3 SE)
1.2% 
(±0.8 
SE)
0%
1.7% 
(±1.2 
SE)
0% 0% 0%
MGD 
1.1.4
Percent of 
teachers/educators/teaching 
assistants at target school who 
have received training on 
teaching and learning 
techniques ns
Details of training history were 
gathered through interviews with 
headmaster, and verified with 
teachers 324
47% 
(±2.8 
SE)
50% 
(±3.6 
SE)
43% 
(±4.3 SE)
26% 
(±6.0 
SE)
33% 
(±4.4 
SE)
58% 
(±8.0 
SE)
94% 
(±4.0 
SE)
59% 
(±8.0 
SE)
49% 
(±7.6 
SE)
Percent of teachers in target 
schools who demonstrate use 
of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools 1,2
Data was collected using direct 
classroom observation (one 
teacher per school) using a 
checklist of teaching techniques.
100
20% 
(±3.8 
SE)
26% 
(±5.4 
SE)
11% 
(±4.6 SE)
16% 
(±8.4 
SE)
30% 
(±8.8 
SE)
11% 
(±7.4 
SE)
22% 
(±13.8 
SE)
26% 
(±9.1 
SE)
6.3% 
(±6.1 
SE)
MGD 
1.2
Percent of students in 
classrooms identified as 
inattentive by their teachers2
Three teachers from each school 
were asked about what they 
perceived to be the attentiveness 
of ten sampled students from 
their schools and the majority 
view of the three teachers is 
reported here.
1037
12% 
(±1.0 
SE)
13% 
(±1.4 
SE)
12% 
(±1.5 SE)
24% 
(±3.2 
SE)
8.9% 
(±1.8 
SE)
7.9% 
(±2.2 
SE)
10% 
(±3.2 
SE)
17% 
(±2.5 
SE)
3.0% 
(±1.5 
SE)
MGD 
1.2.1
Percent of students in target 
schools who regularly 
Data was collected by asking 
students whether they had eaten 
a meal before the school day in 
1104
74% 
(±1.3 
SE)
74% 
(±1.9 SE)
70% 
(±3.3 
SE)
67% 
(±2.9 
SE)
29% 
(±3.4 
SE)
100%
97% 
(±1.1 
SE)
93% 
(±2.1 
SE)
40
consume a meal before the 
school day2
the past six school days and then 
triangulating responses with 
information collected during the 
parent interviews. Answers only 
qualified as regular if children 
had eaten a meal on all six days. 
73% 
(±1.9 
SE)
Percent of students in target 
schools who regularly 
consume a meal during the 
school day2
Data was collected by asking 
students whether they had eaten 
a meal during the school day in 
the past six school days and then 
triangulating responses with 
information collected during the 
parent interviews. Answers only 
qualified as regular if children 
had eaten a meal on all six days.
1104
77% 
(±1.3 
SE)
77% 
(±1.8 
SE)
77% 
(±1.8 SE)
97% 
(±1.2 
SE)
47% 
(±3.1 
SE)
76% 
(±3.2 
SE)
78% 
(±4.4 
SE)
97% 
(±1.1 
SE)
77% 
(±3.4 
SE)
MGD 
1.3
Average student attendance2 Average student attendance was 
calculated by creating a mean 
based on the attendance records 
of ten sample students for the 
last academic year. 
1056
81% 
(±0.4 
SE)
81% 
(±0.6 
SE)
81% 
(±0.6 SE)
81% 
(±0.7 
SE)
82% 
(±0.7 
SE)
82% 
(±0.9 
SE)
79% 
(±1.2 
SE)
76% 
(±1.2 
SE)
85% 
(±1.7 
SE)
Percent of students 
(girls/boys) regularly (≥80 of 
the school days) attending 
schools2
Data was collected using the 
attendance records of ten 
sample students for the last 
academic year. 
1056
60% 
(±1.5 
SE)
61% 
(±2.1 
SE)
59% 
(±2.2 SE)
53% 
(±3.8 
SE)
62% 
(±3.0 
SE)
70% 
(±3.6 
SE)
51% 
(±5.3 
SE)
53% 
(±3.3 
SE)
72% 
(±3.7 
SE)
Average student attendance 
on the day of the surveyns
Average school attendance on 
the day of the survey was 
calculated by comparing the 
number of students attending 
school (identified using direct 
observation) with the number of 
students enrolled at each school 
(identified from school records).
All 
students 
of 112 
schools
74% 
(±1.9 
SE)
70% 
(±3.8 
SE)
78% 
(±2.0 SE)
65% 
(±4.4 
SE)
75% 
(±4.7 
SE)
77% 
(±3.6 
SE)
75% 
(±5.2 
SE)
75% 
(±3.1 
SE)
81% 
(±5.5 
SE)
41
MGD 
1.3.1
Percent of target schools that 
have separate latrines for boys 
and girlsns
Data was collected through 
interviews with head teachers 
and direct observation by 
enumerators.
112
45% 
(±4.7 
SE)
- -
53% 
(±11.5 
SE)
59% 
(±9.5 
SE)
33% 
(±11.1 
SE)
56% 
(±16.5 
SE)
22% 
(±8.6 
SE)
50% 
(±12.5 
SE)
MGD 
1.3.4
Average enrolment ratio of 
girls to boys at target schoolsns
Ratio was calculated based on 
enrolment figures for the past 
four academic years from school 
records. Girl-boy enrolment ratio 
for last academic year is 
presented here.
112 
schools
1.18
(±0.04 
SE)
- -
1.2
(±0.10 
SE)
1.3
(±0.07 
SE)
1.1
(±0.08 
SE)
1.3
(±0.10 
SE)
1.1
(±0.05 
SE)
1.1
(±0.13 
SE)
Percentage change in 
students enrolled in WFP 
supported school ns
Enrolment figures from the past 
four academic years were 
collected from school records; 
student numbers of each 
academic year were then 
compared with the previous 
academic year. Percentage 
change for the last academic 
year is presented here.
112 
schools
-2.0% 
(±1.8 
SE)
-1.6% 
(±1.8 
SE)
-2.1% 
(±2.1 SE)
-3.2% 
(±5.7 
SE)
-1.4% 
(±4.1 
SE)
-1.1% 
(±4.6 
SE)
-2.3% 
(±2.0 
SE)
0.06% 
(±4.2 
SE)
-5.3% 
(±2.4 
SE)
MGD 
1.3.5
Percent of parents in program 
schools who can name at least 
three benefits of primary 
education1, 2
Data was collected through 
interviews with parents and 
asking them about the benefits of 
primary education.
1098
78% 
(±1.3 
SE)
84% 
(±1.5 
SE)
69% 
(±2.0 SE)
94% 
(±1.7 
SE)
78% 
(±2.5 
SE)
95%
(±1.6 
SE)
92% 
(±2.9 
SE)
88% 
(±2.2 
SE)
30% 
(±3.8 
SE)
MGD 
1.4.4
Percent of SMCs contributing 
to their schools and meeting at 
least four times during the 
school yearns
Data was collected through 
reviewing school documents 
(e.g. meeting attendance books 
if available) and interviews with 
headmasters.
112
86% 
(±3.3 
SE)
- -
84% 
(±8.4 
SE)
78% 
(±8.0 
SE)
100% 100%
78% 
(±8.6 
SE)
81% 
(±9.8 
SE)
MGD 
SO2
Average dietary diversity score 
of school aged children (both 
male and female)2
Dietary history of students was 
measured through interviewing 
parents using a 24 hours recall 
1098
4.6 
(±0.07 
SE; 
4.6 
(±0.09 
SE; 
4.6 
(±0.09 
SE; 
5.9
(±0.17 
SE)
5.3
(±0.15 
SE)
3.7
(±0.16 
SE)
4.8
(±0.16 
SE)
3.8
(±0.09 
SE)
3.6
(±0.15 
SE)
42
method. Mean Dietary Diversity 
Score is presented here.
range: 1-
10)
range: 
1-10)
range: 1-
10)
MGD 
2.1
Percent of parents in target 
communities who can identify 
at least three important 
health/hygiene practices (e.g. 
use of latrines)1, 2
During household interviews, 
knowledge level of parents was 
measured by asking them to 
name three behaviours or 
practices that are important for 
good health or hygiene.
1104
80% 
(±1.2 
SE)
83% 
(±1.6 
SE)
71% 
(±2.0 SE)
92% 
(±2.0 
SE)
70% 
(±2.8 
SE)
88% 
(±2.4 
SE)
72% 
(±4.7 
SE)
86% 
(±2.3 
SE)
66% 
(±3.9 
SE)
Percent of students and 
parents in target communities 
who can identify at least one 
local source of information on 
good health practices (e.g. 
community health clinic)
During household and student 
interviews, knowledge level of 
parents and students was 
measured by asking them to 
identify at least one local source 
of information on good health 
practices.
1104
Parents: 
100% (± 
SE)
Students
: 100% 
(± SE)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MGD 
2.2
Percentage of food preparers 
at target schools who achieve 
a passing score in a test of 
safe food preparation and 
storage2
Percentage was calculated by 
testing cooks on safe food 
preparation and storage. The 
test contained ten questions, 
each worth one point. 
Respondents were asked to 
choose the best response for 
each question.
112
≥60% 
score: 
73% 
(±4.2 
SE)2
≥80% 
score: 
20% 
(±3.8 
SE)ns
- -
58% 
(±11.3 
SE)
11% 
(±7.2 
SE)
82% 
(±7.4 
SE)
26% 
(±8.4 
SE)
89% 
(±7.4 
SE)
11% 
(±7.4 
SE)
88% 
(±10.8 
SE)
13% 
(±11.2 
SE)
52% 
(±10.4 
SE)
13% 
(±7.0 
SE)
81% 
(±9.8 
SE)
44% 
(±12.4 
SE)
MGD 
2.4
Percent of schools with toilet 
facilities for students
Data was collected through 
interviews with head teachers 
and direct observation by 
enumerators.
112
89% 
(±3.0 
SE)
- -
95% 
(±5.0 
SE)
100%
94% 
(±5.6 
SE)
100%
69% 
(±9.6 
SE)
81% 
(±9.8 
SE)
43
ns Not Significant
1 Significant (P<0.05) difference between male and female
2 Significant (P<0.05) difference across survey districts
Average ratio of latrines to 
students at target schools2
The latrine-student ratio was 
calculated based on enrolment 
figures collected from school 
records and the number of toilets 
identified through direct 
observation and interviews with 
head teachers. 
