Baseline Report for WFP Cambodia and the USDA/McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme 2017-2019 December 2017 WFP Cambodia Agreement Number: FFE-442-2016/015-00 Prepared by: Sophia Dunn, Team Leader, The KonTerra Group Mike Coquilla, Indochina Research Chandara Gnim, Indochina Research Pisei Im, Indochina Research Covadonga Canteli, KonTerra Consultant Ferdous Jahan, KonTerra Consultant Jean-Pierre Silvéréano, KonTerra Consultant Sovith Sin, KonTerra Consultant Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making Acknowledgements The KonTerra team would like to thank Indochina Research Limited team in Cambodia especially Mike Coquilla, Chandara Gnim, Pisei Im and the enumeration team for their dedication to the survey and reporting. The team also gratefully acknowledges the community participants in the evaluation process – households, teachers, cooks, parents and school children. Disclaimer Any opinions expressed in this report are those of authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the World Food Programme. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement by WFP of the opinions expressed. The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers. 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 iii Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of the baseline subject .................................................................. 1 1.2 Context.........................................................................................................4 1.3 Methodology ................................................................................................ 7 2 Survey findings ................................................................................................ 12 2.1 Findings from the school and teacher surveys ........................................... 12 Teaching staff in surveyed schools............................................................................................. 12 Student participation in education ............................................................................................ 13 Literacy of school-aged children................................................................................................ 14 Increased access to food (school feeding).................................................................................. 16 Student hunger and attentiveness in class ................................................................................ 17 School infrastructure .................................................................................................................. 18 School gardens............................................................................................................................28 Training and community awareness..........................................................................................30 School management ................................................................................................................... 31 2.2 Findings from the household survey.......................................................... 33 Household demographic information .......................................................................................33 Household water and sanitation................................................................................................35 Household livelihoods, income and expenditure......................................................................36 Household food security and nutrition......................................................................................38 Household coping strategies ..................................................................................................... 40 School feeding benefits for children and households .............................................................. 40 2.3 Government capacity related to school feeding..........................................42 3 Conclusions...................................................................................................... 47 4 Bibliography ....................................................................................................50 5 Annexes ........................................................................................................... 52 List of Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................52 Annex 2: List of intervention and comparison schools ....................................................................68 Annex 3: Methodology for selection of comparison schools ............................................................73 Annex 4: Household questionnaire...................................................................................................76 Annex 5: School assessment............................................................................................................100 Annex 6: Teachers questionnaire .....................................................................................................115 Annex 7: Key baseline findings by province.....................................................................................117 Annex 8: Additional findings from the teacher and school surveys ..............................................128 Annex 9: T-tests on survey data ...................................................................................................... 129 Annex 10: Additional findings from the household survey.............................................................131 Annex 11: SABER stages of transition to national ownership........................................................ 135 Annex 12: Additional findings on capacity building of the Government....................................... 136 Annex 13: FFE Programme Performance Monitoring Plan 2017-2019......................................... 137 iv List of Tables Table 1: Comparison of programme activities 2013-2016,and 2017-2019........................................3 Table 2: Summary of sample size for the quantitative survey ............................................................9 Table 3: Surveyed schools ................................................................................................................. 12 Table 4: Teaching staff in surveyed schools (SY 2016/17)................................................................ 12 Table 5: Full time teachers (Grades 1-6) ........................................................................................... 13 Table 6: Gender of full time teachers (Grades 1-6) & teacher attendance for SY 2016/17 .............. 13 Table 7: School mapping information in the school year 2016-2017 ............................................... 13 Table 8: Promotion, repetition and drop-out rates (2016/17).......................................................... 14 Table 9: Demonstrated reading and comprehension -Grade 2 ....................................................... 15 Table 10: Teacher’s use of improved literacy tools ........................................................................... 15 Table 11: Number of schools receiving stationerypackages SY2016/2017 ...................................... 15 Table 12: Programme indicators - establish activities topromote literacy ...................................... 16 Table 13: School meals and take-home rations - performance indicatorsby year .......................... 16 Table 14: Programme targets for the provision of school meals and take-home rations (2017-2019) .................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 15: Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are “hungry” or “very hungry” during the school day.................................................................................................................. 17 Table 16: Reported inattentiveness of students ................................................................................ 18 Table 17: Teachers reporting of shifts where more childrenare inattentive.................................... 18 Table 18: Number of classrooms in surveyed schools....................................................................... 19 Table 19: School kitchen facilities...................................................................................................... 19 Table 20: Use of energy-efficient stoves........................................................................................... 20 Table 21: Schools with food storerooms .......................................................................................... 20 Table 22: Schools storing food off the ground .................................................................................. 21 Table 291217 FINAL WF23: Number of functioning drill wells/water catchments ....................... 21 Table 24: School access to year-round clean water...........................................................................22 Table 25: Percentage of schools with fixed hand and mobile handwashing stations .....................22 Table 26: Percentage of schools with soap present athandwashing stations ..................................23 Table 27: Functional and non-functional latrines insurveyed schools............................................25 Table 28: Presence of functioning latrines for teachers....................................................................25 Table 29: Presence of functioning latrines for boys and girls...........................................................26 Table 30: Presence of functioning latrines fordisabled students ....................................................26 Table 31: Solid waste disposal............................................................................................................28 Table 32: Schools with vegetable gardens .........................................................................................28 Table 33: Schools receiving training on food preparation and awareness on cooking management ................................................................................................................................................... 30 Table 34: Percentage of schools participating in community awareness raising events on the importance of education.............................................................................................................30 Table 35: Participation of parents in school activities ...................................................................... 31 Table 36: Number of Parent-TeacherAssociations supported.........................................................32 Table 37: Schools with existing LSFCs and SSCs ..............................................................................32 Table 38: Average amount of community contributions to each school inSY 2016/17 ..................32 Table 39: Distribution of surveyed households by province, supporting programme, and sex of sampled child..............................................................................................................................33 Table 40: Demographic information of surveyed households .........................................................33 Table 41: Education and literacy information of heads of household of surveyed households.......34 Table 42: Number of school-aged children per household, and theirstarting age..........................34 Table 43: Parents’ reporting of reasons they send childrento school..............................................35 Table 44: Average number of livelihood activities and sources of incomeper household ..............36 Table 45: Annual household income from different sources (inUS dollars)...................................37 v Table 46: Household expenditure .....................................................................................................37 Table 47: Average number of meals consumed in the household the day before the survey by age group ...........................................................................................................................................38 Table 48: Average number of times per week that households reported consumption of different food groups .................................................................................................................................39 Table 49: Household Food Consumption .........................................................................................39 Table 50: Percentage of households with inadequate diets .............................................................39 Table 51: Percentage of children who have been dewormed in the pastsix months ...................... 40 Table 52: Reduced Coping Strategies Index..................................................................................... 40 Table 53: Average number of morning sessions the child attended................................................. 41 Table 54: Percentage of children who received a school meal and took some home....................... 41 Table 55: Benefits of school feeding for the child, as perceivedby parents ..................................... 41 Table 56: Benefits of school feeding for the household, as perceivedby parents ............................ 41 Table 57: Effects of school feeding in terms of household members’time saved ............................42 Table 58: Percentage of parents reporting to save time from each activity, as an effect of school attendance...................................................................................................................................42 Table 59: Percentage of parents reporting to use saved time foreach activity ................................42 Table 60: National Capacity Index (NCI)..........................................................................................43 Table 61: Policies and procedures in place........................................................................................44 Table 62: Number of schools with existing public-privatepartnership groups...............................46 Table 63: Progress on the achievement of the SABERquality standards ........................................46 List of Figures Figure 1: Map of treatment provinces andcomparison districts........................................................8 Figure 2: Type of plate available for children usage ......................................................................... 17 Figure 3: Condition of kitchens in USDAsupported schools ........................................................... 19 Figure 4: Condition of energy efficient stoves in USDAsupported schools.................................... 20 Figure 5: Condition of storerooms in USDAsupported schools...................................................... 20 Figure 6: Condition of well-functioning drilled well/rainwater catchments .................................. 21 Figure 7: Condition of non-functioning drilled well/rainwater catchments...................................22 Figure 8: Condition of fixed (non-mobile) hand washing stations ..................................................23 Figure 9: Condition of mobile hand washing stations ......................................................................23 Figure 10: Student handwashing practices – frequency of handwashing with soap and water ......24 Figure 11: Available stock of soap supply ..........................................................................................24 Figure 12: Provider of soap ................................................................................................................24 Figure 13: How often does school buy soap?.....................................................................................25 Figure 14: Design of latrine facilities for studentswith disabilities .................................................26 Figure 15: Condition of functioning latrines .....................................................................................27 Figure 16: Condition of non-functioning latrines .............................................................................27 Figure 17: Latrine maintenance .........................................................................................................27 Figure 18: Reason for establishing vegetable gardens in school ......................................................29 Figure 19: Month of year when school gardens are utilized .............................................................29 Figure 20: School garden maintenance.............................................................................................29 Figure 21: Awareness on three types of food groups.........................................................................30 Figure 22: Number of times that awareness-raising events were conducted during SY2016/17.... 31 Figure 23: Timing of awareness raising events ................................................................................. 31 Figure 24: Availability of school management tools .........................................................................32 Figure 25: Household main source of water .....................................................................................35 Figure 26: Household sanitation (toilet) facilities ............................................................................35 vi Figure 27: Household's main source of livelihood............................................................................36 Figure 28: Household’s secondary source of livelihood...................................................................37 Figure 29: Percentage of households reporting consumption of each food group in last7 days ....38 Figure 30: Household use of consumption coping strategies ......................................................... 40 vii List of Acronyms ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations BMI Body Mass Index BTB Battambang Province CARD Council for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment CO Country Office (WFP) CP Country Programme DOE District Office of Education DSFC District School Feeding Committee EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade ReadingAssessment ET Evaluation team FAO (United Nations) Food and AgricultureOrganization FFE Food for Education FY Financial Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GII Gender Inequality Index HGSF Home-grown school feeding HH Household IDS Institute of Development Studies IRL Indochina Research Limited KAPE Kampuchean Action on PrimaryEducation kg kilograms KTM Kampong Thom Province LSFC Local School Feeding Committee MDG Millennium Development Goals MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport NCI National Capacity Index NGO Non-Governmental Organization PB Programme Budget (MoEYS) PCC Project Coordination Committee POE Provincial Office of Education PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PSFC Provincial School FeedingCommittee PSM Propensity Score Matching PTA Parents and Teachers Association PTTC Provincial Teacher Training Colleges rCSI Reduced Coping Strategies Index RF Results Framework SABER Systems Approach for Better EducationResults SFTF School Feeding Taskforce SIG School Improvement Grant (MoEYS) SMP School Meal Programme SO Strategic Objective SRP Siem Reap Province SSC School Support Committee SY School Year THR Take Home Ration ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations viii UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund US$ United States dollar USDA United States Department ofAgriculture WFP World Food Programme WHO (United Nations) World Health Organization ix Map 1: Map of WFP Cambodia’s Country Portfolio target areas 2016-2017 Source: WFP Cambodia MERVAM Unit 1 1 Introduction 1. This report is the baseline for the Food for Education Programme (FFE-442-2016/015- 00) (2017-2019) of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Cambodia which has been supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant. 2. The baseline survey was carried out by a team of independent consultants from the KonTerra Group in partnership with Indochina Research, a local Cambodian research company. The survey was conducted at the same time as an endline quantitative data collection for the 2013-2016 Food for Education programme by the same team which is presented as a separate report. 3. The survey was conducted in August/September 2017 and covers all three provinces that will receive USDA support during 2017-2019: Battambang (BTB), Siem Reap (SRP) and Kampong Thom (KTM). The purpose of the baseline survey is to establish background demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and benchmark information for outcome indicators and targets as specified in the results section as well as the performance monitoring plan. This will help to validate the project design and ensure better implementation. A key component of the baseline survey is the school assessment, which helps to identify gaps and set priorities for programming. The full Terms of Reference can be found in Annex 1. 4. The baseline survey is designed to address the following questions: • What is the current status of key performance indicators such as literacy, retention, enrolment, attentiveness, attendance, food security, hunger, water and sanitation facilities and health and nutrition, taking into account that WFP has been running a school feeding programme in these areas for several years? • What remaining progress must be made to achieve the objectives in literacy and health and nutrition as outlined by USDA? • What issues or factors need to be further invested in to ensure that objectives are met? • What further investments need to be made to ensure the programme is sustainable after USDA assistance has ceased? 5. The baseline report provides an overview of the targeted schools as at the end of the 2016/17 school year (SY). WFP’s literacy partners, World Education and Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) conducted a baseline survey in April 2017.1 Some of their findings are included in this report where relevant. Note that the sample of schools employed by the baseline survey is not the same as for the endline evaluation of the 2013-2016phase. As a result, there is some variation in the findings of the endline evaluation and this baseline survey. 1.1 Overview of the baseline subject 6. School feeding is a major component of the ongoing WFP Country Programme in Cambodia.2 The larger WFP school feeding programme is implemented in 11 provinces3 and includes multiple food assistance modalities: school meals (SMP), take home rations (THR) or scholarships (either cash or food based), and piloting of new models of school feeding including a Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model that utilizes locally procured commodities. 1 World Education and KAPE (2017) Baseline report = Food for Education, For World Food Programme Cambodia. April 2017 2 CP Cambodia 200202 (2011-2016), WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1, 3 May 2011. Now extended to December 2018. 3 Kampong Speu, Prey Veng, Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Battambang, Banteay Meanchey, Odtar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng provinces. 2 7. The USDA McGovern-Dole Programme is implemented in three provinces within the overall WFP school feeding programme. It provides a daily school meal (on-site hotbreakfast) to children attending morning classes, using imported fortified food commodities provided by USDA. The meal is intended to act as an incentive for children from poor families to enrol, regularly attend school and complete their primary education, as well as mitigate short-term hunger and improve concentration in the classroom. 8. In addition to the school meals, the programme provides THR. These are highly targeted to very poor families with children in Grades 4 to 6, selected using the Government’s 'Identification of Poor Households' system (IDPoor). The monthly food scholarship is 10 kilogrammes (kg) of rice, while the cash scholarship provides an equivalent sum based on the local market price of rice. The scholarship programme aims to further facilitate the progression of poor students in Grades 4-6 and to provide more equitable access to the Government's "Scholarship for the Poor" programme in Grades 7-9. 9. The USDA McGovern-Dole Programme is implemented by WFP in partnership World Education and KAPE for the literacy component, as well as PLAN International (in Kampong Thom), World Vision (in Siem Reap), and several government ministries. In Battambang the programme is under the management of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS). Within the MoEYS, WFP works closely with the Provincial Offices of Education (POE), and District Offices of Education (DOE) as well as with several departments at central level including the Primary Education Department/the Scholarship Office (which supports the implementation and monitoring of the programme), the School Health Department, and the Policy Department. From the end of 2016 the Teacher Training Department has also been involved in the literacy component. 10. Other ministries involved include the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Interior, and the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD). 11. Several United Nations agencies also provide support to the school feeding programme. These include: • UNICEF - Currently the Head of Education Sector Working Group • UNESCO - The previous head of Education Sector Working Group and support to Teacher Development Plans • FAO - Provision of technical support, particularly to the school gardens • World Bank - Involved in handover to government of the Take Home Rations (THR) component • WHO – Technical support to health and nutrition components. Objectives and Activities 12. The goal of USDA McGovern-Dole Programme is to improve the literacy of school age children and increase the use of improved health and dietary practices, while simultaneously providing a safety net to vulnerable and at-risk households and children. TheMcGovern-Dole grant aims to provide long-term benefits to recipients and sustain the benefits to the education, enrolment and school attendance of children within the target communities. In keeping with these key goals, the programme is implemented against two results frameworks (RF), each of which depicts a development hypothesis or a theory about how the highest-level result - the strategic objective (SO) - can be achieved, based on a cause-and-effect logic. While results may 3 be achieved over a period of years, USDA expects the SOs of the two frameworks can begin to be achieved in whole or in part within a four-to-six-year period. • RF 1: Literacy Results Framework: The SO of this framework is the Improved Literacy of School-Age Children. Achievement of this objective is dependent upon the achievement of three ‘result streams’ related to Improved Student Attendance, Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction, and Improved Attentiveness. • RF 2: Health and Dietary Practices Results Framework: The SO of this framework is the Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, primarily by school age children but also by those who influence these children’s health and well-being, such as parents, families and school staff. The achievement of the SO is intended to support the IR Reduced Health￾Related Absences in RF 1. RF 2 is complementary to RF 1.4 13. The 2017-2019 programme includes 13 main project areas (Table 1, centre column), all of which are intended to contribute to several programme outcomes in the two results frameworks. Table 1: Comparison of programme activities 2013-2016, and 2017-2019 2013-2016 implementation period 2017-2019 implementation period Activities implemented during transition to 2017-2019 award • Distribution of school meals and take￾home rations • Building/Rehabilitation: Kitchens • Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines • Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and Water Stations/Systems • Building/Rehabilitation: Warehouses and Storerooms • Provide energy-saving stoves • Establish school gardens • Distribution: Hygiene materials • Distribution: Kitchen utensils • Distribution: School supplies and materials • Raising awareness on the importance of education • Establish activities to promote literacy (Grade 6) • Training: Commodity management • Training: Food preparation and storage practices • Training: Good health and nutrition practices • Training: School administrators • Training: Teachers • Capacity Building: Local, Regional, National Level • Develop partnerships with farmer groups to supply food to schools • Provide School Meals • Provide Take Home Rations • Establish School Gardens • Training: Commodity Management • Training: Food Preparation and Storage Practices • Training: School administrators • Training: Teachers • Establish activities to promote literacy (Grades 1-3) • Capacity building: Local, regional, national level • Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines • Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and water stations/systems • Training: Good health and nutrition practices • Raising awareness on the importance of education • Distribution oftake￾home rations • Building/ Rehabilitation: Latrines • Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and Water Stations/Systems • Establish school gardens • Raising awareness on the importance of education • Training: Commodity management • Training: Food preparation and storage practices • Training: Good health and nutrition practices • Capacity Building: Local, regional, national level • Training: School administrators • Training: Teachers • Establish activities to promote literacy (Grades 1-3) 4 FY 2016 Food Aid Proposal Guidance. Annex III: Manual for the Use of Results Frameworks and Indicators. Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 4 14. Programme activities include including improved participation in education (enrolment, attendance and completion), improved quality of literacy instruction, improved teacher attendance, better access to school supplies and materials, increased access to food, improved school infrastructure, improved access to clean water and increased access to preventative health measures, among others. Most of these activities are a continuation from the previous phase (2013-2016). The main changes for the 2017-2019 phase are the increased focus on national capacity building, and a focus on Early Grade Reading (EGR) for theliteracy component as approved by the MoEYS in late 2016. The previous phase focused on literacy of Grade 6 students. Outputs and planned beneficiaries 15. The USDA McGovern-Dole Programme (FY2017-19) will reach 859 schools while also supporting complementary activities focused on improving literacy as well as health and dietary practices. Programme resources will be used to provide 145,000 pre-school and primary schoolchildren with school meals and 15,000 children from the poorest households with THRs. All the schools implementing the new phase of programming have implemented the SMP under the 2013-2017 phase. Over the next phase of programming (2017-2019), WFP intends to reduce their THR activities to zero as they are slowly handed over to the MoEYS Scholarship Office. The 2017-2019 grant is also more focused on partnership to achieve maximum impact, with a particularly strong focus on literacy improvements. 1.2 Context 16. Cambodia attained lower-middle-income country status in mid-2016, with GDP per capita reaching US$1,159.5 Cambodia is currently ranked 143 out of 188 countries on the United Nations Development Programme’s 2015 Human Development Index. Cambodia's growth is expected to remain strong at around seven percent, driven by solid performances in garment manufacture, construction, tourism, and the production of food and cash crops. Despite economic growth and ongoing development in urban areas, rural development lags. 17. Poverty: Rural communities still make up 79 percent of the population, and account for most of the country's poor.6 A significant proportion of Cambodians live on the brink of poverty; it has been estimated that losing just US$0.30 a day per person in income would double the poverty rate.7 This means that natural disasters such as storms, floods, droughtsor serious illness could cause profound setbacks to fragile livelihoods. A recent joint WFP, UNICEF, FAO Household Resilience survey8 showed that 13 percent of households acquired additional debts because of the 2015/2016 El Niño event, increasing the overall percentage of indebted households to nearly 50 percent. While the poor are often disproportionally affected by shocks, near-poor and middle-class households are also put under considerable stress. Over the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a significantly reduced poverty rate, dropping from 50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 2014.9 However, although the official poverty rate has fallen dramatically, the poor have not made it very far above the poverty line, the rate of poverty reduction has tapered off sharply since 2009, and multidimensional poverty remains high.10 18. Gender: Cambodia ranks 112th out of 159 countries on the 2015 Gender Inequality Index (GII value 0.479) as persistent gender inequality still exists. Cambodia’s 2015 Gender 5 WB. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 6 Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey, 2013 7 WB Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013 8 Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, May 2016, WFP. 9 Ministry of Planning. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia 10 Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis. 5 Development Index value is 0.892.11 UN Women highlight that Cambodian women have high illiteracy rates and suffer from gender-based violence and a lack of economic opportunities. High numbers of female headed households are a consequence of seasonal migration of men from rural areas, and a legacy of civil conflict. Women are increasingly earning more, and starting small businesses from their homes. The number of women having their primary occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces,12 largely due to employment in the garment sector. However, women are typically employed at lower levels and paid less: it is estimated that on average women are paid 30 percent less than men for commensurate work.13 A 2014 study found that women-headed households are disproportionately affected by floods,14,15 and women’s unemployment after natural disasters is high because agricultural and the informal sectors – the top employment sectors for women – are often the worst affected. 19. WFP Cambodia joined the programme partnership on gender mainstreaming with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the end of 2015. In keeping with the principles of the programme’s “bottom up” approach, the Cambodia CO engaged in Participatory Action Learning processes with IDS in February 2016.16 20. Education: In the last three decades, Cambodia has made good strides in improving primary education programmes in rural areas. The net primary school enrolment figure increased from 81 percent in 2001 to 98.4 percent in 2015-2016. The dropout rate at primary level has been consistently around 10 percent, and lower secondary education at about 20 percent. Recent data however indicates that the primary school dropout reduced in the SY2015/16 to 6.2 percent.17 Though not captured at aggregate level, attendance and absenteeism are of concern. Available national statistics do not show substantial differences between boys and girls on any indicator of participation in education. 21. The fourth Education Strategic Plan (2014-2018)18 cites numerous remaining challenges, including the need to focus on expanding equitable access to primary school education for remote, often marginalized, communities. It also highlights improving the quality of education by developing an accountability framework and by providing highly qualified teachers as well as better textbooks and learning materials. Cambodia’s integration into the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN)in 2015 and its desire to be a middle- income country by 2030 requires the authorities to make considerable investment in education. The Royal Government of Cambodia is expected to increase investment in this area, with much of this budget allocated for the recruitment, training and retention of teachers. 22. Food and nutrition security: The 2014 Cambodia Socioeconomic survey suggests that 14 percent of households continued to consume less than the minimum dietary energy requirement, while 11.6 percent had inadequate dietary diversity.19 As with the other indicators, between 2000 and 2010 Cambodia made significant progress in improving the health of its children. The infant mortality rate declined from 95 to 45 deaths per 1,000 live births, setting 11 UNDP. 2016. Human Development Report 2015. 12 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning 13 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 14 ActionAid. 2014. Flood Impacts on Women: Exploring the Possibility of Gender Sensitive DRR Planning. 15 An earlier study provides an illustrative example of this trend: a majority of households affected by the 2011 floods in the Plains and Tonle Sap zones were female-headed (53 percent in both zones). WFP, ActionAid, ADB, Danish Red Cross, Save the Children and UNICEF. 2012. Cambodia Post-Flood Relief and Recovery Survey. 16 WFP (2016) Cambodia County Progress Report. Innovations from the field: Gender mainstreaming from the ground up. Institute of Development Studies. 17 MoEYS. Education Management and Information System data. 18 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Phnom Penh. a/6.19 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: HYPERLINK "https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf" https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal. 6 Cambodia on track to reach its Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 to reduce child mortality.20 However, malnutrition remains a significant problem and is a contributing cause in approximately one third of child deaths.21 In the past five years, the number of children suffering from chronic malnutrition (stunting) has decreased only slightly and the number suffering from acute malnutrition may have increased. The 2014 Cambodia Demographic Health Survey22 found that the stunting rate fell from 49.2 percent in 2010 to 32.4 percent in 2014. Although this represents a significant improvement, this level is still considered to be high.23 Acute malnutrition (wasting) is at ten percent24 which is classified by the World Health Organization as serious. Micronutrient deficiencies remain widespread. Anaemia is common among children under five, with a prevalence of more than 80 per cent among children under two. It also affects a significant percentage of pregnant women. Nutrition statistics for school￾aged children in Cambodia are limited, but an impact evaluation of the WFP School Feeding Programme in 201025 found prevalence rates of iron-deficiency anaemia of between 59 percent among the control group and 83 percent in the SMP+THR for children 8-17 years of age. WHO classify rates >40 percent as severe anaemia. 23. It is important to note that while under-nutrition continues to play an important role in determining population wellness and productivity, over-nutrition is on the rise; while 14 percent of women between 15 and 49 years of age have a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 (thin), 18 percent are overweight.26 This double burden is indicative of economic shifts and predicts greater challenges in future, including those associated with non-communicable diseases, unless addressed in a timely manner. 24. Social protection. Cambodia has been heading towards a unified social health protection system since 2003, with the adoption of the Master Plan for the Development of Social Health Insurance.27 Since then, the Government has been making efforts to develop social protection systems. Currently, there are several social welfare programmes provided by different line ministries. The Government’s Rectangular Strategy Phase III and the National Strategic Development Plan prioritize the creation of social safety nets to support the health and nutrition of the most vulnerable, including during emergencies or disasters.28,29 The new National Social Protection Policy includes mention of both school meals and scholarships. 25. Other WFP activities in Cambodia: WFP has been implementing programmes in Cambodia since 1979, including school feeding activities since 1999. Currently, WFP Cambodia implements a Country Programme (CP) 30 which will finish in December 2018. The USDA￾supported FFE programme is just one component of the broader country portfolio (Map 1). The CP focuses on education, nutrition and rural development, and seeks to strengthen food and cash-based social safety nets in Cambodia, and craft sustainable and scalable implementation models that can eventually be managed efficiently by the Royal Government of Cambodia. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh 23 http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html 24 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh 25 Nielsen, N et al (2010) WFP Cambodia School Feeding 2000-2010: A mixed method impact evaluation. DARA. For WFP Office of Evaluation, Rome. OE/2011/008. 26 BMI >25 27 UNDP. 2015. Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia. Strategy Paper. 28 Royal Government of Cambodia. 2013. “Rectangular Strategy” for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency. Phase III. Page 37. 29 Royal Government of Cambodia. 2014. National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. Pages 86, 180-198. 30 CP 200202 (2011-2018). WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1 7 26. The education component of the CP consists of a school meals programme and both food or cash-based scholarships, and constitutes 75 percent of all WFP programming in the country. The SMP provides daily, on-site, hot and nutritious breakfasts to primary school students attending the morning shift of classes. During the SY 2016/17, the SMP was implemented in nine provinces comprising 1,377 primary schools and reached nearly 400,000 beneficiaries, 20 percent of all primary school children in Cambodia. In non-USDA supported provinces, WFP is currently piloting new models of food assistance in schools including a HGSF model, a hybrid model (some food imported, some local), and cash scholarships in lieu of food THR. The MoEYS and WFP are also piloting full day schooling in some locations, with the provision of a school lunch instead of breakfast. 27. The capacity development activities described in this report are implemented across the 11 WFP-supported provinces including the three with USDA programming.31 This is in viewof the focus for the 2017-2019 phase of implementation on the development of appropriate school feeding for national ownership by 2021. 1.3 Methodology 28. The baseline survey is designed to enable future assessment of the impact of the programme against the expected outcomes as per the USDA McGovern-Dole Performance Monitoring Plan. This includes an assessment of the improved quality of literacy instruction and materials; increased student and teacher attendance; increased student enrolment rates; decrease in student absences; improved knowledge of health, hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation practices; and increased government engagement and capacity building to manage and implement school meals programmes. The survey also documents the trends in literacy achievement from students in programme schools and non-programme schools, where data is available.32 Unlike, the 2013-2016 programme phase where literacy was measured at Grade 6 level, the 2017-2019 phase will measure literacy in younger children (post-Grade 2) and this measurement is mainly based on the results from the EGR tests administrated by the new phase’s literacy partner, World Education. 29. The baseline has been designed to mark the starting point of the next phase of USDA FFE programme, and is therefore designed to collect baseline figures on each of the relevant new indicators described in the USDA Handbook of Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions.33 Note that as described in Table 1, some activities started before the baseline survey was conducted. Site mapping 30. During the 2017-2019 phase of McGovern-Dole programming WFP is planning to reduce the number of schools receiving THRs and concentrate on transitioning school meals to national ownership. For that reason, the WFP CO agreed that no THR schools will be included in the baseline since they will not be present for inclusion in a future endline survey (2019). The sample of schools for the baseline survey was therefore drawn from schools receiving SMP, either as a stand-alone intervention (SMP only), or combined with THR (SMP+THR). 31. The survey employed a comparison group, largely taken from non-USDA assisted provinces.34 The sample has been constructed by matching techniques (Propensity Score 31 WFP is operational in 11 provinces (including the 3 USDA provinces), with an overlap of activities in Siem Reap. 32 In line with WFP’s School Feeding Policy WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C. 33 USDA (2016) Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions. Foreign Agricultural Service, Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development. 34 The 2014 baseline survey selected control schools from within USDA assisted provinces. 8 Matching (PSM)) to enable a better understanding of differences, if any, at future midline and endline surveys (through difference-in-means test). Quantification of change in key outcomes can then be better attributed to the presence or absence of the school feeding interventions. 32. USDA supported (intervention) schools: USDA supported schools have been randomly selected. Probability of cluster selection was not proportional to size so that small schools have equal chances of being included in the sample as bigger schools. Weighting was then applied on the household sample to make up for this. The intervention sample consists of schools in each of the three USDA supported provinces. The number of schools sampled per province is proportional to the number of schools supported by the programme in the provinces. The sample size for the new baseline treatment group ensures the following: • At school level, programme effects of 7.37 percent or higher will be detected (based on proxy variable promotion rate) • At student or household (HH) level, programme effects of nine percent (8.70 percent) or higher will be detected (based on proxy indicator “Percent of student (girls/boys) who, by the end of Grade 6 demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards at USDA supported schools”) • At household level, a sample error of five percent (5.16 percent) is assumed. The assumption that each student comes from a different household is adopted. 33. Comparison schools: Selection of comparison schools was done from non-USDA supported provinces and in areas where there were no school feeding activities funded by any donor. The ET was therefore unable to select schools from the immediately neighbouring districts due to school feeding programming in those districts not being funded by USDA. The location of the case and comparison schools for the baseline survey can be seen in Figure 1. Figure 1: Map of treatment provinces and comparison districts Source: KonTerra Evaluation Team based on data provided by WFP Cambodia Country Office 9 34. The comparison districts were selected together with WFP personnel who identified locations where there were no SMP programmes, funded by USDA or others. As a result, most comparison schools are outside the USDA-supported provinces except for BTB where non￾supported comparison schools were available within the province. In total, the surveyplanned to include 90 matched pairs of intervention-comparison schools. Schools in the comparison group have been selected using the PSM applied on schools in surrounding districts. As the PSM technique was applied with replacement (given the limited number of non-supported schools) some of the comparison schools match more than one intervention school, so the comparison sample is slightly smaller (n=79). PSM was done using the percentage of poor households, so that schools with similar socio-economic levels would be compared. 35. Table 2 shows the summary of the planned and actual samples size for the baseline survey. A total of 161 schools in six different provinces (three USDA supported provinces, and three comparison provinces) were assessed for this study. Among them 86 schools were supported by USDA and 75 schools were assessed for comparison purposes35. Although there were less comparison schools (n=75) each of these have been matched to the 86 USDA schools (some to multiple schools), resulting in 86 matched pairs. Some comparison schools are therefore counted twice in the survey findings because they are associated to two different treatment schools. The result tables have therefore been calculated for 86 USDA supported schools and 86 comparison schools. Table 2: Summary of sample size for the quantitative survey Province Planned Actual No. of WFP schools 90 matched pairs 86 matched pairs (86 USDA supported schools & 75 No. of comparison schools matched comparison schools). No. of households 966 963 36. In total, the survey also planned to include six household interviews per school (total = 966 households). Due to school holidays at the end of the survey period, the actual number of households included in the survey is 963 (Table 1). The full list of schools can be found in Annex 2. More detailed information on the methodology behind the selection of comparison schools can be found in Annex 3 37. Respondents for school surveys were primarily principals, administrators or teachers who are aware of both school infrastructure and supplies as well as student records. For the teachers’ survey, up to three teachers were selected from each school when possible, ideally the teachers of Grades 2, 4 and 6. This is designed to capture outcomes of each of the three types of interventions, i.e. Grade 2 (SMP), Grade 4 (SMP + THR), and Grade 6 (THR). However, since some schools have only one or two teachers in total, selection of teachers by grade was not always possible. A gender balance of interviewees was maintained as far as possible. 