112 
schools
1 toilet 
every 33 
students 
(0.031±0
.004 SE)
1 toilet 
every 29 
students 
(0.034±
0.004 
SE)
1 toilet 
every 38
students 
(0.027±0.
003 SE)
.034
(±0.00
7 SE)
.021
(±0.00
4 SE)
.052
(±0.01
3 SE)
.015
(±0.00
4 SE)
.022
(±0.00
4 SE)
.043
(±0.01
4 SE)
Percent of schools with a 
source of drinking water at or 
near schoolns
Data was collected through 
interviews with head teachers 
and direct observation by 
enumerators.
112
Any 
source: 
98% 
(±1.3 
SE)
Safe 
source: 
90% 
(±2.8 
SE)
- -
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
89% 
(±10.4 
SE)
100% 
96% 
(±4.1 
SE)
88% 
(±8.1 
SE)
75% 
(±10.8 
SE)
44
Annex 6: EGRA Test Results
A7.1. Background characteristics
The background characteristics for the 866 students who took the test are summarized in Table 
8, along with the students’ assessments of their parents’ literacy levels. The background 
characteristics do not vary significantly by gender (49% for male and 51% by female).
The students’ average age is around eight years. Around 80 percent of the students speak in their 
mother tongue other than Nepali at home. Only 17 percent read extracurricular books. About 40 
percent of students take extra lessons at home; on average they do this three days per week. 
Almost 70 percent of students reported that they work at home outside of school hours. Those 
who do work on average four to five days per week at home before or after school hours. Students 
reported an average journey time of 22 minutes from home to school.
Two thirds (67 percent) of students reported that their fathers are literate, compared to only one 
fifth (22 percent) of mothers. Among the parents, 41 percent of fathers were reported to have 
secondary or higher level of education, whereas only 11 percent of mothers were reported to 
have similar education levels. 
Table 8: Background demographic characteristics of EGRA students from grade three
A7.2. Overall results of the sub-tests
Table 9 summarizes the average and range of scores across all of the sub-tests for all the children 
tested. Components such as knowledge of consonants and reading paragraphs have the largest
score ranges, while listening and reading comprehensions have the lowest score ranges. 
Background characteristics Boys Girls
Gender 49% 51%
Age in months (mean) 100 98
Reads extracurricular books 17% 17%
Takes extra lesson at home 45% 43%
Average number of days per week students take extra lesson 3.1 3.2
Works at home outside school hours 68% 71%
Average number of days per week students work at home
Before school
After school
4.0
4.6
4.1
4.8
Language spoken at home
Nepali
Other 
20%
80%
18%
82%
Average time to get to school (minutes) 22 22
Parents’ literacy level Father Mother
No Schooling
Primary
Secondary 
Graduate
32%
27%
38%
2.7%
78%
11%
10%
0.8%
45
The average score for the listening assessment is 2.1; scores for knowledge of consonants and 
vowels average at 27 (out of 36) and 8.8 (out of 13), respectively. Students are best at naming 
matra (vowel signs), correctly answering 5.5 of them. They know an average of 3.9 simple words, 
2.7 joint words, and 3.3 vocabulary words. On the paragraph reading sub-test (ORF), the students 
could read, on average, 22 words from the first paragraph and 41 words from the second 
paragraph. On the reading comprehension sub-test, students, on average, gave correct answers 
to 1.2 questions from each paragraph. There is no statistically significant difference between the 
boys’ and girls’ scores.
Table 9: Average scores obtained by students in different EGRA sub-tests
The Oral Reading Fluency and the reading comprehension sub-test results are reported in more 
detail below. We present these two tests in greater detail because they are direct indicators of a 
child’s reading and comprehension abilities.
A7.3. Oral Reading Fluency 
Oral reading fluency (ORF) is a measure of reading accuracy and speed. A child’s ORF shows how 
well he or she is able to understand what he or she is reading. EGRA measures ORF because it has 
been shown to predict later skills in reading and comprehension (Fuchs et al, 2001). In this EGRA 
sub-test, students were presented with two passages, the first 35 words in length and the second 
72 words in length, and asked to read them aloud. On average, students read 22 words from the 
first paragraph correctly and 41 words from the second paragraph correctly.
The average correct words per minute (CWPM) for both paragraphs were combined into an 
average ORF score. The mean ORF from all districts is 18 CWPM. There is no difference between 
boys and girls, but there are significant differences across districts. Dadeldhura has the lowest 
reading fluency (7 CWPM), followed by Dailekh (11 CWPM), whereas Bajhang has the highest 
reading fluency (22 CWPM, see Table 10 for more details).
EGRA sub-tests Score 
range
Mean Scores (SE)
Boys Girls Total
Listening 0-4 2.1 (±0.04) 2.2 (±0.04) 2.1 (±0.02)
Knowledge of consonants 0-36 26 (±0.6) 27 (±0.6) 27 (±0.4)
Knowledge of vowels 0-13 8.5 (±0.2) 9.0 (±0.2) 8.8 (±0.1)
Simple words 0-5 3.8 (±0.1) 3.9 (±0.1) 3.9 (±0.04)
Matra (vowel signs) 0-11 5.4 (±0.2) 5.6 (±0.2) 5.5 (±0.1)
Joint words 0-5 2.6 (±0.1) 2.7 (±0.1) 2.7 (±0.04)
Vocabulary 0-5 3.3 (±0.05) 3.4 (±0.05) 3.3 (±0.04)
Paragraph reading
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
0-35
0-72
24 (±0.5)
40 (±1.2)
23 (±0.4)
42 (±1.1)
22 (±0.3)
41 (±0.8)
Reading comprehension
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
0-3
0-3
1.2 (±0.04)
1.2 (±0.04)
1.2 (±0.04)
1.3 (±0.04)
1.2 (±0.03)
1.2 (±0.03)
46
Table 10: Mean correct words per minute (CWPM) 
A7.4. Reading comprehension
The reading comprehension sub-test identifies how well students can understand ORF passages. 
After the student had read one passage, the test administrator asked the child questions 
pertaining to the story’s content. The enumerator did not ask any questions to students who did 
not read any words correctly, which automatically resulted in a reading comprehension score of 
0 for these students. The same method was applied for the second paragraph, and the two final
scores were combined to give an overall score for the students’ comprehension. 
Figure 9 shows the distribution of students’ reading comprehension scores (the number of 
questions correctly answered). More than a fifth of students could not answer a single question, 
either because they could not read the paragraph properly or because they did not understand 
the section they had read. Less than 4 percent of students have a reading comprehension level of 
80 percent (having correctly answered five or more questions).
Figure 9: Percentage of students achieving each reading comprehension score
Mean comprehension for the whole sample was 2 correct answers (Table 11), with no significant 
gender difference. However, differences between districts were highly significant (P<0.001). 
Similarly to the ORF scores, students in Dadeldhura and Dailekh showed the lowest reading 
comprehension levels, whereas students in Bajhang and Baitadi showed the highest. 
Districts N
Mean CWPM (SE)
Boys Girls Total
Baitadi 170 22 (±1.1) 20 (±1.1) 21 (±0.8)
Bajhang 267 22 (±0.8) 22 (±0.7) 22 (±0.5)
Bajura 120 20 (±1.7) 20 (±1.7) 20 (±1.2)
Dadeldhura 90 6 (±1.2) 8 (±1.2) 7 (±0.8)
Dailekh 124 11 (±1.4) 10 (±1.1) 11 (±0.9)
Doti 95 17 (±1.2) 17 (±1.3) 17 (±0.9)
Total 866 18 (±0.6) 18 (±0.5) 18 (±0.4)
47
Table 11: Reading comprehension scores
Looking at the relationship between ORF and reading comprehension (Figure 10) gives further 
insight as to how children learn. It is clear that reading comprehension is highly dependent on 
reading fluency. These results are in line with the underlying assumption that students who can 
read with accuracy and speed better understand the meaning of the text. 
Figure 10: Relationship between mean ORF and mean reading comprehension score
Districts N
Mean comprehension (SE)
Boys Girls Total
Baitadi 170 2.6 (±0.14) 2.4 (±0.14) 2.5 (±0.10)
Bajhang 267 2.5 (±0.09) 2.4 (±0.09) 2.5 (±0.07)
Bajura 120 2.3 (±0.27) 2.3 (±0.27) 2.3 (±0.19)
Dadeldhura 90 0.8 (±0.17) 1.2 (±0.19) 1.0 (±0.13)
Dailekh 124 1.0 (±0.17) 1.0 (±0.16) 1.0 (±0.12)
Doti 95 2.2 (±0.20) 2.2 (±0.21) 2.2 (±0.14)
Total 866 2.0 (±0.07) 2.1 (±0.07) 2.0 (±0.05)
48
Annex 7: Dietary Diversity Results
Dietary diversity was used to measure of dietary quality of school-age children in WFP-supported 
schools. The FFE program aims to improve dietary diversity providing school meals and educating 
children and their families about health and nutrition.
Volume 11 of the Feed the Future (FTF) Guidance Series (Feed the Future, 2014) was used to 
inform and guide the process of measuring of dietary diversity during the baseline survey. 
Following standard practice, dietary diversity data was collected through parent interviews, using 
the 24-hour recall method. Parents were asked if the child had consumed any of the 19 listed food 
items during the previous 24 hours. These responses were later converted into ten food groups 
identified by the FTF guidance document:
(i) Grains, roots and tubers
(ii) Legumes and beans
(iii) Nuts and seeds
(iv) Dairy products
(v) Eggs
(vi) Flesh foods including organ meat and miscellaneous small animal protein
(vii) Vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables
(viii) Other vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits
(ix) Other vegetables
(x) Other fruits
Table 12 summarizes the consumption frequencies of the ten food groups. All of the 1098 
students consumed grains, roots, and tubers as staple foods. Half (47 percent) of them had 
consumed legumes and beans during the previous 24 hours. Around two thirds of the students 
had consumed milk or dairy products (70 percent) and flesh foods (65 percent). One fifth had 
consumed eggs (21 percent) and vitamin A rich dark green vegetables (20 percent), and just over 
half of the students had consumed other vitamin A rich vegetables and fruits (56 percent). There 
was no significant difference between boys and girls in terms of reported food consumption. 
49
Table 12: Frequency of consumption of Feed the Future ten food groups in last 24 hours
Individual dietary diversity scores (DDS) were calculated by combining the number of food items 
consumed by children from across these ten food groups. The average DDS of each district are 
reported in Table 13.