38. Selection of households: within each selected school, lists of SMP, SMP + THR and THR beneficiaries with children in Grades 1-6 were provided to determine the six households eligible for inclusion in the survey. Using beneficiary lists, systematic random sampling was conducted by programme type to select children/ households for inclusion. At this stage, 35 Overall, 11 schools are duplicated in the comparison sample because they are paired to two different USDA supported schools simultaneously. Indeed, the Propensity Matching pairing procedure was implemented with replacement. Consequently, 66 households are duplicated in household comparison sample as well. 10 gender balance was ensured by selecting an equal number (three) of girls and boys for inclusion. Data collection methods and tools 39. Indochina Research Limited (IRL) was hired by KonTerra to recruit field staff including survey managers, enumerators and data entry clerks and carry out the quantitative survey work. In total, 60 enumerators were employed to carry out both the USDA McGovern-Dole endline survey, and the 2017-2019 baseline survey in a single exercise. Enumerators worked in teams of three: a team leader and two enumerators. IRL staff acted as survey managers, being responsible for the overall data collection, and undertook data quality and consistency control. 40. Pre-testing of the questionnaires and training of team leaders and enumerators for the quantitative data collection took place over a three-week period from 01-18 August 2017. The questionnaires were pre-tested (09 August) and revised, and enumerator training started on 12 August. These activities were carried out by members of the KonTerra Evaluation Team and senior members of the IRL team. 41. Training included an overall briefing of the objectives and scope of the surveys, general training on interview techniques, detailed training on the three data collection instruments, and organization of logistics, survey timetable etc. Each of the data collection instrumentswas piloted as part of the training. This resulted in minor changes to the questionnaires themselves, particularly for the translated instruments. 42. The quantitative survey includes the implementation of three questionnaires: a household survey, a school assessment and a teacher assessment. Each of these tools was originally designed by WFP for previous surveys. The KonTerra team has made minor modifications to the questionnaire to allow inclusion of the new USDA indicators. The KonTerra consultants made unscheduled spot checks on the survey teams to ensure that data was being collected as per their training. 43. The household survey includes information on the composition and education level of the household members, household income and expenditure, food consumption and coping strategies. It also includes information on child health, parents’ involvement in the FFE programme, parental reasons for sending their children to school, and information on some of the effects of school feeding. The questionnaire can be found in Annex 4. 44. The school assessment includes basic information on the composition and performance of the school (number of children enrolled, attending, availability of advanced teaching materials, literacy testing success rates, etc.) as well as specific information on the school’s infrastructure (latrines, water sources, kitchens, school gardens, etc.). The primary respondent was the school’s principal or chief administrator. The school survey was adapted from a WFP school survey instrument with only slight modifications. The questionnaire can be found in Annex 5. 45. The teacher assessment includes information on student attentiveness in class, and short-term hunger. This short survey was carried out in all case and comparison schools and answered by primary school teachers to collect data on estimated short-term hunger reduction and improved student attentiveness. The questionnaire can be found in Annex 6. Ethics 46. Interviews were carried out in accordance with the United Nations Evaluation Group’s 2008 Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, notably to ensure that key informants understood that 11 their participation was voluntary and that confidentiality would be respected. The field notes are confidential and will not be turned over to public or private agencies. In addition, steps were taken to ensure that men, women, boys and girls felt that interviews were conducted in appropriate locations so that they were able to freely express their views and concernswithout fear of reprisal. 47. Schools were notified in advance that they would be part of the survey, to give them time to pass the message to parents. Permission to interview children at school was sought from their teachers, and from parents during household interviews. Data analysis and reporting 48. Quantitative analysis was done by both IRL and by the KonTerra team. One member of the KonTerra team had an ongoing role of supervision of the data analysis and the KonTerra team also provided IRL with preliminary analysis templates. 49. The school and teacher assessments were collected manually, and entered into a CSPro database. The household survey was digitized and collected using SurveytoGo. Data analysis was done with STATA, R and Excel software. Household survey data have been weighted to reflect the proportion of the population benefitting from each programme per province. Limitations and risks 50. Timing of quantitative data collection: The baseline survey has taken place soon after the official end of the extended 2013-2016 implementation period (to June 2017). Delays from the WFP side, due to the complicated and time-consuming process of procuring consultants, meant that the survey was carried out right at the end of the school year (August 2017). This affected the survey in several ways: • Some schools closed before the end of the survey period. Although school principals, teachers and parents were informed ahead of time, and the survey continued as per the plan, the enumerators were unable to locate as many households as expected. • The survey could not be conducted at one selected USDA supported school because the school principal and all teaching staff were in a training. • The data collection occurred during the rainy season so travel took longer than initially planned. 51. Implementation of programme activities: The WFP CO had been planning for the 2017-2019 phase since 2015 as per the USDA grant proposal timing. This resulted in new partnerships with World Education commencing for SY 2016/17. In addition, other activities for the new phase commenced implementation during the extension of the 2013-2016 phase (as per Table 1), prior to the baseline survey being conducted. This included distribution of school meals and take-home rations to students, building/ rehabilitation of latrines, wells/ water stations, establishing school gardens, training on commodity management, food preparation and storage practices, and capacity building and literacy activities. 12 2 Survey findings 52. The following section provides the results of the baseline survey disaggregated by USDA intervention/comparison schools. Findings disaggregated by province are in Annex 7. 2.1 Findings from the school and teacher surveys 53. The USDA supported school sample consists of 57 (66 percent) SMP only schools and 29 (34 percent) SMP+THR schools (Table 3). The highest proportion of surveyed USDA supported schools were located in Siem Reap (57 percent) followed by Kampong Thom (37 percent) and Battambang (six percent). This distribution by province is very similar to the overall group of USDA supported schools. Comparison schools were selected from Battambang (53 percent) and from other surrounding provinces where there is no USDA support: Kampong Cham (23 percent), Kratie (12 percent) and Preah Vihear (12 percent). Table 3: Surveyed schools Province USDA supported schools Comparison schools Total schools SMP only SMP + THR (%) Battambang 5 46 51 (29.65) Kampong Cham 20 20 (11.63) Kampong Thom 32 32 (18.60) Siem Reap 20 29 49 (28.49) Kratie 10 10 (5.81) Preah Vihear 10 10 (5.81) Sub-Total (%) 57 29 86 172 (100.00) (66.28) (33.72) (100.00) Total 86 8636 172 Teaching staff in surveyed schools 54. The survey collected information on teacher numbers in the surveyed schools to enable accurate planning of teacher related activities such as training. Table 4 shows that more than 60 percent of teachers in both USDA supported schools and comparison schools are female. USDA schools reported higher percentages of contract teachers (66 percent) than comparison schools (60 percent). Table 4: Teaching staff in surveyed schools (SY 2016/17) # Total teachers (Grades 1-6) # of Contract teachers Total Female % Total Female % Total USDA supported schools 516 62% 220 66% SMP only 325 58% 121 63% SMP + THR 191 68% 99 70% Comparison schools 532 63% 47 60% 55. On average, the surveyed schools had seven full time equivalent teachers, and all schools maintained teacher attendance sheets (Table 5). Teacher attendance is high, at approximately 208 days during the SY 2016/17 (207 in SMP schools, 211 in SMP+THR). This is equivalent to 36 Actual comparison schools = 75, but some have been counted twice to allow for the PSM. The table of the actual number of comparisons schools by province can be found in Annex 8. 13 more than 97 percent of the total official school days.37 Teacher absences averaged 5.3 days in USDA supported schools, and 5.2 days in comparison schools (Table 6). Table 5: Full time teachers (Grades 1-6) # of Full time teachers per School % of Schools with attendance sheet Total USDA supported schools 7 100% SMP only 6 100% SMP + THR 7 100% Comparison schools 7 100% Table 6: Gender of full time teachers (Grades 1-6) & teacher attendance for SY 2016/17 All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+THR Comparison schools Percentage of male teachers (%) 38 42 32 37 Percentage of female teachers (%) 62 58 68 63 Number of school days in a year (mean) 208.3 213.7 214.9 209.5 Number of days teachers being absent (mean) 5.3 5.9 4.9 5.2 Percentage teacher attendance during official SY 2016/17 97.5% 97.2% 97.7% 97.6% Student participation in education 56. This section reports key information regarding participation in education during SY 2016/17. This includes school enrolment, attendance and the number of students who were promoted, repeated or dropped-out. Data collected during the school assessment indicates that the total number of children aged 6-11 years in the sample of USDA supported schools’ catchment area for SY 2016/17 of was 18,392 (Table 7) of which 47 percent are girls(n=8,668) and 53 percent are boys (n=9,724). Gross enrolment figures at USDA schools for students aged 6-11 years show that 87.6 percent of all children in the catchment38 are enrolled in school (n=16,119). Girls account for 49 percent of the total enrolled 6-11 year olds. USDA supported schools have an average of 230 students per school, compared to 295 in comparison schools. Table 7: School mapping information in the school year 2016-2017 # Children (6-11-years old) in the school’ s catchment area # Students (6-11-years old) # Students (over 11 years old) Student per school Total Girls Total Girls Total Girls Total USDA supported schools 18,392 8,668 16,119 7,926 3,669 1,838 230 SMP only 11,492 5,292 9,773 4,862 12,277 6,139 215 SMP + THR 6,900 3,376 6,346 3,064 7,511 3,625 259 Comparison schools 20,092 10,641 20,275 9,858 25,375 12,107 295 37 The official number of school days in SY 2016/17 = 215. 38 91.4 percent of all girls in the catchment area, and 84.3 percent of all boys 14 57. WFP data indicates that the number of students attending the USDA supportedschools (attendance absolute) is 195,400. The baseline survey was unable to assess regular attendance in several schools because of incomplete attendance records. A proxy method – assessing attendance in the last one month – resulted in a finding that 86 percent of students attended all school days during that period. 58. The total promotion rate, repeat rate and drop-out rate of students in USDA supported schools were 85 percent, 11 percent and six percent respectively (Table 8). The survey found higher promotion rates among girls, and higher repetition and drop-out rates among boys. Female promotion rate is significantly higher in USDA supported schools than in comparison schools, 88.8 against 86.9 percent.39 Table 8: Promotion, repetition and drop-out rates (2016/17) Promotion rate (%) Repetition rate (%) Drop-out rate (%) Total Girls Total Girls Total Girls All USDA supported Schools 85.2 88.8 10.7 7.9 6.1 4.8 SMP only 84.8 88.4 11.1 8.2 6.3 4.9 SMP+THR 86.0 89.4 10.0 7.4 5.8 4.7 Comparison Schools 84.5 86.9 11.2 9.1 6.2 5.4 Literacy of school-aged children 59. A key objective of USDA McGovern-Dole funded programmes is to improve literacy amongst school age children. In December 2016 WFP signed an agreement with World Education to implement the literacy component of the McGovern-Dole Programme. This will be done in partnership with the Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE). 60. Prior to this specific agreement with WFP, World Education had helped MoEYS develop the new curricula and contributed to national efforts to improve EGR outcomes. In 2016, World Education collaborated with a small committee of leaders from the Primary Education Department, Teacher Training Department, and Curriculum Development Department to integrate training on the new standards into the Provincial Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs). World Education and MoEYS designed an integrated approach to EGR instruction that included the development of reading benchmarks, literacy coaches, and a rapid response system consisting of parental engagement, peer tutoring, reading games and materials, and a mobile app (mLearning) in Khmer, connected to the national curriculum. The MoEYS formally endorsed the benchmarks as National Reading Standards for Grades 1, 2 and 3. 61. Between January and September 2017, at the request of MoEYS, World Education provided training to orient 41 central staff across relevant departments, and is providing continuous technical support to the MoEYS at all levels to ensure educators are using the National Reading Standards effectively. World Education provided training on the new standards to 123 school personnel and Khmer language instructors from all 18 PTTCs, and to 67 officials from POE and DOE Directors of 54 schools and 149 technical grade leaders were also prepared to train teachers to use the new EGR National Reading Standards. Most of this training was completed prior to the baseline survey. World Education has also established 39 A t-student test was applied to two independent samples (USDA and non-USDA supported households), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypothesis that female promotion rates is equal in both population groups, fixing α=0.05. The hypothesis is rejected (difference=0.02, t (observed value) = 1.7982, p-value (one-tail) = 0.0370<0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that girls have significantly higher promotion rates at USDA supported schools. 15 strategic partnerships and resource- sharing with seven NGOs in Cambodia to support teachers’ use of the new reading standards. 62. After signing the agreement with WFP, and within the framework of the present programming phase, in March 2017 World Education and KAPE conducted an Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) as a baseline. The assessment found that 38 percent of children at the end of Grade 2 were able to read grade level text.40 Over the 2017-2019 phase of implementation, the target is to increase that to 75 percent (Table 9). Table 9: Demonstrated reading and comprehension - Grade 2 Programme indicator Baseline 2017-2019 target Percent of students who, by the end of two grades of primary schools, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text. Overall: 38% Boys: 26% Girls 50% 75% 63. The MoEYS launched a new national literacy curriculum focusing on EGR in 2016. The baseline survey found that 21 percent of the surveyed teachers in USDA supported schools were using it, and the related instructional materials (Table 10). Only 8 percent of teachers in comparison schools were using the new curriculum and materials. Table 10: Teacher’s use of improved literacy tools % of Teachers using national literacy curriculum All USDA supported schools 21% SMP only 24% SMP+THR 17% Comparison schools 8% Average 15% 64. Most USDA supported schools had received learning packages and stationerymaterials for SY2016/17 (Table 11). This includes some schools receiving specific literacy related materials from World Education. Table 11: Number of schools receiving stationery packages SY2016/2017 # of schools received learning package # of schools received stationery materials % of schools received learning package % of school received stationery materials Yes No Yes No All USDA supported schools 83 3 83 3 97% 97% SMP only 55 2 54 3 96% 95% SMP+THR 28 1 29 0 97% 100% Comparison schools 55 31 41 45 64% 48% 65. Overall 97 percent of USDA supported schools had received both learning package (96 percent in SMP schools, 97 percent in SMP+THR) and stationery materials (95 percent in SMP schools, and 100 percent of SMP+THR schools). These figures are significantly different from 40 World Education and KAPE (2017) Baseline report = Food for Education, For World Food Programme Cambodia. April 2017 16 the comparison schools. World Education and KAPE baseline figures (July 2017) indicate that to date, 500 National Standard reading books have been provided (Table 12). Table 12: Programme indicators - establish activities to promote literacy Programme indicator Baseline 2017-2019 target Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0 3,000 Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 500 5,386 Increased access to food (school feeding) 66. A large component of the programme is to provide school meals and THR to students. Tables 13 and 14 provide the main annual and overall targets for these components for the 2017- 2019 period as well as the baseline (zero). Table 13: School meals and take-home rations - performance indicators by year Programme indicators Baseline Target for FY 2017 Target for FY 2018 Target for FY 2019 School meals Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack or lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance 0 1,677,000 18,634,000 18,634,000 Number of school aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack or lunch) as a result of USDA assistance 0 152,000 152,000 152,000 Take home rations Number of individuals receiving take home rations as a result of USDA assistance 0 15,000 3,600 0 Number of take home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance 0 150,000 36,000 0 Safety nets Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance 0 218,000 168,000 152,000 Table 14: Programme targets for the provision of school meals and take-home rations (2017-2019) Programme indicators Baseline 2017-2019 target Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack or lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance 0 38,945,000 Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance 0 16,000 Number of school aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack or lunch) as a result of USDA assistance 0 177,000 Utensils for the provision of school meals 67. Figure 2 shows that in SY 2016/17 the majority of USDA supported schools use multiple types of plates for the school meal. Most school directors reported using ceramic (82 percent), plastic (73 percent) and stainless steel (49 percent) plates for the children to eat their school meal. Most of the plates are provided by parents. No comparison schools reported providing any school meal. 17 Figure 2: Type of plate available for children usage Student hunger and attentiveness in class 68. Short-term hunger reduces attentiveness of children during class. The survey found that this problem affects boys significantly more often than it affects girls. In comparison schools,41 on average 38.7 percent of boys and 31.4 percent of girls were reported to be hungry (Table 15). Inattention in class is lower in USDA supported schools, as is the overall percentage of children reported to be hungry. Hungry children represent 20.9 percent of children in SMP schools and 21.1 percent in SMP+THR schools. The percentage of students reported to be hungry every day is less than 10 percent in USDA supported schools, which meets the programme target for this indicator (highlighted in green below). Table 15: Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are “hungry” or “very hungry” during the school day Programme indicator Target All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+ THR Comparison schools Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class daily ≤10% 8.5% 8.1% 9.3% 19.5% Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class sometimes 12.4% 12.7% 11.8% 15.0% Total perc. of hungry children (daily + sometimes) ≤10% 20.9% 20.8% 21.1% 34.4% Total perc. of hungry girls (daily + sometimes) 20.3% 19% 22.8% 31.4% 69. The percentage of children reported to be hungry on a daily basis in comparison schools is double that of USDA supported schools. School meals are not provided in comparison schools and parents are expected to provide a meal for their children before sending them to class. When parents do not provide a meal, either due to poverty, lack of time or other reasons, the children in comparison schools remain hungry throughout the school day. This represents a barrier for focusing and learning for one in five children in comparison schools, while in USDA supported schools it affects one in 11 children. 70. Inattentiveness in children is sometimes linked to hunger. In comparison schools, inattentiveness was more common than in USDA-supported schools and the problem is 41 A t-test (paired two sample for means) was applied to test the hypothesis of equal percentages of hungry boys and hungry girls in comparison schools. The hypothesis was rejected (difference=7.3%, t-statistic=-4.4127, p-value (one-tail) =0.0000). Therefore, we can assume that boys are reported to be hungry significantly more often than girls in comparison schools USDA supported schools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Ceramic 82% Plastic 73% Stainless steel 49% Plastic bags 4% 18 significantly more in important among boys than among girls42 (Table 16). Even among USDA￾supported schools, inattentiveness was noted to be higher among boys. Table 16: Reported inattentiveness of students Programme indicator Target All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+THR Comparison schools Percentage of children who are inattentive (sleepy, inactive) during classes Everyday ≤10% 3.6% 3.6% 3.6% 5.8% Sometimes 7.7% 8.0% 7.3% 9.0% Total 11.3% 11.6% 10.8% 14.8% Girls 7.4% 7.2% 7.8% 9.4% 71. Most teachers (>70 percent) reported that attentiveness varies by season, and by school shift. Table 17 shows that more teachers reported that children were inattentive during the evening shift, except for SMP school teachers, where there does not seem to be as much consensus around this. Teachers reported that inattentiveness occurs most noticeably during May-August, the period which coincides with Cambodia’s wet or pre-harvest season when food is not as readily available. Table 17: Teachers reporting of shifts where more children are inattentive All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+THR Comparison schools Students being most inattentive in morning shift (%) 35.4% 42.5% 21.8% 34.5% Students being most inattentive in evening shift (%) 45.3% 39.5% 56.3% 47.8% School infrastructure 72. To understand the situation of school environment, the respondents were asked to provide information about school infrastructure including number of classrooms, school kitchens and utensils, condition of energy saving stoves etc. The survey enumerators also completed an observation checklist and physically viewed the school infrastructure. School classrooms 73. The survey found that USDA supported schools had an average of five classrooms per school and 92 percent of classrooms in these schools have sufficient materials (Table 18). Comparison schools had an average of six classrooms, and 87 percent of them had sufficient materials. The USDA supported schools which have both SMP+THR have a relatively higher percentage (96 percent) of classrooms with sufficient material than that of the only SMP programme schools (90 percent). 42 a t-test (paired two sample for means) was applied to test the hypothesis of equal percentages of inattentive boys and inattentive girls in comparison schools. The hypothesis was rejected (difference=11.5%, t-statistic=-10.0007, p-value (one-tail) =0.0000). Therefore, we can assume that boys are reported to be inattentive significantly more often than girls in comparison schools 19 Table 18: Number of classrooms in surveyed schools # of Grade 1-6 Classrooms # of classrooms with sufficient material # of classrooms per school % of classrooms with sufficient material Total USDA supported schools 399 367 5 92% SMP only 264 238 5 90% SMP + THR 135 129 5 96% Comparison schools 493 429 6 87% School kitchens and equipment 74. Of the 86 surveyed USDA supported schools, 82 schools have school kitchens (95 percent) (Table 19). The survey did not identify any comparison schools with kitchens. Table 19: School kitchen facilities Total # with kitchen Total USDA supported schools 86 82 SMP only 57 54 SMP + THR 29 28 Comparison schools 86 0 75. Out of the schools that have kitchens, the survey found that 62 percent of them were in good condition, 28 percent school had clean cooking and eating equipment, 29 percent had leaking roofs, 10 percent used rocks as stoves, and 11 percent of kitchens had no walls (Figure 3). Figure 3: Condition of kitchens in USDA supported schools Energy-efficient stoves 76. Table 20 shows that 60 percent (n=52) of USDA supported schools are using energy￾efficient stoves. Figure 4 shows the condition of the energy efficient stoves in the surveyed schools. Most (73 percent) are in good condition and work well, while 27 percent still work but need rehabilitation. No energy efficient stoves were found in comparison schools. USDA supported schools No fencing Too narrow Lack of firewood No wall Using rocks as stove Flooded during rainy season Leaking roofs Clean cooking and eatingequipment Lacking kitchenutensils Good condition 1% 1% 1% 11% 10% 10% 29% 28% 70% 62% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 20 Table 20: Use of energy-efficient stoves Total # using E-E stove All USDA supported schools 86 52 SMP only 57 39 SMP + THR 29 13 Comparison schools 86 0 Figure 4: Condition of energy efficient stoves in USDA supported schools Storerooms 77. Table 21 shows that 74 percent of USDA supported schools (n=64) have food storerooms. Most of the surveyed storerooms were in good condition (Figure 5). Most (83 percent) had dry floors, 78 percent were clean, 73 percent stored food off the ground, and 64 percent had ventilation. Even though some USDA supported schools did not have dedicated storerooms (i.e. some schools stored food in classrooms), the survey found that 55 percent stored food items off the ground (either on pallets or by other means) (Table 22). This was assessed by direct observation by enumerators. None of the comparison schools were found storing food items off the ground. Table 21: Schools with food storerooms Total # with storerooms All USDA supported schools 86 64 SMP only 57 40 SMP + THR 29 24 Comparison schools 86 0 Figure 5: Condition of storerooms in USDA supported schools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Good condition and function well 73% Poor condition but still work 27% USDA supported schools USDA supproted schools 0% 40% 60% 80% 69% 100% Door is locked well Floor is dry Well cleaned Pallets for food storage or other off ground storing options Pallets for food storage Storeroom had ventilation Foods are stored in order Food was stored off ground Security guard at night time/ during schoolvacation Brokenwindows/door Damagedwalls 62% 58% 55% 49% 48% 30% 10% 9% 5% 1% 21 Table 22: Schools storing food off the ground Schools storing food off the ground # % All USDA supported schools 47 55% SMP only 30 53% SMP+THR 17 59% Comparison schools 0 0% Water and sanitation facilities 78. To measure access to clean water and sanitation, the baseline survey collected data on several indicators including water catchments, hand washing, status of school latrines, solid waste disposal etc. Drilled wells and water catchments 79. The survey found that 95 percent of USDA supported schools (n=82) had drilled wells or rain water catchments (Annex 8). Around 70 percent of the wells and 87 percent of the water catchments in USDA supported schools were functioning. This compared to 67 percent and 68 percent respectively in comparison schools (Table 23). Table 23: Number of functioning drill wells/ water catchments Total drilled wells Total water catchments % Functioning drilled wells % Functioning water catchments Total USDA supported schools 104 160 70% 87% SMP only 66 109 75% 87% SMP + THR 38 51 59% 86% Comparison schools 89 155 67% 68% 80. Most of these water sources remain functional through the year (80 percent in USDA supported schools and 81 percent in comparison schools) (Figure 6). The survey found that more USDA supported schools have clean platforms around the wellheads, and systems to clean the wells. The survey found that 39 schools (30 of them in comparison sample) had non￾functioning drilled wells or water catchments. The main reason for loss of function was a broken hand pump, while some schools stopped using their wells due to the presence of arsenic or rust in the water (Figure 7).In addition, a quarter of the drilled wells reportedly only function during the wet season. Figure 6: Condition of well-functioning drilled well/rain water catchments 2% Useable in rainy season 1% 13% System to clean the wells 7% 61% 67% 65% 43% Water is used for humanconsumption Platform is clean 81% Functioning well year-round 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 22 Figure 7: Condition of non-functioning drilled well/rain water catchments 81. Overall, the survey found that more USDA supported schools (64 percent) reported having year-round access to clean water, compared to 43 percent in comparison schools (Table 24). Table 24: School access to year-round clean water % of schools with year-round access to a clean water source Yes (whole school year) No (some months not available) No (no water) Total USDA supported schools 64% 13% 23% SMP only 58% 16% 26% SMP + THR 76% 7% 17% Comparison schools 43% 10% 47% Handwashing stations 82. Handwashing stations were present in 86 percent of USDA supported schools (Table 25). Most USDA supported schools (86 percent) had hand-washing stations, about half of which were mobile (58 percent). Both mobile and fixed handwashing stations in USDA supported school were found to be in good condition and functional throughout the year (Figures 8 and 9). Table 25: Percentage of schools with fixed hand and mobile hand washing stations % of schools with hand washing station % fixed handwashing % mobile handwashing Total USDA supported schools 86% 60% 58% SMP only 82% 56% 51% SMP + THR 93% 69% 72% Comparison schools 57% 40% 31% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hand pump/ rain water station is broken 78% 80% Functioning only during rainy season 24%26% Water contains arsenic (poisonous) 4% 6% Water contains rust There is a hole on thebottom 4% 9% 0%4% 23 Figure 8: Condition of fixed (non-mobile) hand washing stations Figure 9: Condition of mobile hand washing stations Soap for handwashing 83. Most of the USDA supported schools had soap available at the handwashing stations (89.5 percent) (Table 26) including 96.6 percent of SMP+THR schools. This was more than comparison schools (65.1 percent). Students were asked how often they washed their hands with soap and water (Figure 10). There was a considerable number of missing responses among comparison school children, so Figure 12 is not representative of the comparison schools. However, it shows that only 41 percent of USDA supported children reported always using soap and water to wash their hands, and a further 29 percent often. Additional information on student handwashing practices can be found in Annex 8. Table 26: Percentage of schools with soap present at handwashing stations # of schools with soap at handwashing stations % of school with soap at handwashing stations All USDA supported schools 77 89.5% SMP only 49 86.0% SMP+THR 28 96.6% Comparison schools 56 65.1% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Good condition & function well year-round 100% 90% 91% Good condition & function well only during rainy season 2% 