Table 13: Mean DDS of primary school students
The level of dietary diversity was assessed by categorizing each child’s score. Two approaches 
were used. In the first, the DDSs were divided into three groups: low (DDS≤3), medium (DDS 
between 4-6), and high (DDS≥7). Based on this method, 35 percent of children have low DDS, 47 
percent have medium DDS, and only 17 percent have high DDS. In the second method, only two
classifications were used: DDS<5 and DDS≥5. Just over 40 percent of students had consumed at 
least five different food items in the previous 24 hours. There is no significant difference between 
the results for boys and girls. The results of this analysis are given in Table 14.
Table 14: Dietary diversity status 
SL Food items
(FtF 10 Food Groups)
Frequency (%)
Boys Girls Total
1 Grains, roots and tubers 100 100 100
2 Legumes and beans 48 45 47
3 Nuts and seeds 13 12 12
4 Dairy products 70 70 70
5 Eggs 20 23 21
6 Flesh foods including organ meat and 
misc. small animal protein 66 64 65
7 Vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables 20 19 20
8 Other vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits 57. 56 56
9 Other vegetables 40 41 40
10 Other fruits 24 26 25
Districts N Mean dietary diversity score (SE)
Boys Girls Total
Baitadi 189 5.9 (±0.2) 5.8 (±0.2) 5.9 (±0.2)
Bajhang 269 5.2 (±0.2) 5.4 (±0.2) 5.3 (±0.1)
Bajura 180 3.8 (±0.2) 3.6 (±0.2) 3.7 (±0.2)
Dadeldhura 90 4.8 (±0.2) 4.8 (±0.2) 4.8 (±0.2)
Dailekh 226 3.9 (±0.1) 3.6 (±0.1) 3.8 (±0.1)
Doti 144 3.5 (±0.2) 3.8 (±0.2) 3.6 (±0.1)
Total 1,098 4.6 (±0.1) 4.6 (±0.1) 4.6 (±0.1)
District N
Dietary diversity categories
Three groups Two groups
Low 
(DDS≤3)
Medium
(DDS 4-6)
High 
(DDS≥7) DDS<5 DDS≥5
50
Baitadi 189 11% 62% 28% 33% 67%
Bajhang 269 26% 46% 28% 37% 63%
Bajura 180 50% 35% 15% 68% 32%
Dadeldhura 90 20% 63% 17% 47% 54%
Dailekh 226 49% 47% 5% 80% 20%
Doti 144 54% 38% 8% 77% 23%
Total 1,098 35% 47% 17% 56% 44%
51
Annex 8: Student Attendance
Student attendance was measured in two ways: 1) by counting the number of students present
on the day of the survey and 2) by examining the annual attendance records of the ten sampled 
students from each school for the last academic year (Table 15 shows disaggregation by district 
and gender; Figure 11 shows disaggregation by grade). For the latter, “regular” attendance was
defined as attending at least 80 percent of school days (Table 16), and collection of monthly 
attendance data for each student enabled investigation of seasonal attendance patterns (Figure 
12). The attendance data was collected and reported based on the Nepali academic calendar, 
Bikram Sambat 2071. School closures and holidays were taken out in the final calculations.
Table 15: Average student attendance during last academic year by district and gender
Figure 11: Average student attendance rates during last academic year by grade
Districts N Average Student Attendance
Boys Girls Total
Baitadi 170 81% 80% 81%
Bajhang 263 81% 82% 82%
Bajura 164 83% 82% 82%
Dadeldhura 90 79% 79% 79%
Dailekh 225 76% 76% 76%
Doti 144 85% 85% 85%
Total 1,056 81% 81% 81%
52
Figure 12: Average student attendance rates during last academic year
Table 16: Percentage of students regularly attending school during last academic year
Districts N Students with ≥80% attendance
Boys Girls Total
Baitadi 170 56% 49% 53%
Bajhang 263 61% 63% 62%
Bajura 164 68% 72% 70%
Dadeldhura 90 53% 49% 51%
Dailekh 225 54% 53% 53%
Doti 144 73% 69% 72%
Total 1,056 61% 59% 60%
53
Annex 9: Knowledge Level of Food Preparers 
The knowledge and attitudes of food preparers regarding safe food preparation and storage 
practices was measured by running a test among 112 cooks from the sample schools. The test 
contained several multiple-choice questions and one open ended question. Respondents were 
asked to choose the best response for each question. The test was worth a total of ten points, 
with each question given a worth of one point. As there is no set threshold for Nepal, the baseline 
team calculated the percentage of cooks passing the test according to two different thresholds:
1) answering more than half of the questions correctly (a score of more than 50 percent) and 2) 
answering more than 70 percent of the questions correctly. The results are presented in Table 17. 
Of the cooks interviewed, 73 percent scored more than 50 percent, though there was a significant 
difference between districts, with more than 80 percent of cooks in Bajhang, Bajura, Dadeldhura 
and Doti passing according to this threshold compared to less than 60 percent of cooks in Baitadi 
and Dailekh.
According to the second threshold (scoring more than 70 percent), less than 20 percent of cooks 
passed. Failure rates are particularly low in Baitadi, Bajura, Daldhura, and Dailekh, with fewer than 
20 percent of cooks passing with at least a 70 percent. Scores are not much better in Majhang 
and Doti, with only 26 percent and 44 percent passing in each district, respectively.
Table 17: Percentage of food preparers passing the safe food preparation and storage test
District Passed with >50% score Passed with >70% score
Baitadi 58% 11%
Bajhang 82% 26%
Bajura 89% 11%
Dadeldhura 86% 13%
Dailekh 52% 13%
Doti 81% 44%
Total 73% 20%
54
Annex 10: School Variables
Table 18: Key school-level indicators
SL Indicator Questionnaire ID variable in the 
questionnaire
1 Average number of classrooms per school School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 301
2 Average ratio of classrooms to students at target 
schools
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 301; SCQ 502; 
SCQ 503
3 Percent of school with a library/library corner School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 302
4 Percent of school with an e-library School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 304
5 Percent of schools with a dedicated storeroom 
for food storage
Storekeeper 
Questionnaire
STQ 201
6 Percent of schools where food items are stored 
off the ground
Storekeeper 
Questionnaire
STQ 208
7 Percent of schools with a kitchen School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 309
8 Percent of schools with piped water supply for 
drinking
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 312
9 Average distance by road (km) to the nearest 
food market from the school
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 218
10 Average distance by road (km) from school to 
the food distribution center/warehouse
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 221
11 Average distance by road (km) from school to 
the nearest educational office
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 220
12 Average teacher attendance rate (%) School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 417-SCQ 429; 
SCQ 615-SCQ 618
13 Percent of teachers attending ≥90% of the 
school days
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 417-SCQ 429; 
SCQ 615-SCQ 618
14 Percent of teachers attending ≥80% of the 
school days
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 417-SCQ 429; 
SCQ 615-SCQ 618
15 Average years of teaching experience of the 
head teacher
School 
Questionnaire
SCQ 406-SCQ 407
55
Table 19: Key school-level indicators 
56
SL Indicator
Sample size
Total
District
P-value
Baitadi
Bajhang
Bajura
Dadeldh
ura
Dailekh
Doti
1 Average number of classrooms per 
school 112
4.7
(±0.2 
SE)
4.4
(±0.5 
SE)
5.7
(±0.3 
SE)
4.2
(±0.5 
SE)
5.1
(±0.2 
SE)
4.1
(±0.6 
SE)
4.4
(±0.5 
SE)
0.061
2 Average ratio of classrooms to 
students at target schools 112
20
(±1.1 
SE)
25
(±3.4 
SE)
23
(±1.6 
SE)
13
(±1.0 
SE)
22
(±1.8 
SE)
16
(±2.2 
SE)
23
(±3.5 
SE)
0.006
3 Percent of school with a 
library/library corner 112
44% 
(±4.7 
SE)
42% 
(±11.
3 
SE)
52% 
(±9.6 
SE)
50% 
(±11.
8 
SE)
44% 
(±16.
5 
SE)
44% 
(±10.
4 SE)
25% 
(±10.
8 SE)
0.652
4 Percent of school with an e
-library23 112
6% 
(±2.2 
SE)
0
19% 
(±7.5 
SE)
0
22% 
(±13.
8 
SE)
0
0 0.021
5 Percent of schools with a dedicated 
store
-room for food storage 112
72% 
(±4.2 
SE)
79% 
(±9.3 
SE)
74% 
(±8.4 
SE)
83% 
(±8.9 
SE)
75% 
(±14.
4 
SE)
61% 
(±10.
2 SE)
62% 
(±12.
1 SE)
0.574
6 Percent of schools where food items 
are stored off the ground 112
88% 
(±3.1 
SE)
95% 
(±5.0 
SE)
93% 
(±4.9 
SE)
89% 
(±7.4 
SE)
88% 
(±10.
8 
SE)
87% 
(±7.0 
SE)
75% 
(±10.
8 SE)
0.545
7 Percent of school with a kitchen 112
51% 
(±4.7 
SE)
47% 
(±11.
5 
SE)
52% 
(±9.6 
SE)
89% 
(±7.4 
SE)
89% 
(±10.
4 
SE)
35% 
(±9.9 
SE)
13% 
(±8.4 
SE)
<0.001
8 Percent of school with piped water 
supply for drinking 112
70% 
(±4.3 
SE)
74% 
(±10.
1 
SE)
78% 
(±8.0 
SE)
77% 
(±9.9 
SE)
89% 
(±10.
4 
SE)
52% 
(±10.
4 SE)
63% 
(±12.
1 SE)
0.275
9 Average distance by road (km) to the 
nearest food market from the school 112
5.5
(±0.4 
SE)
5.0
(±0.8 
SE)
4.5
(±0.7 
SE)
5.7
(±1.3 
SE)
5.4
(±1.3 
SE)
6.3
(±1.1 
SE)
6.9
(±1.4 
SE)
0.539
10
Average distance by road (km) from 
school to the food distribution 
center/warehouse
112
8.2
(±0.6 
SE)
8.3
(±1.4 
SE)
6.3
(±1.2 
SE)
9.1
(±2.1 
SE)
13
(±2.9 
SE)
7.3
(±1.0 
SE)
8.9
(±1.6 
SE)
0.190
11
Average distance by road (km) from 
school to the nearest educational 
office
112
48
(±2.6 
SE)
71
(±5.4 
SE)
44
(±5.8 
SE)
26
(±4.1 
SE)
61
(±11.
0 
SE)
41
(±4.0 
SE)
52
(±5.5 
SE)
<0.001
12 Average teacher attendance rate (%) 324
85
(±0.7 
SE)
77
(±2.5 
SE)
82
(±1.0 
SE)
87
(±1.3 
SE)
90
(±1.1 
SE)
92
(±1.3 
SE)
89
(±2.1 
SE)
<0.001
13 Percent of teachers attending ≥90% 
of the school days 324
42% 
(±2.7 
SE)
26% 
(±6.0 
SE)
34% 
(±4.4 
SE)
40% 
(±7.9 
SE)
53% 
(±8.3 
SE)
64% 
(±7.8 
SE)
56% 
(±7.6 
SE)
<0.001
57
23 It should be noted WFP supports a laptop programme but its coverage is limited to only 53 schools in Doti, Dadeldhura and 
Bajhang Districts
14 Percent of teachers attending ≥80% 
of the school days 324
72% 
(±2.5 
SE)
58% 
(±6.7 
SE)
55% 
(±4.6 
SE)
76% 
(±6.9 
SE)
92% 
(±4.5 
SE)
92% 
(±4.4 
SE)
93% 
(±3.9 
SE)
<0.001
15 Average years of experience of the 
head teacher 112
11
(±0.8
SE)
9
(±1.9 
SE)
11
(±1.6 
SE)
13
(±2.3 
SE)
15 
(±3.4 
SE)
8.5
(±1.3 
SE)
8.3
(±1.6 
SE)
0.162
58
Annex 11: Teacher Attendance and Training History 
A12.1. Teachers’ educational level and training history
Of the 324 teachers interviewed from the 112 sampled schools, around 40 percent are female 
and 60 percent re male (Table 20). The male teachers are, on average, nine years older (P<0.001) 
and have seven years more teaching experience than their female colleagues. Three quarters of 
the sampled teachers have diplomas and around one fifth have bachelors’ degrees or some higher 
educational qualification. There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in 
terms of educational qualifications. The teachers’ training histories were gathered during the 
baseline survey. Almost half of teachers have received training on teaching techniques and health, 
hygiene and nutrition at some point. Approximately 35 percent of the teachers have received 
training on safe food preparation and storage practices, and 19 percent have received training on 
commodity management. There is no significant difference between male and female teachers in 
terms of training history. 
Table 20: Background characteristics of teachers
Background characteristic Mean (SD) or percentage P
Male Female Total
Gender 59% 41% - -
Age
Mean age
<25 years
25-40 years
>40 years
38 (±11)
10%
19%
42%
29 (±5)
18%
81%
2%
34 (±9.8)
13%
62%
25%
<0.001
<0.001
Education qualifications
Bachelor/Higher
Diploma/Higher secondary
Secondary
25%
73%
2%
18%
80%
2%
22%
76%
2%
0.324
Teaching experience (years)
Mean (years)
<5 years
5-10 years
>10 years
14 (±10)
19%
29%
51%
7 (±4.1)
27%
59%
14%
11 (±8.9)
22%
42%
36%
<0.001
<0.001
Training history
Safe food preparation and 
storage practices
Commodity management
Teaching/learning techniques
Health, hygiene and nutrition
37%
22%
50%
57%
31%
15%
43%
43%
35%
19%
47%
51%
0.124
0.076
0.143
0.011
59
A12.2. Teacher attendance
Table 21 shows the proportion of teachers with at least 90 percent and at least 80 percent
attendance over the last academic year. Teacher absenteeism is a challenge in the sample schools:
only 72 percent of teachers attended at least 80 percent of school days, and only 42 percent
attended at least 90 percent of school days. There is a significant difference in regular teacher 
attendance between districts, with better attendance in Dadeldhura, Dailekh, and Doti compared 
with even poorer attendance rates in Baitadi, Bajhang, and Bajura. Indeed, only 26 percent of 
teachers in Baitadi attended more than 90 percent of school days.
Table 21: Percentage of teachers with ≥80% and ≥90% attendance in last academic year
District N Percentage of Teachers
≥80% attendance ≥90% attendance
Baitadi 55 58% 26%
Bajhang 115 55% 34%
Bajura 38 76% 40%
Dadeldhura 36 92% 53%
Dailekh 39 92% 64%
Doti 43 93% 56%
Total 324 72% 42%
To identify whether there is seasonal variation in teacher attendance and whether teacher 
attendance is correlated to student attendance, average attendance for both teachers and 
students for the last academic year was plotted in Figure 13. Teacher and student attendance 
show similar patterns. 
60
Figure 13: Trends in average teacher and student attendance during last academic year
Annex 12: Data Collection Tools
Table 22 summarized the types of information collected by the seven data collection tools.
Table 22: Types of information collected in baseline survey and tools used
Tools used Types of information collected
School Questionnaire School enrolment, attendance, and dropout rates; teachers’ academic 
qualifications, training, and attendance; school building and facilities; 
and school-level food delivery, utilization and stock management.
Student attendance
Teacher attendance
61
The actual questionnaires follow.
Student Questionnaire Student participation in the school feeding program; eating practices; 
and factors affecting school attendance and performance.
Household Questionnaire Household-level information on demographic composition, level of 
education, school participation, occupation, employment and income; 
individual-level dietary intake data from 24-hour recall; and participation 
in the school feeding program.
Early Grade Reading 
Assessment (EGRA)
Phonemic awareness, alphabetic principal, oral reading fluency and 
comprehension; and major factors affecting reading and understanding 
skills of early grade students.
Teacher Questionnaire Teacher’s socio-economic status, training history, teaching techniques 
and participation in school feeding program.
Cook Questionnaire Cook’s knowledge, attitudes, and practices with regards to health, 
hygiene and nutrition.
Storekeeper 
Questionnaire
Commodity stock management; and availability, quality and 
maintenance of storage facility.
62
School Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this 
survey?
1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SCQ 101 District
SCQ 102 VDC
SCQ 103 School Name
SCQ 105 Latitude
SCQ 106 Longitude
SCQ 107 Respondent name
SCQ 108 Can we please have your 
contact number? 
(either telephone/cell phone 
number. if available mobile 
number is preferred)
SCQ 109 What is your role in this school? 
___
1. Head Teacher/Principal (skip to SCQ 113)
2. Deputy Head Teacher 
3. Teacher 
4. Administrative officer
5. Other (specify)
SCQ 110 Director/Head Master’s name 
(only if Respondent is not the 
Head Teacher)
SCQ 111 What is the school ownership 
type?
___
1. Government Primary School
2. Registered Non-Government Primary 
School
3. Government Secondary School
4. Registered Non-Government Secondary 
School
5 Religious school (primary/pre-primary)
6. Religious school (secondary)
7. Community/ NGO Primary School
8. Community/ NGO pre-primary School
9. Others (specify)
SCQ 112 What is the school category 
(gender)? ___
1. Boys School
2. Girls School
3. Mixed gender School
SCQ 113 Date of the Interview
____/____/____
Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2015)
63
SCQ 114 Supervisor Code
SCQ 115 Supervisor Name
SCQ 116 Enumerator Code
SCQ 117 Enumerator Name
Section 2: School Feeding Program
Question Response Code
SCQ 201 For how many years this school is receiving 
support from the School Feeding Programme 
(WFP/Government)? 
(This question encompasses any component 
of the school feeding programme)
_______ _______
 Years Months
Put “99” for years and 
Months, if the school have 
not received any support 
yet, but will receive (skip 
to SCQ203)
SCQ 202 What type of support did your school receive 
(or currently receiving) from the School 
Feeding Programme / School Meal 
programme?
(Circle all that apply)
1. Snacks (biscuits / small 
snacks) for the students
2. Cooked meal for 
students
3. Meals for teachers / 
support staff
4. Take Home Ration for 
students
5. Rations for teachers
6. Rations for support staff
7. Digital learning 
materials
8. Textbook 
9. Other print materials 
(i.e. supplementary books 
for students)
10. School gardens
11. Infrastructure support 
(kitchen/toilet/store 
room etc.)
12. Water supply / tippy 
tap
13. Training for teachers / 
administrators / support 
staff
14. Training for students / 
parents / others
15. Teaching materials / 
guidelines
16. Other (specify)
SCQ 203 What are the avenues or communication 
channels through which parents and pupils 
get information about School Meal 
Programme or make complaints about the 
programme?
(Circle all that apply)
1. None
2. Regular meetings with school 
management committee / Food
management committee
3. Regular meetings with School 
Administrators
4. Suggestion Box
5. Helpline
64
Question Response Code
6. Informal communication (verbal) with 
teachers / SMC / FMC members
7. Don’t know / refuse to answer
8. Other (specify)________
SCQ 204 How many people (not students) are 
involved at the school level in the 
preparation of the food (food preparers, 
cook and store keeper)?
Put the number of people
SCQ 205 If students are also recruited to help in the 
cooking and preparation process, then how 
many of them help?
Put the number of students
“00” if none
SCQ 206 Does the school have a Parent Teacher 
Association (PTA), or similar governance 
structure?
____
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 207 Does the school have a School Management 
Committee (SMC)? ____ 1. Yes
2. No (SKIP to 218)
SCQ 208 How many members does the School 
Management committee (SMC) have? 
Total number of SMC 
members
SCQ 209 How many female members does the School 
Management Committee have? 
Number of Female SMC 
members
SCQ 210 Does the SMC have plans for regular 
meetings?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 211 What is frequency of planned meeting per 
academic year? (Check records)
Number of planned meeting 
per year
SCQ 212 How many times the committee has actually 
met in last year? (Check records)
Number of meeting took 
place in last one year
SCQ 213 In the last SMC meeting how many members 
have attended?
number
SCQ 214 In the last SMC meeting how many FEMALE 
members have attended?
number
SCQ 215 What is the level of participation and 
engagement of the SMC in the SFP? ____
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
SCQ 216 What is the level of participation and 
engagement of the SMC in other aspects of 
school management?
____
1. High
2. Medium
3. Low
SCQ 217 Did the SMC members receive any training 
intervention from WFP?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
SCQ 218 What is the distance by road (km) to the 
nearest food market from the school?
Put “999” if distance in Km is 
not known
SCQ 219 How long does it take to go to the nearest 
food market from the school? Number of minutes
SCQ 220 What is the distance by road (km) from 
school to the nearest educational office?
(this could be district-level education office 
in case there is no education office in the 
VDC)
SCQ 221 What is the distance by road (Km) from 
school to the food distribution center / 
Warehouse? Kilometers
65
SCQ 219. Non-food contribution
ID Non-food item contribution 
by School/Parents
Contributed 
during academic 
year 2017 
(Vikram 
Samvat)?
1. Yes 
2. No (go to 
Next)
Who Contributed?
1. School
2. Parents
3. External Donors
4. Combination 
(specify)
Approximate % of 
requirement met.