3% Poor condition but still work year round 8% Poor condition but still work only during rainy season 0% 0% 0% Broken, not functioning 0% 6% 4% Broken, not functioning 0% 0% 0% Poor condition but still work only during rainy season 12% Poor condition but still work year round 0% 7% Good condition & function well only during rainy season 84% 93% Good condition & function well year-round 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 24 Figure 10: Student handwashing practices – frequency of handwashing with soap and water 84. Most USDA supported schools (73 percent) reported having soap supplies for at least one month, compared to 63 percent of comparison schools (Figure 11). USDA supported schools reported receiving soap or funds for soap from the MoEYS’s PB Budget (79 percent), from WFP and partners (78 percent) and from other agencies. Comparison schools received soap or funds for soap from the PB Budget (77 percent) or from the MoEYS’s School Improvement Grant (SIG) and from the NGO Beautiful Cambodia (Figure 12). More than half the USDA supported schools (57 percent) reported buying soap every one to three months, while comparison schools purchased less often (Figure 13). Figure 11: Available stock of soap supply Figure 12: Provider of soap months months year Less than 1 1-2 weeks 2-3 weeks 3-4 weeks 1 month to 3 4 months to 6 Whole school No soap week 0% 3% 9% 11% 16% 8% 5% 9% 8% 3% 5% 13% 6% 4% 20% 25% 45% 32% 100% 80% 60% 40% USDA supported schools Comparison schools USDA supported schools Comparison schools 100% 87% 80% 79% 77% 60% 40% 20% 20% 8% 11% 0% 0% 5% 0% 3% 1% 0% PB budget WFP & partners Angkor Children's hospital Charity persons SIG Beautiful Cambodia USDA supported schools Comparison schools Often Always 0%2% 0%2% 8% 19% 12% 29% 41% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Yes No 25 Figure 13: How often does school buy soap? Latrines 85. All surveyed schools (100 percent) had latrines for students. In USDA supported schools, 90 percent of latrines were functional, compared to 80 percent in comparison schools (Table 27). On average, USDA supported schools have five functional latrines, and one non￾functional latrine. Table 27: Functional and non-functional latrines in surveyed schools % of functional latrines % of non￾functional latrines # of functional latrines per school # non￾functional latrines per school All USDA supported schools 90% 10% 5.1 0.6 SMP only 91% 9% 4.8 0.5 SMP + THR 88% 12% 5.7 0.8 Comparison schools 80% 20% 3.6 0.9 86. Most USDA supported schools (78 percent) had separate functioning latrines for teachers and students. On average, the teacher’s latrines made up 24 percent of all the functional latrines in the schools, with an average of five teachers per latrine. In comparison schools, the number of functional latrines for teachers was lower, and the number of teachers higher (Table 28), resulting in an average of seven teachers per staff latrine in comparison schools. Table 28: Presence of functioning latrines for teachers # Schools with separate functional latrine for teachers # of functioning latrines for teachers % of functional latrines for teachers # of teachers per functional staff latrine All USDA schools 67 105 24% 5 SMP only 41 61 23% 6 SMP + THR 26 44 27% 5 Comparison schools 51 81 27% 7 87. Most USDA supported schools (77 percent) also had separate functional latrines for boys and girls (Table 29). In USDA supported schools, the average ratio of latrines to male students USDA supported schools Comparison schools 100% 80% 57% 60% 38% 40% 20% 14% 14% 14% 14% 18% 1% 4% 1% 4% 3% 4% 6% 3% 5% 0% Weekly Every 2-3 weeks Every 3-4 weeks Monthly Every 1-3 months Every 4-6 months Never 26 was 1:97, and 1:87 for girls. In comparison schools the number of separate latrines was considerably less, resulting in a ratio of 1:209 for boys, and 1:183 for girls. Table 29: Presence of functioning latrines for boys and girls # Schools with separate functioning latrines for boys and girls % of non-separate latrines for students43 # of boys per separate latrine for boys # of girls per separate latrine for girls All USDA schools 66 21% 97 87 SMP only 42 23% 97 90 SMP + THR 24 15% 96 84 Comparison schools 46 36% 209 183 88. The survey found that 43 percent of USDA supported schools have latrines specifically designed for disabled students (Table 30). This is much higher than in comparison schools (seven percent). In USDA supported schools the percentage of all latrines in the school specifically designed for disabled students was 10 percent, against two percent in comparison schools. The USDA supported schools with specifically designed disabled toilets had mainly provided ramp access (88 percent), provided a larger space (63 percent) and includedhandles to access (43 percent). Similar findings were made in the disabled toilets in comparison schools (Figure 14). Table 30: Presence of functioning latrines for disabled students # of schools with latrine for disabled students # latrines for disabled students % latrines for disabled students44 # disabled students per latrine for disabled students All USDA schools 37 40 10% 10 SMP only 24 25 10% 10 SMP + THR 13 15 9% 10 Comparison schools 7 7 2% 27 Figure 14: Design of latrine facilities for students with disabilities 43 Out of total number of student latrines 44 Ibid. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 71% 88% Ramp access 57% 63% 57% Expanded width with disability 43% Presence of handles 14% 0% Have latrine but the constructor runaway USDA supported schools Comparison schools 27 89. Overall, the functional latrines in USDA supported schools were generally clean and well maintained, although nine percent were broken in some way but still usable (Figure 15). The main reported problems with the small number of non-functional latrines in USDA schools were the door being broken (55 percent), the commode being broken (41 percent) or the washbasin being broken (32 percent)(Figure 16). The functional latrines in comparison schools were also generally clean and well maintained (74 percent) although there was a larger number of dirty, poorly maintained or broken functional latrines (Figure 15). Similarly, comparison schools reported a larger proportion of non-functional latrines in poor condition (Figure 16). Figure 15: Condition of functioning latrines Figure 16: Condition of non-functioning latrines 90. Both USDA supported and comparison schools reported that they maintained the latrines by training students to keep them clean with classes taking turns to maintain them (Figure 17). Schools also keep the latrines locked during vacation, and ensure there is enough water in washbasins. More comparison schools than of USDA supported schools adopt the negative practice of making the students leave shoes outside before entering the latrine. Figure 17: Latrine maintenance USDA supported schools Comparison schools Not usable Broken but stillusable Dirty, not well maintained Clean and wellmaintained 9% 1% 22% 19% 97% 0% 20% 40% 60% 74% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 57% 52% 55% 41% 67% 29 32% % 27% 18% 10% Washbasins are broken Pit latrine is broken or full Commode is broken Door is broken USDA supported schools Comparison schools USDA supported schools Comparison schools Propose users to leave shoes outside the latrine stalls Ensure wash basin is full of water Lock latrines during schoolvacations Keep soap/hand washing facilities within or near the toilets Train students and classes turns to cleanlatrines 1%2% 40% 55% 49 55% 68% 77% 74% 0% 20% 40% 60% 86% 94% 80% 100% 49% 28 Solid waste disposal 91. The majority of both USDA supported and comparison schools have bins and other equipment for solid waste management (Table 31). More of the USDA supported schools (97 percent) have daily waste collection than in comparison schools (84 percent). Table 31: Solid waste disposal Schools with bins or other equipment for solid waste management Schools with daily solid waste collection # % # % All USDA supported schools 83 97% 83 97% SMP only 54 95% 55 96% SMP+THR 29 100% 28 97% Comparison schools 84 98% 72 84% School gardens 92. School gardens are not new to Cambodia, having been part of the education system since the colonial era. School gardens are a way to use the schoolyard as a classroom, connect students with the natural environment and to learn about the source of their food. Good gardens can help teach students valuable gardening and agricultural concepts and life skills that integrate with several subjects, such as mathematics, biological science, nutrition, physical education and social studies, including personal and social responsibility. Students can also learn about ecology in a real-world context.45 Schools with school meals can also use food from the school gardens to supplement the other commodities. 93. Table 32 shows that 85 percent of USDA supported schools have school gardens, compared to 16 percent in comparison schools. Most (90 percent) of the USDA supported schools have rehabilitated their gardens recently so they are functional, compared to only 57 percent in comparison schools. Table 32: Schools with vegetable gardens Total # of schools with garden % of schools with vegetable garden % of rehabilitated vegetable garden Total USDA supported schools 86 73 85% 90% SMP only 57 50 88% 92% SMP + THR 29 23 79% 87% Comparison schools 86 14 16% 57% 94. School directors reported the main reason of the establishment or rehabilitation of the school garden was to support life skill education (Figure 18). Comparison schools (with no school meals) reported this in all schools. USDA supported schools mainly reported that they use the garden for both life skills and for supplementing the school meal. 45 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) School garden preparation and nutrition education. Phnom Penh. The set of resources includes Guidance for Trainers, Guidance for Teachers, and Textbooks for students in Grades 4-6. CARD, MOEYS, & FAO 29 Figure 18: Reason for establishing vegetable gardens in school 95. Figure 19 shows that school vegetable gardens are generally utilized throughout the school year (November to August). Students reported spending one to two hours per week in the gardens, with higher percentages of school gardens utilized throughout the year in USDA supported schools. Figure 19: Month of year when school gardens are utilized 96. Both USDA supported schools and comparison schools reported that the school gardens were maintained by the school children, under the guidance of teachers and community members (Figure 20). Children from different grades are assigned to take care of each plot of land. The majority of both USDA supported schools (85 percent) and comparison schools (75 percent) have assigned specific classes to look after each plot of land. Most schools also fence the area to prevent animals from entering. Figure 20: School garden maintenance USDA supported schools Comparison schools 0% 20% 14% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% Practicing life skills 100% Supplementing SMP recipe 0% 26% Both 0% 61% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 0% 20% 40% 38% 60% 80% 100% 53% 67% 13% 44% 50% 50% 73% 25% 42% 0% 15% 63% 76% 0% 38% 61% 8% 63% 79% 25% 52% 75% Prevent animals from entering school compound by repairing 85% schools’ fence once per year 75% 85% Children are assigned to each plot of land 86% 88% Children are mentored by trained teachers and community 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 30 Training and community awareness 97. The McGovern-Dole Programme includes training for school personnel (teachers, storekeepers and cooks) on a variety of subjects. Table 33 shows that during the SY 2016/17 almost all the USDA supported schools have received training on food preparation and on good health and nutrition, compared to 27 percent or less of comparison schools. These trainings have been ongoing since the last award (2013-2016) and have resulted in more personnel at USDA supported schools having awareness of the three main food groups: energy, building and protective foods (Figure 21). Table 33: Schools receiving training on food preparation and awareness on cooking management Schools receiving training on food preparation Schools receiving training on good health and nutrition practices # % # % All USDA supported schools 85 99% 84 98% SMP only 57 100% 56 98% SMP+THR 28 97% 28 97% Comparison schools 8 9% 23 27% Figure 21: Awareness on three types of food groups 98. The programme also includes awareness raising events on the importance of education, again as a continuation of activities in the 2013-2016 award. Table 34 shows almost all USDA supported schools have been engaged in these events during SY2016/17 compared to 29 percent of comparison schools. Most USDA supported schools had conducted community awareness events at least twice during year (Figure 22). Table 34: Percentage of schools participating in community awareness raising events on the importance of education Percentage of schools All USDA supported schools 94% SMP only 95% SMP+THR 93% Comparison schools 29% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% Energy 83% 100% Building 81% 99% Protective 74% 17% Don't know 0% USDA supported schools Comparison schools 31 Figure 22: Number of times that awareness-raising events were conducted during SY2016/17 99. Most schools conducted community awareness at the start of the school year (Figure 24) and took advantage of various community meetings such as village or school meetings and religious ceremonies to raise awareness (Figure 23). Overall, community engagement in USDA supported schools has been high during SY2016/17 due to the ongoing nature of this activity since the previous award. As a result, the programme has already almost met its target of 85 percent of parents able to name three benefits of education (Table 35). Figure 23: Timing of awareness raising events Table 35: Participation of parents in school activities Programme indicator Target All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+THR Comparison schools Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education 85% 83% 89% 79% 88% School management 100. The survey collected various information on school management includinginformation on the Parent Teacher Associations (PTAs), the presence of Local School Feeding Committees (LSFCs) and/or School Support Committees (SSCs), and the availability of various school management tools. Overall, 590 PTAs or similar governance structure have already been formed because of USDA assistance during the previous award. This means the target for this activity has already been reached (Table 36). Meeting at school When there is a year year ceremony in pagoda At beginning of the At village meeting At the end of study In the middle of the school year 0% 2% 5% 14% 23% 15% 21% 17% 27% 25% 94% 92% 80% 60% 40% 20% USDA supported schools Comparison schools USDA supported schools Comparison schools 100% 80% 60% 37% 37% 40% 31% 23% 18% 23% 23% 20% 8% 0% 1 time 2 times More than 2 times None 32 Table 36: Number of Parent-Teacher Associations supported Programme indicator Baseline 2017-2019 target Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 590 590 101. Table 37 shows that all the surveyed USDA supported schools (100 percent) have an LSFC or an SSC. This is likely to be due to the work done by WFP in the previous award. The majority (93 percent) of these are well functioning. In USDA supported schools the majority of members are male (73 percent) while in comparison schools, there is more equitable gender membership (54 percent female, 46 percent male). Table 37: Schools with existing LSFCs and SSCs # of schools with LSFC/SSCs % of functioning committee % Female members % Male members All USDA supported schools 86 93% 27% 73% SMP only 57 95% 28% 72% SMP+THR 29 90% 26% 74% Comparison schools 62 84% 54% 46% 102. The school survey included questions on whether schools had school development plans, a safe school environment and a record and reporting system in place. The majority of both USDA supported schools and comparison schools reported having each of those with more USDA supported schools reporting having all (Figure 24). Figure 24: Availability of school management tools 103. The McGovern-Dole Programme actively encourages community participation and financial support to the schools. Table 38 shows that during the SY 2016/17, USDA supported schools received an average of US$185.98 from the community and the equivalent of US$95.20 in in-kind contributions. This is lower than in the comparison schools. Table 38: Average amount of community contributions to each school in SY 2016/17 In Cash (US$) In Kind (US$ equivalent) All USDA supported schools 185.98 95.20 SMP only 156.12 89.33 SMP+THR 244.66 106.72 Comparison schools 406.02 33.55 104. Annex 9 shows the t-tests that have been applied to the survey findings. 