1. More than 100%
2. 100% 
3. 50% 
4. 25% 
5. 10% 
6. 0% 
SCQ 
219_1
SCQ 219_2 SCQ 219_3 SCQ 219_4 SCQ 219_5
1 Water
2 Firewood
3 Cooking Utensils
4 Cleaning Products
5 Plates and cutlery for 
pupils
6 Cooks Salary
7 Storekeeper Salary
8 Other 
Section 3. School Facilities
Question Response Code
SCQ 301 Number of classrooms ________
SCQ 302 Does the school have a Library or a place 
where books are stored? ________
1. Yes
2. No (go to SCQ 304)
SCQ 303 If yes, how many supplementary books does 
the school have? ________ Number of supplementary book
SCQ 304 Does the school have an e-Library? 1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 305 Does your school have a storage room/facility 
to store food items?
1. Yes 
2. No 
SCQ 306 If not, where is the food stored? 1. In a class room
2. In teacher’s room
3. In the kitchen
4. Open space
5. Other (specify)
SCQ 307 Is the food stored off the ground? 1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 308 Does your school use raised wooden pallets 
for commodities' storage (i.e. store food 
items off the ground)?
1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 309 Does your school have a kitchen? ________ 1. Yes 
2. No
SCQ 310 If not, where is the food normally prepared?
________
1. In a classroom
2. Open space 
3. Other
66
SCQ 311 Does your school use energy saving stoves? ________ 1. Yes
2. No
SCQ 312 What is the main source of DRINKING water?
________
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
SCQ 313 How many classrooms have been 
rehabilitated / constructed with WFP/USDA 
support?
Put number of classrooms 
rehabilitated / constructed
Put “0” if none
SCQ 314 How many kitchens has been rehabilitated / 
constructed with WFP/USDA support?
Put number of Kitchens 
rehabilitated / constructed
Put “0” if none
SCQ 315 How many storage rooms has been 
rehabilitated / constructed with WFP/USDA 
support?
Put number of Store rooms 
rehabilitated / constructed
Put “0” if none
SCQ 316 How many wells and water stations/systems 
has been rehabilitated / constructed with 
WFP/USDA support?
Put number of toilets 
rehabilitated / constructed
Put “0” if none
SCQ 317 How many toilets has been rehabilitated / 
constructed with WFP/USDA support?
Put number of toilets 
rehabilitated / constructed
Put “0” if none
SCQ 318 Does the school have toilets for the students?
ONLY FOR OBSERVATION
________
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to section 4)
SCQ 319 How many toilets have hand washing facilities 
within or nearby?
ONLY FOR OBSERVATION
________
Put number of toilets with hand 
washing facilities. Put “0” if none 
of the toilets have hand washing 
facilities. 
SCQ 320 Do girls students have separate toilets from 
boy students?
ONLY FOR 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 
type)
Number of 
boys’ toilets 
Number 
of girls’ 
toilets 
Number of 
mixed 
toilets 
For teachers 
and staff
SCQ 321 SCQ 322 SCQ 323 SCQ 324 SCQ 325 SCQ 326
1
Flush or pour/flush 
facilities connected to 
a: (Piped sewer, septic, 
pit latrine)
67
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 Latrine out of order
Section 4: Teacher-Head Teacher Teacher ID Teacher’ s Name
Sex
1. 
Mal
e
2. 
Fem
ale
Age
(yr)
Education
al 
Qualificati
on
1. MSc or 
higher
2. 
Bachelor
3. Diploma
4. Higher 
Secondary
5. 
Secondary
6. Primary
7. 
Untrained
8. Other
Position in 
the school
1. Head 
teacher/ 
principal 
2. Deputy 
head 
teacher 
3. Senior 
teacher 
4. Teacher 
(permanen
t/ regular) 
5. Teacher 
(paid 
contract) 
6. Teacher 
(volunteer
) 
7. Other 
(specify) 
Years of teaching experience
Years of experience in their current role
Full 
time
/ 
Part 
time
1. 
Full￾time 
2. 
Part￾time
Teachers training history
1. Yes; 2. No
Use of training 
received
(1. Yes; 2. No)
safe food preparation and storage practices
Commodity Management
supervisors, mentors or coaches? Teaching / 
Learning techniques
Health hygiene and nutrition
If trained, does s/he demonstrate use of new and 
quality teaching techniques or 
If trained, does s/he demonstrate improved 
literacy instruction identified by his / her 
supervisor, mentors, coaches
SCQ 401
SCQ 402
SCQ 403
SCQ 404
SCQ 405
SCQ 406
SCQ 407
SCQ 408
SCQ409
SCQ410
SCQ411
SCQ412
SCQ413
SCQ 414
SCQ 415
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
68
#
Name of the 
Teacher
(Optional)
Teacher Attendance History
(Put the number of days he/she attended school. Put 99 if not applicable, i.e. if he / she 
was not working in that certain month) Baishakh 2072 Chaitra 2071 Falgun 2071 Magh 2071 Poush 2071 Mangsir 2071
Kartik 2071
Ashwin 
2071
Bhadra 
2071
Shrawan 
2071
Ashadh 
2071
Jestha 2071
Baishakh
2071
SCQ 416
SCQ 417
SCQ 418
SCQ 419
SCQ 420
SCQ 421
SCQ 422
SCQ 423
SCQ 424
SCQ 425
SCQ 426
SCQ 427
SCQ 428
SCQ 429
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Section 5: Observation School Survey
# Grade of students
Enrolment Total number of 
students present on 
the survey day (head 
count)
Number of FEMALE students 
present on the survey day 
Male Female (head count)
SCQ 501 SCQ 502 SCQ 503 SCQ 504 SCQ 505
1 Pre-primary
2 Primary Grade - 1
3 Primary Grade -2
4 Primary Grade -3
5 Primary Grade -4
6 Primary Grade -5
Observation
SCQ 506 Teachers present in school during survey
(FROM OBSERVATION)
SCQ 507
How many teachers eat lunch with food coming from 
the same pot used to feed the pupils?
(FROM OBSERVATION)
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 Observation & Record
69
WFP School/Parents
SCQ 508 SCQ 509
1 Flour (CSB+)
2 Sugar
3 Oil
4 Salt
5 Fruits
6 Vegetables
7 Meat
8 Other (specify)
9 Other (specify)
No Non-food item contribution by School/Parents
Observation record
1. Yes 
2. No
SCQ 510
1 Water
2 Firewood
3 Cooking Utensils
4 Cleaning Products
5 Plates and cutlery for pupils
6 Cooks Salary 
7 Other (specify)____________________
# Student name
(optional)
(First 5 students are 
male and next 5 
students are female)
According to the teachers, is he/she generally attentive in the 
class?
(1. Yes; 2. No; 99. Not applicable/no more teacher)
Was this 
student present 
at school on the 
survey day? 
(observation) Opinion of 
Teacher 1
Opinion of 
Teacher 2 Opinion of Teacher 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
70
Section 6: School record (teachers and students)
# Acad
emic 
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 2071
2 2070
3 2069
4 2068
Section 7: Record of school days (working days and holidays)
Months Total number of 
working days
(Teachers/Offici
als / GoN 
Planned)
Total 
number 
of class 
days
Off days 
(Public 
Holidays / 
Weekend
s)
Seasonal closure due to weather 
/ Local festival or any other 
reason decided by District 
education office / School 
Management committee)
SCQ 614 SCQ 615 SCQ 616 SCQ 617 SCQ 618
Baishakh 2072 (Apr-May 2015)
Chaitra 2071 (Mar-Apr 2015)
Falgun 2071 (Feb-Mar 2015)
Magh 2071 (Jan-Feb 2015)
Poush 2071 (Dec-Jan 2014/15)
Mangsir 2071 (Nov-Dec 2014)
Kartik 2071 (Oct-Nov 2014)
Ashwin 2071 (Sept-Oct 2014)
Bhadra 2071 (August-Sept 2014)
Shrawan 2071 (July-Aug 2014)
Ashadh 2071 (June-July 2014)
Jestha 2071 (May-June 2014)
Baishakh 2071 (Apr-May 2014)
71
# Stud
ent 
nam
e
(opti
onal
)
Stu
den
t 
Gra
de
Student attendance and school days missed
(collected from school record)
(Put the number of days he/she attended school. Put 99 if not applicable, i.e. if he / she was not 
enrolled in this school)
Baish
akh
2072
Chait
ra 
2071
Falgu
n 
2071
Mag
h 
2071
Pous
h 
2071
Man
gsir 
2071
Karti
k 
2071
Ashw
in 
2071
Bhad
ra 
2071
Shra
wan 
2071
Asha
dh 
2071
Jesth
a 
2071
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
Total number of days attended
No of days missed for illness
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
(Student Grade: 0= Pre-primary; 1 = Grade 1; 2 = Grade 2; 3 = Grade 3; 4 = Grade 4; 5 = Grade 5)
Section 8: Food Utilization History 
SL
SC
Q
80
1
Months Total number 
of students 
enrolled
Student 
attendance
(number)
Number of students receiving 
daily school meals
Total 
number 
of school 
meals/sn
acks 
provided 
to 
Students
Male Female
Male Fem
ale
Male Fem
ale
New
1
Conti
nuin
g2
New
1
Conti
nuin
g2
SCQ802 SCQ8
03
SCQ8
04
SCQ8
05
SCQ8
06
SCQ8
07
SCQ8
08
SCQ8
09
SCQ8
10 SCQ811
1 Baishakh 2072 (Apr-May 2015)
2 Chaitra 2071 (Mar-Apr 2015)
3 Falgun 2071 (Feb-Mar 2015)
4 Magh 2071 (Jan-Feb 2015)
5 Poush 2071 (Dec-Jan 2014/15)
6 Mangsir 2071 (Nov-Dec 2014)
7 Kartik 2071 (Oct-Nov 2014)
8 Ashwin 2071 (Sept-Oct 2014)
9 Bhadra 2071 (August-Sept 2014)
10 Shrawan 2071 (July-Aug 2014)
72
11 Ashadh 2071 (June-July 2014)
12 Jestha 2071 (May-June 2014)
13 Baishakh 2071 (Apr-May 2014)
1 New students are those who have started receiving school meals/snacks from this month
2 Continuing students are those who have received food last month as well as continuing to receive in the current 
month
Section 9. Delivery Record
(Quantity of food received in the last 13 months) 
S
L
Food delivery record (School-level information)
(Put the tonnage of WSB where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is received/lost this month 
or carryover from last month)
Baishakh 2072 
(Apr-May 2015)
Chaitra 2071
(Mar-Apr 2015)
Falgun 2071
(Feb-Mar 2015)
Magh 2071
(Jan-Feb 2015)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 907 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 912 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 917 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 922 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 
901
SCQ 902
SCQ 903
SCQ 904
SCQ 905
SCQ 906
SCQ 907
SCQ 908
SCQ 909
SCQ 910
SCQ 911
SCQ 912
SCQ 913
SCQ 914
SCQ 915
SCQ 916
SCQ 917
SCQ 918
SCQ 919
SCQ 920
SCQ 921
1 Flour 
(CSB+)
2 Sugar
3 Oil
4 Salt
5 Fruits
6 Vegeta
bles
7 Meat
8 Other 
(specif
y)
73
S
L
Food delivery record (School-level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is 
received/lost/carryover from last month)
Poush 2071
(Dec-Jan 2014/15)
Mangsir 2071
(Nov-Dec 2014)
Kartik 2071
(Oct-Nov 2014)
Ashwin 2071
(Sept-Oct 2014)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 907 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 912 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 917 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 922 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 
901
SCQ 922
SCQ 923
SCQ 924
SCQ 925
SCQ 926
SCQ 927
SCQ 928
SCQ 929
SCQ 930
SCQ 931
SCQ 932
SCQ 933
SCQ 934
SCQ 935
SCQ 936
SCQ 937
SCQ 938
SCQ 939
SCQ 940
SCQ 941
1 Flour 
(CSB+)
2 Sugar
3 Oil
4 Salt
5 Fruits
6 Vegeta
bles
7 Meat
8 Other 
(specif
y)
74
S
L
Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is 
received/lost/carryover from last month)
Bhadra 2071
(August-Sept 2014)
Shrawan 2071
(July-Aug 2014)
Ashadh 2071
(June-July 2014)
Jestha 2071
(May-June 2014)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 907 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 912 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last 
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 917 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
Amount Carryover stock from last month
Amount of Food loss in this month
Food amount received 
(skip to 922 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 
901
SCQ 942
SCQ 943
SCQ 944
SCQ 945
SCQ 946
SCQ 947
SCQ 948
SCQ 949
SCQ 950
SCQ 951
SCQ 952
SCQ 953
SCQ 954
SCQ 955
SCQ 956
SCQ 957
SCQ 958
SCQ 959
SCQ 960
SCQ 961
1 Flour 
(CSB+)
2 Sugar
3 Oil
4 Salt
5 Fruits
6 Vegeta
bles
7 Meat
8 Other 
(specif
y)
75
SL Food delivery record (School level information)
(Put the number of packets of biscuits where amount is 
requested. Put zero “0” if no amount is 
received/lost/carryover from last month)
Baishakh 2071
(Apr-May 2014) Amount Carryover stock from last month Amount of Food loss in this month
Amount of Food received this month
(skip to 907 if amount is “ 0” )
Actual delivery date
Expected delivery date (planed)
# SCQ 901
SCQ 962
SCQ 963
SCQ 964
SCQ 965
SCQ 966
1 Flour (CSB+)
2 Sugar
3 Oil
4 Salt
5 Fruits
6 Vegetables
7 Meat
8 Other (specify)
76
Student Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this 
survey?
1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
STQ 101 District
STQ 102 VDC
STQ 103 School Name 
STQ 104 Student Code
STQ 105 Student name
STQ 106 Sex 1=Male
2=Female
STQ 107 Age (months)
STQ 108 Current Grade/Class
STQ 109 Father' name
STQ 110 Mother's name
STQ 111 Date of Interview _____/_____/_____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2012)
STQ 112 Supervisor Code
STQ 113 Supervisor Name
STQ 114 Enumerator Code
STQ 115 Enumerator Name
77
Section 2
These questions are applicable for regular school days. If the child didn’t go to school before the interview date, ask about 
last school day.
Ask about last 
24 hours
Did you 
have a meal 
/snack? 
(1. Yes; 2. 
No)
If no, Skip to 
STQ_206
Was this meal 
enough for 
you?
(1. Yes; 2. No)
(ask the 
student if s/he 
was still 
hungry after 
the meal)
What was the 
timing in 
relation to the 
school hours?
1. Before school
2. During school 
hours
3. After school 
If during school hours, 
where did this meal come 
from?
1. Meal 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 (specify)
If didn’t have this 
meal, what was the 
main reason?
1. this is not part of 
regular practice
2. not hungry
3. Didn’t have food
4. illness 
5. not enough time
6. Other (specify)
STQ 201 STQ 202 STQ 203 STQ 204 STQ 205 STQ 206
Early morning 
(Breakfast 
time)
Mid - morning 
Mid-day 
(lunch time)
Mid –
afternoon 
Evening 
(dinner time)
Question Response Code
STQ 
207
In the past 6 school days, how many days 
did you eat breakfast before going to 
school? 
0 to 6
STQ 
208
In the past 6 school days, how many days 
did you eat a meal after going to school 
(and before going to bed)? 
0 to 6
STQ 
209
How long does it take to
get to school?
Number of minutes
STQ 
210
How do you travel to school? 1= walking
2=by bicycle,
3=by car,
4=by bus,
5=by motorbike,
6 = other local transport (put rickshaw / Van / other local 
option)
7=other
STQ 
211
How many days per week do you take extra 
lessons after school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t take extra lessons
STQ 
212
How many days per week do you work at home 
before going to school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
213 
How many days per week do you work at home 
after coming home from school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
214
Does the meal provided act as an incentive for 
going to school every day?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
215
If no meal is provided do you return home 
before the end of the school day?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 
216
Normally, if you become aware that the school 
food is finished, do you go to school the next 
day?
1=Yes
2=No
3 = Not sure / Don’t know
STQ 
217
In the last 30 days how many school days have 
you missed due to illness?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if didn’t miss a day
78
Question Response Code
STQ 
218
Can you name a few behaviour / practices 
that are important for good health / 
hygiene
(multiple response)
1. Regular and proper use of latrine for at community and 
school
2. Maintain and use sanitary latrine
3. Hand washing with soap after using latrine, before eating / 
preparing food / feeding a child
4. Use and maintain tippy tap for hand washing
5. Drinking clean water from a safe source (e.g. tube well, or 
treated water collected from river/lake)
6. Maintain a waste disposal system (Water drainage, garbage 
pits, waste basket/dust bins)
7. Keep the School building and compounds clean
8. Maintaining hygienic environment during food preparation, 
handling and distribution
9. Using clean and hygienic utensils during food preparation, 
handling and distribution
6. Other (Specify)
STQ 
219
Can you name a few local sources from 
where you can get information good 
health practices?
(Multiple response)
0. No response given
1. Local health clinic / hospital
2. School Health and hygiene Brochures
3. NGO/GoN Community health workers
4. Poster and Pamphlet
5. Notice board/ wall magazine / Wall paintings/hording 
board
6. Local Radio
7. Video/Documentary Street Drama Show
8. Food Fair/Food making competition
9. Other (specify)
79
Parent Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes 
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
HHQ 101 District
HHQ 102 VDC
HHQ 103 School Name
HHQ 104 Student Code
HHQ 105 Student name
HHQ 106 Respondent Name
HHQ 107 Relationship of the respondent with the 
student
1 = Father
2 = Mother
3 = Both
4 = other Family member / Legal 
guardian
HHQ 108 Household address
HHQ 109 Household size
HHQ 110 Number of pupils in pre-primary and primary 
school within the HH
HHQ 111 Date of Interview
HHQ 112 Supervisor Code
HHQ 113 Supervisor Name
HHQ 114 Enumerator Code
HHQ 115 Enumerator Name
Section 2: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of All Household Members
I would like to ask you some questions about you and your household members. [Ask the name and then ask other 
questions about the head of household and repeat for all other members]
QUESTIONS CODES
HHQ 203: Relationship- What is your / 
their relationship to the household 
head?
1= head, 2 = spouse, 3 = child, 4 = grandchild, 5 = sibling, 6 = parent, 7 = 
parent-in-law, 8 = son/daughter-in-law, 9 = other (specify)
HHQ 204: Sex - Are they male or 
female? 
1= male, 2 = female
HHQ 205: Marital Status - What is your 
/ their marital status?
1=unmarried, 2=married, 3=widow/er, 4=divorced/abandoned
80
HHQ 206: Education - What is the last 
school class the household head / they 
passed? 
0= no schooling, 1-9=last class passed, 10= SLC/SSC/ O Level or 
equivalent ,11= HSC, A Level or equivalent; 12= Degree or equivalent 13= 
Master or equivalent, 14=Just enrolled, 15=Only signature, 16=Other 
(and specify)
HHQ 207: Main Occupation - What is 
your / their main occupation?
0=Unemployed, 1=Agriculture day labour, 2=Other day labour, 
3=Domestic maid, 4=Rickshaw/van/boat/push cart , 5=Skilled labour 
(and specify), 6=Own agriculture, 7=Fishing/aquaculture, 
8=Livestock/poultry, 9=Industrial/migrant labour, 10=Petty 
trade/business, 11=Other business, 12=Cottage industry/handicraft, 
13=Service, 14=Transport worker (bus/truck), 15=Begging, 16=Rag 
picker/scavenging, 17=Housewife, 18=Student, 19 = Too old or too 
young to work, 21=Other (and specify)
HHQ 207: Average Monthly Income – What is his/her average monthly income either in cash or kind or both? 
(mention the amount in NPR)
SL Name Relation
ship Sex Marital 
Status
Educati
on
Occupatio
n
Monthly 
Income
HHQ 
201 HHQ 202 HHQ 
203
HHQ 
204
HHQ 
205
HHQ 
206 HHQ 207 HHQ 208
1 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Section 3: Questions are related exclusively to the pupil through whom this HH member was 
selected
# Questions Response Code
HHQ 
301
Which class/grade does (NAME of the CHILD) 
attend? Mention grade level / number
HHQ 
302
Which part of the day does (NAME of the CHILD) 
spend in the school?
1 = Morning 
2 = Afternoon
HHQ 
303
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat breakfast? 0 to 6
HHQ 
304
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat lunch? 0 to 6
HHQ 
305
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) eat dinner? 0 to 6
HHQ 
306
In the past 6 school days, how many days did you 
give (NAME of the CHILD) a school 
tiffin/lunch/snacks?
0 to 6
81
HHQ 
307
In the past 6 school days, how many days did (NAME 
of the CHILD) have mid-day meal at school? 0 to 6
HHQ 
308
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 (skip to 310)
HHQ 
309
If yes, on average how much do you reduce the 
portion compared to the week end?
1. 1% - 25%
2. 26% -50%
3. 51% -75%
HHQ 
310
Does the school provide mid-day meal to the 
student on Friday?
1. Yes
2. No
3. I don’t know
HHQ 
311 If not, how did the child eat mid-day meal ?
1. Child brought own food and eats (or ate) 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 ate at home
6. No lunch / Skipped meal
7. Other (Specify)
HHQ 
312
During the past 30 days except the school holidays, 
did (NAME of the CHILD) miss any school days?
1. Yes
2. No (skip to 318)
HHQ 
313
What are the reasons for missing the school days?
(Multiple Response)
1 = Transportation issue
2 = child work on farm or livestock tending
3 = child looking after siblings or domestic work
4 = lack of food at home
5 = because of insecurity, fear of going to 
school
6 = sickness / illness
7 = ceremonies/festivals and family events
8 = School Punishment
9= No specific reason, the child just skipped 
the school
10 = Other (specify)
HHQ 
314
How many days did he/she miss due to lack of food 
at home / hunger?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to this 
reason
HHQ 
315 How many days did he/she miss due to illness?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to this 
reason
HHQ 
316
How many days did he/she miss for income 
generating activities?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to this 
reason
HHQ 
317 How many days did he/she miss for domestic work?
Number of days. 
Put “00” if no days were missed due to this 
reason
HHQ 
318 Is there any benefit of primary education? 1. Yes
2. No
HHQ 
319
If Yes, what are the benefits of education?
(Please list at least 3 benefits of Primary education -
Multiple Response)
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.)
9. Other (specify)
HHQ 
320 Do you know about school feeding programme? 1. Yes
2. No
HHQ 
321
If Yes, what are the benefits of school feeding 
program to you and to the community/society
(Multiple response)
1. Improves school attendance
2. Promotes performance
3. Improves child nutrition levels
4.
5.
82
6.
7.
8.
Others (Specify)
HHQ 
322
How can you get information about school feeding 
programme or make complaints if necessary?
1. Don’t know
2. Regular meetings with SMC
3. Regular meetings with School Administrators
4. Suggestion Box
5. Helpline
6. Informal communication (verbal) with 
teachers / SMC members
7. My child (student)
8. Other (specify)________
HHQ 
323
Does the school have Parent Teacher Association or 
similar governance structure?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t Know
HHQ 
324
If Yes, are you part of any Parent Teacher 
Association?
1. Yes
2. No
HHQ 
325
Are you aware of the existence of the School 
Management Committee (SMC)?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t Know
HHQ 
326
If Yes, what is your perception of the SMCs 
involvement in the SFP?
1= High
2= Medium
3= Low
HHQ 
327
In the past 30 days, were there any cases of physical 
and/or emotional threats to the safety of your child 
that he/she was exposed to when going to and 
coming back from school or at school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t Know
HHQ 
328
If Yes, please indicate the type of threats:
(Multiple Response)
1. Rape
2. Sexual Harassment
3. Robbed
4. Animal Attacks
5. Bullying / Teasing
6. Abuse of drugs
7. Punishment at school
8. Others (specify)
HHQ 
329
Can you name a few behavior / practices that are 
important for good health / hygiene
(multiple response)
1. Regular and proper use of latrine for at 
community and school
2. Maintain and use sanitary latrine
3. Hand washing with soap after using latrine, 
before eating / preparing food / feeding a child
4. Use and maintain tippy tap for hand washing
5. Drinking clean water from a safe source (e.g. 
tube well, or treated water collected from 
river/lake)
6. Maintain a waste disposal system (Water 
drainage, garbage pits, waste basket/dust bins)
7. Keep the School building and compounds 
clean
8. Maintaining hygienic environment during 
food preparation, handling and distribution
9. Using clean and hygienic utensils during food 
preparation, handling and distribution
6. Other (Specify)
HHQ 
330
Can you name a few local sources from where you 
can get information good health practices?
(Multiple response)
0. No response given
1. Local health clinic / hospital
2. School Health and hygiene Brochures
3. NGO/GoN Community health workers
4. Poster and Pamphlet
5. Notice board/ wall magazine / Wall 
paintings/hording board
6. Local Radio
7. Video/Documentary Street Drama Show
8. Food Fair/Food making competition
9. Other (specify)
Section 4: Dietary Diversity 
(Questions are related exclusively to the pupil through whom this HH member was selected)
83
SL Food Items
In the last 24 hours 
(during the day and 
night), did (CHILD 
NAME) eat any of 
these food items?
1=Yes
2=No
9 = Don’t know
STQ 
401 STQ 402 STQ 403
1 Food made from grains, such as bread, rice, noodles, porridge, or [other local 
grain food]
2 White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, [other local root crops] or any 
other foods made from roots
3 Any foods made from beans, peas, or lentils, such as [add any local legume 
names]
4 Any foods made from nuts or seeds such as [add any local nut/seed names]
5 Milk 
6 Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products
7 Eggs
8 Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from domesticated animals, 
such as cattle, swine, goat, chicken, or duck
9 Any liver, kidney, heart, or other organ meats from wild animals, such as 
[names of local commonly-consumed wildlife]
10 Any meat, such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, or duck
11 Any flesh from wild animals, such as [names of local commonly-consumed 
wildlife]
12 Fresh or dried fish, shellfish, or seafood
13 Grubs, snails or insects such as [add any local insect names]
14 Any dark green leafy vegetables such as [local dark green leafy vegetables]
15 Pumpkin, carrots, squash, or sweet potatoes that are yellow or orange inside 
or [other local yellow/orange foods]
16 Ripe mangoes, ripe papayas or [other local vitamin A-rich fruits]
17 Foods made with red palm oil, red palm nut, or red palm nut pulp sauce 
(Vitamin A rich oil)
18 Any other vegetables
19 Any other fruits
Additional food items
20 Any oil, fats, or butter, ghee, or foods made with any of these
21 Sweets: sugar, honey, sweetened soda or sweetened juice drinks, sugary 
foods such as chocolates, candies, cookies and cakes
22 Condiments for flavor, such as chilies, spices, herbs, fish powder or [add any 
local condiment names]
84
EGRA Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
STQ 101 District
STQ 102 VDC
STQ 103 School Name 
STQ 104 Student Code
STQ 105 Student name
STQ 106 Sex 1=Male
2=Female
STQ 107 Age (months)
STQ 108 Current Grade/Class
STQ 109 Father' name
STQ 110 Mother's name
STQ 111 Date of Interview _____/_____/_____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 2012)
STQ 112 Supervisor Code
STQ 113 Supervisor Name
STQ 114 Enumerator Code
STQ 115 Enumerator Name
Section 2:
Question Response Code
STQ 
201
How long does it take for you to get to school? Number of minutes
STQ 
202
Do you have anyone at home to help you with 
reading?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
STQ 
203
What is the level of your father’s education ? 0= no schooling, 1-9=last class passed, 
10= SSC, O Level or equivalent ,11= 
HSC, A Level or equivalent; 12= Degree 
or equivalent 13= Master or equivalent, 
14=Only signature, 15 = Don’t know
STQ 
204
What is the level of your mother’s education?
85
Question Response Code
STQ 
205
Do you read any extracurricular book? 1. Yes
2. No
STQ 
206
If yes, did you read any story within last 7 days? Number 
STQ 
207
How many days per week do you take extra lessons 
after school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t take extra lessons
STQ 
208
How many days per week do you work at home 
before going to school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
STQ 
209
How many days per week do you work at home 
after coming home from school?
Put the number of days.
Put “0” if doesn’t work
Section 3: Student Reading & Understanding Skills
(Applicable only for students at the end of grade 2/beginning of grade 3)
# Questions Response Code / hints
STQ 301 What language do you use at home? 1. Nepali Language
2. English
3. Local Language
4. Refuse to answer
5. Don’t know
STQ 302 What language do you use at school? 1. Nepali Language
2. English
3. Local Language
4. Refuse to answer
5. Don’t know
Achievement in different section of the test
STQ 303 Listening Number of correct answer given 
(maximum 4)
STQ 304 Phonetic Alphabet -1
STQ 305 Phonetic Alphabet -2
STQ 306 Simple words
STQ 307 Punctuation
STQ 308 Compound words
STQ 309 Meaning of words (matching pictures)
STQ 310 Paragraph 1: number of correct words in 60 
seconds
Number of words
STQ 311 Paragraph 1: Time taken to complete the 
paragraph
Minutes 
STQ 312 Paragraph 1: Total number of correct words Number of words
STQ 313 Paragraph 1: Comprehension Number of correct answer
STQ 314 Paragraph 2: number of correct words in 60 
seconds
Number of words
STQ 315 Paragraph 2: Time taken to complete the 
paragraph
Minutes 
STQ 316 Paragraph 2: Total number of correct words Number of words
STQ 317 Paragraph 2: Comprehension Number of correct answer
86
Teacher Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this survey? 1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SKQ 101 District
SKQ 102 VDC
SKQ 103 School Name 
SKQ 104 School Name
SKQ 105 Respondent name (Teacher)
SKQ 106 Date of Interview ____/____/____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 
04 / 2015)
SKQ 107 Supervisor Code
SKQ 108 Supervisor Name
SKQ 109 Enumerator Code
SKQ 110 Enumerator Name
Section 2: Teacher Activities & Classroom Environment
# Question Response Code
STQ 201 What is your name?
STQ 202 Sex of the teacher 1. Male
2. Female
STQ 203 For how many years have you been teaching? Number of years
STQ 204 How many years have you been teaching at this 
school?
Number of years
STQ 205 What position do you hold at this school? 1. Head teacher/ principal 
2. Deputy head teacher 
3. Senior teacher 
4. Teacher (permanent/ regular) 
5. Teacher (paid contract) 
6. Teacher (volunteer) 
7. Other (specify)
STQ 206 What is your highest education qualification? 1. MSc or higher
2. Bachelor
3. Diploma
4. Higher Secondary
5. Secondary
6. Primary
7. Untrained
8. Other
STQ 207 Which grade do you teach? 1. Grade 1
2. Grade 2
87
# Question Response Code
(Multiple Response) 3. Grade 3
4. Grade 4
5. Grade 5
6. Pre-primary
STQ 208 What subject do you teach at school?
(Multiple Response)
1. Literature / Language (Nepali)
2. Literature / Language (English 
/ other foreign language)
3. Science 
4. Mathematics
5. Social science
6. Religion
7. History
8. Arts / Painting
9. Others
STQ 209 Do you have any formal training on teaching from 
government / non-government institutes? 
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 210 In the last 30 days, how many days per week did you 
spend for teaching at school?
Days per week
Put “00” if none
STQ 211 Do you tutor students outside school hours? 1 = Yes, with pay
2 = Yes, without pay
3 = Both
3 = Don’t tutor 
STQ 212 In the last 30 days, how many days per week did you 
spend for private tutoring outside school?
days per week
Put “00” if none
STQ 213 Do you have another job outside the school other 
than tutoring?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 214 What proportion of students in your classroom has 
the required textbook/s for the class?
1=None,
2=1-25%
3=25-50 %
4=50-75 %
5=75-99%
6 = 100 %
7 = Don’t know
STQ 215 What proportion of students in your classroom has 
a desk and chair?
1=None,
2=1-25%
3=25-50 %
4=50-75 %
5=75-99%
6 = 100 %
7 = Don’t know
STQ 216 Do you think the provision of school meals 
significantly impacts the decision of children to 
come to school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don’t know
STQ 217 According to you, if WFP SFP would stop today, 
what would be the consequence on pupil 
attendance?
1. No consequence, attendance 
will remain the same
2. Attendance will drop slightly 
(10%) 
3. Attendance will drop 
significantly (10%-30%)
4. Attendance will drop 
drastically (over 30%)
STQ 218 According to you, if WFP SFP would stop today, 
what would be the consequence on pupil 
enrolment?
1. No consequence, enrolment
will remain the same
2. Enrolment will drop slightly 
(10%) 
3. Enrolment will drop 
significantly (10%-30%)
4. Enrolment will drop 
drastically (over 30%)
88
# Question Response Code
STQ 219 In your observation, what percentage of students in 
classrooms can be identified as inattentive?
STQ 220 What do you do to engage students and parents to 
improve the learning outcome?
1. Rewarding certificates to 
students to take to home 
2. Sending letters to parents 
explaining about children's 
reading performance
Section 3: Teacher Compensation & Income
# Question Response Code
STQ 301 What is your monthly income from school? Income in rupees (salary 
+ benefits)
STQ 302 How much do you earn monthly from tutoring 
outside school hours?
Income in rupees 
STQ 303 How much do you earn monthly from other 
sources?
Income in rupees
STQ 304 Do you think your salary is sufficient to cover 
your living expenses?
1=Yes
2=No
STQ 305 Do you get your salary on time every month? 1=Yes
2=No
If there is a delay in getting monthly salary, how 
long does it usually take?
Number of days
Section 4: Classroom Observation (observe a Nepali language class)
# Question Response Code
STQ 401 Did the teacher apply 
any participatory 
technique during the 
class?
(Multiple Response)
0. No 
1. Asking question instead of giving the message straightway
2. Story telling (to make student understand instead of giving 
the message straightway)
3. Group Discussion
4. Problem solving: by discussion / as a group
5. Other (Specify)
STQ 402 Did the teacher use 
any audio-visual 
material? 
(Multiple Response)
0. No 
1. Pictures from text Book
2. Handmade posters 
3. Printed visual aids
4. Drawing and writing at the board
5. Playing video / audio (for teaching/learning purpose) 
6. Other (Specify)
STQ 403 Did the teacher make 
effort to engage 
students?
(Multiple Response)
0. None of the options below
1. Gave classroom exercise 
2. Asking students to write at the blackboard (not as a 
punishment)
3. Identify inattentive students and give special care
4. Ask the students if they have understood the word or topics 
being discussed
5. Discuss new word or concept with meaning and examples
6. Allowing students to reading loudly / silently at the class
7. Encourage students to ask questions 
8. Gave answer nicely if there is a question from students
9. Other (specify)
89
# Question Response Code
S4Q 404 Other classroom 
observations:
(Multiple Response)
1. Teachers made effort to make the class interesting
2. Teacher initiates topics related discussion from the 
common experiences before start discussing on the main 
topics 
3. Teacher repeatedly and properly discussed difficult topics 
and words 
4. Teacher reviews the content and evaluates the learning of 
the students at the end of class
5. Other (Specify)
STQ 405 What does the school 
administrator or head 
teacher do to improve 
teaching/classroom 
environment?
(Multiple Response)
0. Nothing
1. Regularly evaluates the classroom instructions and 
2. Regular monitoring of teaching techniques of teachers 
3. Provides feedback to teachers for improvement of the 
quality and techniques
4. Other (Specify)
STQ 406 What does the school 
authority and head 
teacher do quality 
assurance for 
improving literacy 
skills?
(Multiple Response)
0. Nothing
1. Teaching instruction manual are available for all the 
teachers
2. Supplementary reading materials are made available for 
students
3. Encourage teachers to use audio-visual aid during class
4. Encourage teachers to prepare handmade posters / locally 
made visual aids
5. Encourage teachers to adopt participatory teaching 
techniques (e.g. role play / story telling / group discussion / 
problem solving)
6. Other (Specify)
STQ 407 What measures are in 
place/functional for 
management and 
discipline of the 
school?
(Multiple Response)
0. None
1. Regular attendance for Teachers 
2. Timely attendance for Teachers
3. Regular attendance for Students 
4. Timely attendance for Students
5. School uniform are worn by students
6. Other (specify)
STQ 408 Are there measures in 
place/functional for 
improvement and 
maintenance of school 
infrastructure?
(Multiple Response)
0. No
1. Cleanliness of the school surrounding 
2. Regular cleaning of classrooms 
3. Regular cleaning of teacher’s rooms
4. Proper maintenance of school latrines
5. Proper maintenance of classroom and furniture
6. Source of clean water for teachers and students
7. Other (specify)
STQ 409 What does the SMC do 
for proper school 
governance (eg, 
legislation, 
communication, 
enforcement)?
(Multiple Response)
0. None
1. Ensures minimum contact/teaching hours particularly for 
the main subjects
2. Conducting meetings with parents to discuss progress
3. Other (Specify)
90
Cook Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this 
survey?
1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
Q 101 District
Q 102 VDC
Q 103 School Name
Q 104 Respondent name
Q 105 Sex of the Respondent: ___ 1. Male
2. Female
Q 106 Date of Interview ____/____/____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 04 / 
2015)
Q 107 Supervisor Code
Q 108 Supervisor Name
Q 109 Enumerator Code
Q 110 Enumerator Name
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 2014?
__________
Q203 Do children wash their hands before the meal? 1. Yes
2. No
Q204 When is the last time you received your salary? _____/_____ MONTH/YEAR
Q205 Do you receive your salary regularly every 
month?
1. Yes
2. No
Q206 Who pays for your salary? 1. School
2. Community / Parents
3. Others
Q207 Do you use energy saving stoves? 1. Yes
2. No
Q208 Are the cooks clean and well groomed?
DIRECT OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
91
Section 3: Knowledge on Safe Food Preparation & Practices (Test for Cook)
This test contains multiple-choice questions, each worth 1 point. Tick the best response for each question. Make 
sure that your answer is clearly marked. This test is worth a total of 10 points
# Question Response Code
Q301 Do you have a uniform or apron for use in the 
kitchen?
Answer: 1. Yes
1. Yes
2. No
Q302 When do you clean your kitchen?
Answer: Every morning before food 
preparation, often during the day and after 
use
1. Every morning before food 
preparation, often during the day and 
after use
2. After food preparation
3. At the end of the week
4. Other (specify)
Q303 Which is the best source of water for cleaning 
and cooking food?
Answer: Piped water, rain water and 
boreholes which are well protected
1. Piped water, rainwater and 
boreholes which are well protected 
2. Water from the river/streams
3. Water from a pond
4. Other
Q304 When do you usually wash your hands for 
food preparation?
Answer: Before handling food and often 
during food preparation
1. Before handling food and often 
during food preparation
2. After using the latrine
3. After finishing food preparation
4. Never
5. Other (specify)
Q305 How do you wash your hand?
Answer: Water with Soap
1. Only with Water
2. Water with Soap
3. Water with Mud
4. Water with Ash
5. Other (Specify)
Q306 How do you ensure that food is clean before 
cooking?
Answer: Use clean containers to collect it 
from the store, remove foreign matters and 
then wash it with clean water thoroughly 
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
Q307 When do you wash your cooking utensils 
(cooking pots, lids, scoops, knives, plates etc.) 
with clean water and soap
Answer: Prior to, after using them and drying 
them in a rack before storage
1. After use
2. Prior to using them
3. Prior to, after using them and 
drying them in a rack before storage
Q308 Are there measures in place to prevent food 
from contamination from pests and rodents? 
Name them:
1. ____________________________
2. ____________________________
Answer: One score for any measures
Q309 What is the most important thing to check in 
food before cooking?
Answer: Expiry date, packaging, colour of 
the food, presence of pests
1. Expiry date, packaging, colour 
of the food, presence of pests
2. Source of food
3. Colour of the package
Q310 How do you store cooked food prior to 
serving the pupils?
Answer: Store cooked food in covered 
cooking pots in a clean, safe place before 
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
92
Storekeeper Questionnaire
USDA McGovern Dole and WFP supported Food for Education Programme in 
Nepal: Baseline Survey 2015
Take Consent
Did the respondent give consent to take part in this 
survey?
1. Yes
2. No (End of Survey)
Section 1: Interview detail 
# Question Response Code
SKQ 101 District
SKQ 102 VDC
SKQ 103 School Name
SKQ 104 Respondent name
SKQ 105 Sex of the Respondent: ___ 1. Male
2. Female
SKQ 106 Date of Interview ____/____/____ Day/Month/Year (e.g. 15 / 
04 / 2015)
SKQ 107 Supervisor Code
SKQ 108 Supervisor Name
SKQ 109 Enumerator Code
SKQ 110 Enumerator Name
Section 2: School feeding program information 
# Question Response Code
STQ 201 Does your school have a dedicated food store room? 1. Yes
2. No
STQ 202 Is the food storeroom lockable?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 203 Is the storeroom properly ventilated?
DIRECT OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 204 Is there any evidence of presence of rodents in the 
store?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 205 Is there any evidence of presence of insects (weevil and 
others)?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 206 Is there any evidence of mould and excess of humidity?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 207 Is there any evidence of spillage or leakage?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 208 Is the food stored off the ground?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No (go to Q210)
93
STQ 209 If yes, does the school use improvised raised pallets for 
commodities' storage?
ASK QUESTION +OBSERVATION
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 210 Does the school have a pest/insects management 
plan?
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 211 Does the school carry out pest/insects control 
measures?
1. Yes
2. No
STQ 212 Are you trained in safe food preparation and storage 
practices? 
1. Yes
2. No (End of interview)
STQ 213 If Yes, how many times have you received training in 
last one year?
STQ 214 Do you maintain proper record of the food items?
(Ask Question + Observation)
1. Yes
2. No