0% 20% 40% 60% 100% 97% 99% 80% 85% 81% 80% 62% 8% Don’t have any above 0% Record and reporting system Safe schoolenvironment School development plan USDA supported schools Comparison schools 33 2.2 Findings from the household survey 105. The household survey was conducted with 963 households, 281 in Battambang, 292 in Siem Reap and 192 in Kampong Thom (Table 39). Most surveys were conducted with the head of household or spouse of the head of household. Overall, 73.6 percent were female respondents, as they were more often present in the households during data collectors’ visits. Table 39: Distribution of surveyed households by province, supporting programme, and sex of sampled child Province USDA supported schools Comparison Total Schools SMP only SMP + THR (%) Battambang 30 251 281 (29.2) Siem Reap 24 268 292 (30.3) Kampong Thom 192 192 (19.9) Kampong Cham 108 108 (11.2) Kratie 48 48 (5.0) Preah Vihear 42 42 (4.4) Gender breakdown (sex of surveyed children) Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls 108 108 146 152 240 209 494 469 (50.0) (50.0) (49.0) (51.0) (53.5) (46.5) (51.3) (48.7) Sub-Total (%) 216 298 449 (22.4) (30.9) (46.6) 963 Total 514 449 Household demographic information 106. Table 40 shows the demographic situation of the surveyed households. No significant difference was found between groups regarding household size (average of five members), or dependency ratio (average of one adult to 1.3 children or elderly). Nevertheless, USDA￾supported households had a higher percentage of female members.46 Most heads ofhousehold were married (85.5 percent). Table 40: Demographic information of surveyed households HH size Dependency ratio Household head marital status Single Married Widowed Separated or divorced All USDA supported schools 5.16 1.313 2.3% 86.1% 10.5% 0.8% SMP only 5.07 1.259 2.5% 89.6% 8.0% 0.0% SMP + THR 5.21 1.348 2.2% 83.8% 12.1% 1.3% Comparison schools 5.33 1.192 1.5% 90.9% 7.3% 0.3% 107. The majority of heads of household of the USDA supported households had either completed primary school (58.9 percent) or never attended school (28.2 percent) (Table 41). Half (50.9 percent) the heads of household of USDA supported schools reported being able to 46 A t-student test was applied to two independent samples (USDA and non-USDA supported households), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypothesis that the percentage of female members is equal in both population groups’ households, fixing α=0.05. The hypothesis is rejected (difference=0.02, t (observed value) = -1.9317, p-value (one-tail) = 0.0268 <0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that USDA supported households have a significantly higher percentage of female members. 34 read and write. Heads of non-USDA supported households were more literate than other groups.47 Table 41: Education and literacy information of heads of household of surveyed households Highest class completed Literacy Never Primary Secondary High school or above Can read and write Can sign only Can read only Cannot read or write All USDA supported schools 28.2% 58.9% 10.4% 2.4% 50.9% 2.4% 8.3% 38.4% SMP only 24.4% 62.2% 12.1% 1.3% 52.9% 0.5% 8.2% 38.5% SMP + THR 30.7% 56.7% 9.4% 3.2% 49.6% 3.6% 8.4% 38.4% Comparison schools 22.3% 49.6% 19.4% 8.7% 65.9% 1.0% 5.1% 28.0% 108. Households included an average of two school-aged children, with a school starting age of six years (Table 42). Households reporting that one or more of their school-aged children had either never attended school or had dropped out of school were few. Only 2.5 percent of USDA supported households included school-aged children who had never attended school48, compared to 3.2 percent from non-supported households. The percentage of drop outs is 0.7 in USDA supported schools and 0.3 percent in the comparison group. Both these drop out figures are due to households with severely disabled children removing their child fromschool because of their poor learning ability. Table 42: Number of school-aged children per household, and their starting age Number of school aged children in household Average age of starting school All USDA supported schools 1.9 6.3 SMP only 1.9 6.2 SMP + THR 1.9 6.3 Comparison schools 1.8 6.0 109. Households reported that the main reasons they sent their children to school was because it was near their home, and they wanted their children to get an education (Table 43). More parents in the USDA supported schools (49.3 percent) reported that they wanted their children to get an education, compared to 39.4 percent of parents from comparison schools. Additional findings from the household survey can be found in Annex 10. 47 A t-student test was applied to two independent samples (USDA and non-USDA supported households), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypothesis that the percentage of household heads who can read and write is equal in both population groups, fixing α=0.05. The hypothesis is rejected (difference=0.14, t (observed value) = 4.4321, p-value (one-tail) = 0.0000 <0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that the percentages of head of household who can read and write is higher in comparison sample. 48 Average age of children never attending school was 7 years. 35 Table 43: Parents’ reporting of reasons they send children to school Reasons for attending school All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+ THR Comparison schools The school is located near to my house 65.0% 70.2% 61.6% 65.0% I want my child to get an education 49.3% 37.7% 56.8% 39.4% The teachers teach very well and help my child in studying 23.7% 24.0% 23.5% 19.9% Good teachers 14.4% 24.1% 8.1% 29.6% Parents’ encouragement 13.3% 11.3% 14.6% 12.7% Meal is available at school 9.5% 11.6% 8.2% 0.9% The child is very devoted to studies 6.8% 8.3% 5.9% 8.8% Good academic performance of the child 4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 12.7% The school has very good facilities (classrooms, toilets, etc.). 1.6% 3.0% 0.8% 1.1% Take home rations 1.9% 1.7% 2.1% 0.5% Boarding facilities in the school 0.3% 0.0% 0.5% 0.9% Household water and sanitation 110. Half the households used improved sources of water in their homes including piped water into the dwelling or yard, public tap or standpipe, tube-well or borehole, protected dug well, protected spring or rainwater, and half had unimproved sources such as surface water, tanker-truck, cart with tank/drum, unprotected dug well, and unprotected spring (Figure 25). Similarly, half the surveyed households used flush toilets or ones that used water in some way, while approximately one third of households (37 percent) used open sources such as bush, fields, rivers or ponds (Figure 26). Figure 25: Household main source of water Sources of drinking water Improved Sources of drinking water Unimproved SMP + THR SMP only All USDA supportedschools 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 26: Household sanitation (toilet) facilities 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SMP + THR All USDA supportedschools Flush toilet/ latrine with water Traditional pit toilet/ partly open pit Bush/open field/river/ pond site 36 Household livelihoods, income and expenditure 111. Households reported having more than one livelihood and two sources of income (Table 44) including work or labour, sale of products and remittances. Table 44: Average number of livelihood activities and sources of income per household Number of livelihoods of head of HH Source of income per HH All USDA supported schools 1.5 1.9 SMP only 1.5 1.9 SMP+THR 1.5 1.9 Comparison schools 1.4 2.0 112. Figure 27 shows the livelihoods information of the households by type of intervention. Most households across all intervention groups reported their main source of income as farming. The main difference between USDA-supported and non-supported households was the lower proportion of ‘farmers’ in the comparison group, and higher proportion of agricultural labourers. The main livelihood activity of other family members (Figure 28) was also mainly farming (40 percent), with 15-20 percent being housewives or having no additional income source (10 percent). Overall, farming activities and agricultural labour accounts for almost 70 percent of the livelihood activities. Across all groups, there is a general low percentage of skills-based and salaried employment. Figure 27: Household's main source oflivelihood Farming activities Petty trader/ vendor No occupation Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith /hair cutter/cobbler Government officer Agricultural labour (daily wage) Housewife Fishing/ activities Teacher Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 80% 60% 40% 20% All USDA supported schools SMP Only SMP+THR Comparison schools 37 80% 60% 40% 20% All USDA supported schools SMP Only SMP+THR Comparison schools Figure 28: Household’s secondary source of livelihood Farming activities Housewife Student No occupation Petty trader/ vendor Pastoral activities Agricultural labour (daily wage) Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 113. One of the selection criteria for determining the locations to implement the programme is household poverty. Table 45 shows that households from USDA supported schools reported a lower average annual income (US$2,185.45 / US$6 per day), compared to the comparison households (US$2,795.38 /US$7.66 per day). For USDA households, the majority of their income comes from their own labours (67.5 percent), while 19.1 percent comes from sales of products, and 16.5 percent from remittances. Table 45: Annual household income from different sources (in US dollars) All USDA supported schools SMP Only SMP+THR Comparison schools Work 1,492.26 1,307.20 1,618.10 2,053.87 Sales 454.95 400.45 490.28 457.31 Remittance 305.27 246.32 343.49 354.47 Total 2,185.45 1,931.54 2,350.07 2,795.38 % Work 67.5% 68.2% 67.0% 74.9% % Sales 19.1% 19.6% 18.7% 16.1% % Remittance 16.5% 13.4% 18.5% 11.5% 114. Household expenditure was reported at US$13.56 per day in USDA supported households (Table 46). This is more than the daily income, so households need to use credit to meet their daily expenses. Expenditure on food is approximately 40 percent for all groups, and expenditure on education approximately eight percent of total household spending. Table 46: Household expenditure Household income/day (US$) Household expenditure / day (US$) % of expenditure paid in credit % of expenditure on food % of expenditure on education All USDA supported schools $5.99 $13.56 18.9% 39.5% 7.8% SMP only $5.29 $12.63 15.2% 41.0% 6.5% SMP + THR $6.44 $14.16 21.2% 38.5% 9.7% Comparison schools $7.66 $13.46 13.2% 43.9% 8.7% 38 Household food security and nutrition 115. Households reported an average number of meals consumed per day of almost three (2.6 for adults and 2.7 for children) (Table 47). A significant difference was found between SMP and SMP+THR households regarding the number of meals that children consume. Children in SMP households eat 2.4 meals per day, while this number is increased to 2.8 in SMP+THR households.49 Parents were asked to report if their current meal pattern was the same as usual, and 21.1 percent of SMP+THR households reported that their children ate more now than six months ago. Table 47: Average number of meals consumed in the household the day before the survey by age group All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+THR Comparison schools Adults 2.63 2.68 2.59 2.65 Children 2.62 2.38 2.80 2.77 116. Figure 29 shows the overall household food consumption pattern, with most households in all groups reporting consumption of cereals (rice), meat or eggs, vegetables and tea/spices on the day before the survey. Table 48 shows the average number of times per week that households eat each food group. Figure 29: Percentage of households reporting consumption of each food group in last seven days 49 A z-test was applied to two independent samples (SMP and SMP+THR households), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypothesis that the average number of meals eaten per day by children were equal, fixing α=0.05. The hypothesis is rejected (difference=0.42, t (observed value) = -3.1756, p-value (one-tail) = 0.0007<0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that children in SMP+THR households eat more times per day than those in SMP households, and this difference is significant. Maize, porridge, rice, pasta, bread… Beef, pork, poultry, eggs, fish Tea, spices, condiments… Vegetables, green leaves Oils, fat Sugar and sugar products Beans, peas, fround nuts, cashews… Fruits Cassava, sweet potato, potato, tubers, plantains Milk and dairy products 20 40 60 80 100 All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP +THR Comparison Schools 39 Table 48: Average number of times per week that households reported consumption of different food groups Food Groups All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP +THR Comparison Schools G1.1 Maize, porridge, rice, pasta, bread 8.5 7.9 8.9 8.7 G1.2 Cassava, sweet potato, potato, tubers, plantains 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.4 G2. Beans, peas, ground nuts, cashews… 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 G3. Vegetables, green leaves 5.1 4.9 5.2 5.1 G4. Fruits 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 G5. Beef, pork, poultry, eggs, fish 9.5 9.3 9.6 9.6 G6. Milk and diaries 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 G7. Sugar and sugar products 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.0 G8. Oils, fat 3.5 3.2 3.7 3.3 G9. Tea, condiments, spices, fish powder 8.3 7.4 8.9 7.9 117. Overall, household food consumption was similar across all groups, with the average FCS for each group being classified as “acceptable”50 (Table 49). FCS is an indicator that households are consuming multiple food groups on a frequent basis. No significantdifference was found in Food Consumption Scores between USDA supported schools and comparison schools. However, Table 5o shows that despite the high FCS, half the households reported consuming only 4 food groups (staples, vegetables, protein and oil) which equates to an “inadequate diet.” Assessment of dietary adequacy is based on consumption of the seven main food groups (staples (G1), pulses (G2), vegetable (G3), fruit (G4), protein (G5), oil & milk). Table 49: Household Food Consumption All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+ THR Comparison schools Average Household Food Consumption Score 54.8 53.4 55.8 55.4 Levels of FCS (%) Acceptable 95.8% 96.0% 95.8% 94.8% Borderline 3.4% 4.0% 3.0% 4.9% Poor 0.8% 0.0% 1.3% 0.3% Table 50: Percentage of households with inadequate diets Food Groups All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP +THR Comparison Schools High diet 3.63% 4.04% 3.37% 5.22% Medium diet 43.44% 42.59% 43.99% 42.29% Low (inadequate) diet 52.93% 53.37% 52.64% 52.50% 118. The survey found that 78.3 percent of children at USDA supported schools had been dewormed in the six-month period prior to the survey. The percentage in SMP+THR schools was higher, at 84.4 percent (Table 51). Most the children had receiving deworming medication at school. Data was not collected in comparison schools due to enumerator oversight. 50 Categories for FCS are poor (<25), borderline (25 – 38.5) and acceptable (≥39) 40 Table 51: Percentage of children who have been dewormed in the past six months Total % children dewormed Location School Health centre At home All USDA supported schools 78.3% 69.9% 4.9% 2.5% SMP+THR 84.4% 79.7% 2.1% 1.6% SMP only 73.3% 63.5% 6.7% 3.1% Comparison schools No data Household coping strategies 119. Most of the surveyed households reported using household coping strategies (77.9 percent). Figure 30 shows that approximately 50 percent of all households were relying on less preferred and less expensive foods at the time of the survey. Figure 30: Household use of consumption coping strategies 120. Large proportions of households were also engaging in more severe consumption coping strategies such as reducing the number of meals eaten each day, reducing their portion size or relying on help from family and friends. The Reduced Coping Strategies Index (rCSI) (Table 52) shows low values across all intervention types and in comparison, schools. Overall, USDA supported schools had lower scores that the comparison schools (i.e. using less consumption￾related coping strategies). The survey found significant differences between SMP and SMP+THR schools, and also between USDA supported households and non-USDA supported households.51 Table 52: Reduced Coping Strategies Index All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP+ THR Comparison schools Reduced CSI (Calculated so that CSI=0 when the HH does not go through difficulties) 8.95 6.98 10.23 10.31 School feeding benefits for children and households 121. According to their parents, children in USDA supported schools attended morning sessions every weekday of the month (20 to 21 days) (Table 53). Children attending morning 51 Z-tests were applied to test the hypotheses of equal reduced CSI in (1) SMP and SMP+THR schools and (2) USDA and non-USDA supported schools. Both hypotheses are rejected ((1), Difference=3.3, z (Observed value) = -4.0139, p-value (One-tail) = 0.0000<0.05=α; (2) Difference=1.4, z (Observed value) = 2.28045, p-value (One-tail) = 0.01129<0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that (1) CSI is significantly higher in SMP+THR schools tan in SMP only schools and (2) CSI is significantly higher in non-USDA supported schools tan in USDA supported schools. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods Borrowed food or relied on help from friends andrelatives Reduced portion size Reduction in the quantities consumedby adults Reduced number of meals eaten per day SMP +THR SMP only Comparison Schools 41 classes should receive a meal at school every day. The survey found that the percentage of children who reported receiving a daily school meal was significantly higher for those in SMP only schools (83.3 percent) than children in SMP+THR schools (76.6 percent).52 More children in SMP only schools reported that they took some of their school meal home (14.2 percent against 9.4 percent in SMP+THR schools, though this is not statistically significant (Table 54). Table 53: Average number of morning sessions the child attended Average number of morning sessions Girls Boys Total SMP only 20.9 21.1 21.0 SMP+THR 20.4 20.6 20.5 Table 54: Percentage of children who received a school meal and took some home Percentage of children who received a school meal every day Percentage of children who brought school meal home at least once a week SMP only 83.3% 14.2% SMP+THR 76.6% 9.4% 122. Parents were asked if the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme provided any benefits to their children and/or to the household in general. Table 55 shows that parents perceived the main benefit of the programme was that their children received food which makes them healthier and able to learn better. Nutrition (gets food) and health related benefits of school feeding are more often perceived by parents of SMP+THR children. Table 55: Benefits of school feeding for the child, as perceived by parents Benefits to the child Gets food Healthier Learns better More attentive in class Has more opportunities No benefit SMP only 75.4% 67.0% 51.2% 35.6% 31.9% 1.2% SMP+THR 88.0% 71.3% 51.7% 33.1% 31.7% 0.8% 123. Table 56 shows that parents perceive multiple benefit to the household in general including saving food and money, and saving parents time. Table 56: Benefits of school feeding for the household, as perceived by parents Benefits to the household Saves HH food/money Saves time for parents Saves morning cooking time No benefit SMP only 78.9% 69.2% 51.8% 4.0% SMP+THR 87.8% 73.9% 65.9% 3.2% 124. Parents reported that their children going to school without a meal at home saved the household an average of 2.3 hours per day (Table 57) and this benefited both male and female parents as it resulted in less time preparing food and less time taking care of children (Table 52Two t-student tests were applied to two independent samples (SMP and SMP+THR), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypotheses that proportions of children receiving school meals every day and taking them home were both equal across samples. Only the former hypothesis is rejected (Meal in school: Difference=0.07, t (Observed value) = 2.2911, p-value (One-tail) = 0.0112<0.05=α; Meal taken home: Difference=0.05, t (Observed value) = 1.4472, p-value (One-tail) = 0.0743>0.05=α). 42 58). This time ‘saved’ was then mainly used for household chores, farm work and other income earning activities (Table 59). Table 57: Effects of school feeding in terms of household members’ time saved Percentage of household reporting time saved Sex of household members who save this time Average number of hours saved Men Women Both All USDA supported schools 63.1% 2.2% 31.7% 66.1% 2.3 SMP only 73.9% 2.2% 25.5% 72.3% 2.6 SMP+THR 56.0% 2.2% 37.0% 60.8% 2.1 Comparison schools 51.1% 1.6% 42.1% 56.3% 1.9 Table 58: Percentage of parents reporting to save time from each activity, as an effect of school attendance Preparing food Taking care of children Both All USDA supported schools 29.2% 22.6% 15.4% SMP only 25.6% 17.8% 27.4% SMP+THR 31.6% 25.7% 7.6% Comparison schools 20.2% 28.9% 12.4% Table 59: Percentage of parents reporting to use saved time for each activity Household chores Farm/ livestock work Income￾earning activity Child care Rest/Leisure All USDA supported schools 28.5% 15.4% 11.2% 4.2% 1.6% SMP only 33.6% 17.6% 14.2% 4.6% 2.4% SMP+THR 25.2% 14.0% 9.2% 4.0% 1.1% Comparison schools 22.5% 8.8% 11.7% 5.1% 1.4% 2.3 Government capacity related to school feeding 125. The following section is largely taken from endline evaluation of the 2013-2016 phase, which was conducted by the same team.53 It provides an overview of the capacity of the Cambodian Government in relation to school feeding, as at September 2017. Although the endline evaluation was specifically for the USDA McGovern-Dole programme and did not evaluate WFP’s overall school feeding portfolio, the focus of the evaluation team’s (ET) field mission on capacity building activities enabled them to make some evaluation on the sustainability of school feeding in general and the transition to Government ownership. 126. WFP has spent several years building the capacity of the MoEYS and other ministries in School Feeding. In 2015 WFP and MoEYS signed a Roadmap54 to national school feeding ownership. To evaluate the sustainability of school feeding in general and the likelihood of the activities within the Roadmap being achieved by 2021, the ET considered a number of key results including the results of the National Capacity Index (NCI), whether each of the short￾term activities listed in the Roadmap have been completed and/or medium-term activities started, and whether the five quality standards of the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiative are in place (or in progress). These findings were then triangulated 53 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant (MDG) Food for Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Final report. The KonTerra Group. 54 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. 43 with the qualitative field mission findings from interviews with key informants, particularly MoEYS personnel. More information on the SABER approach can be found in Annex 11. Progress on the School Feeding National Capacity Index 127. WFP assesses the progress on improving the capacity of the Government annually at a workshop jointly organized by the CARD, MoEYS and WFP, to challenge and assess the School Feeding NCI. The NCI is not intended to be a scientific measure but a flexible tool to help country offices determine the progress of a country in the transition and/or national capacity development process. 128. The endline evaluation (2013-2016) found that the total Cambodian school feeding NCI score55 has increased from 12 to 15.5 between the first annual workshop organized in 2013and the most recent meeting in January 2017 (reflecting changes up to the end of 2016) (Table 60). The improved score is due to the inclusion of scholarships and school meals programme in the Social Protection Policy Framework for 2016-2025, the establishment of the Scholarship Office within the MoEYS, the creation of a national budget line for cash scholarship programme, and expansion of the HGSF model. Table 60: National Capacity Index (NCI) Quality Standard Policy Framework Institutional structure and coordination Funding and budgeting Programme design and implementation Community participation and ownership 2017 3.5 3 2.5 3.5 3 Total = 15.5 Progress towards the achievement of the Road Map activities 129. The Roadmap specifies that by moving away from externally supported programmes, the Government will transition to full responsibility for a comprehensive, nationally-owned approach to school feeding by 2021. At the core of this transition is a strategy that includes approaches and tools that strengthen the Government's institutional capacity to design, finance and manage the programme over time. The Roadmap is organized according to a set of short (2015-2016), medium (2017-2020) and long-term (2021 onward) periods, and aligns with the quality standards of the SABER approach. 130. The evaluation noted that most of the short-term activities outlined in the Roadmap have been completed within the allocated time frame (Annex 12), with the exception of a School Feeding Budget. Key informant interviews indicate that an operational School FeedingBudget Line (and its precursor, a School Feeding Policy) are critical to the sustainability of school feeding in Cambodia. However, there is ongoing debate on the need for a stand-alone School Feeding Policy since the 2017 National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable56 includes school meals and scholarships. To date, the Government’s main direct input to the programme is the annual contribution to WFP of 2,000 mt of rice per year, some of which is used for school feeding activities. 55 Each of the five Quality Standards has a score ranging from 1-4, which reflects the capacity of the country. Weak or absent capacity Score: 1 point, Limited capacity Score: 2 points, Moderate capacity Score: 3 points, Strong capacity Score: 4 points. The total result is obtained by adding the scores for each of the 5 QS. The NCI score will range from 5 to 20. 56 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable. Council for Agriculture and Rural Development. 44 Progress towards the SABER quality standards 131. The SABER approach (School Feeding) is a Government-led process that helps to build effective school feeding policies and systems. The approach was developed by the World Bank in 2013, and outlines five quality standards that should provide the foundation for strong nationally-led and sustainable school feeding programme: • Strong policy frameworks • Strong institutional structure and coordination • Stable funding and budgeting • Sound programme design and implementation, including evaluation • Strong community participation and ownership. 132. Policy frameworks: The final evaluation of the 2013-2016 phase found a misalignment between the programme indicators and the Roadmap in terms of policy framework. One of the indicators for the McGovern-Dole programme was to have a National School Feeding Policy operational by the end of the 2013-2016 phase, while the Roadmap pushes the policy into medium-term targets. Given the current capacity of the MoEYS, the evaluation found the medium term more reasonable, although this will make a 2021 completion difficult. Table 61 shows this current status and targets. Table 61: Policies and procedures in place Indicator Baseline 2017-2019 target Number of children health and nutrition policies, regulations or administrative procedures in development as a result of USDA assistance 1 1 Number of educational policies, regulations or administrative procedures in development as a result of USDA assistance 0 4 133. Institutional structure and coordination: This is perhaps one of the areas of greatest progress, as WFP has supported the establishment of multiple school feeding coordination bodies, albeit before the period under evaluation. These include a central level Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and a School Feeding Task Force (SFTF) established in 2011. The PCC is chaired by the Secretary of State, with multiple Directors from MoEYS departments as members.57 The SFTF is chaired by the Director of Primary Education with nine other members from relevant MoEYS technical departments, to support the management and implementation of the programme on the ground and to regularly provide updated information on the programme to the PCC team. 134. These structures have been replicated at sub-national level through the establishment of Provincial School Feeding Committees (PSFCs) and District School Feeding Committees (DSFCs). At school level, the LSFC ensures regular implementation, including daily food management, preparation and serving breakfast to children, and reporting. This scheme is not limited to the three USDA supported provinces, but implemented in all provinces where WFP operates the education component of its country programme. 135. At both national and sub-national level, these committees have contributed to overall planning, implementation, coordination and monitoring of school feeding activities withinthe framework of their limited capacity. 136. Funding and budget: Government ownership has improved over recent years, including through the handover of responsibility for the THR programme in nine districts in 57 Departments include General Education, Primary Education, School Health, Early Child Care, Planning and Curriculum Development 45 SYs 2012-13 and 2013-14. In SY 2014-15, the Government took full ownership in budgeting for and implementing the primary school scholarship programme in those districts (provided as cash scholarships). Cash scholarships are funded through the Government’s primary cash scholarship programme. 137. As part of its graduation and sustainability strategy with the MoEYS, WFP has transitioned approximately 3,140 primary schools with around 70 percent of the WFP-assisted schools with cash or in-kind THR, to the Ministry for scholarship provision (2,100 schools in SY 2014-15, 294 schools in SY 2016-17 and 745 in school year 2017-18). WFP and MoEYS have agreed that all remaining 969 school in SY 2017-18 will be final transitioned to the Government cash scholarship in SY 2019-20. 138. Despite the success of scholarship programme there is still no school feeding budget line, and the qualitative field mission found that the MoEYS’s spending priorities include improving teachers’ salaries and recruiting and retaining better qualified teachers, ratherthan on the implementation of school feeding. 139. Programme design and implementation: A critical component of the Roadmap is the identification and development of suitable implementation approaches which reflect the Government’s priorities and institutional capacity. Although the transition to a national school feeding programme is for 2021, there is still uncertainty on the capacity of the MoEYS. Using USDA funds, WFP has supported the MoEYS to undertake research on the effectiveness and capacity of the Government to manage cash scholarships and HGSF modalities for providing school feeding. 140. Community participation and ownership: Strong community participation has been identified as a major element towards national ownership by both WFP school feeding policy and the SABER approach, as well as the USDA Results Framework. 141. Since 2015, food THRs are no longer provided by the programme as incentives for cooks and storekeepers. Local authorities and communities are encouraged to mobilize resources locally to complement the increased engagement from Commune Councils and District Governors. As noted by WFP, “in successful cases, cooks received more than the basic stipends. The experience varies widely across the many schools and communities, leading to uneven compensation and motivation of cooks”.58 Communities are also providing other contributions for the building and rehabilitation of school infrastructures, including wells, latrines and fuel￾efficient stoves as described in Section 2.1. 142. The mid-term evaluation of the current WFP country programme59 highlighted a widespread tendency by parents and community representatives to depend on WFP assistance to maintain school feeding activities. On the other hand, due to the high level of poverty in WFP assisted schools, the same evaluation indicated that there is a demonstrated limitation to the contribution, be it in-kind or in cash, that parents and communities can afford in support of school feeding activities. 143. The 2017-2019 programme indicators for this component include the development of public-private partnerships. The baseline found several partnerships already in place (Table 62). These partnerships are mainly with farmers’ groups involved in the implementation of the 58 WFP Semi-annual Report Narrative, April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016. 59 Reed, S et al(2014) Cambodia Country Programme 200202: A mid-term evaluation of WFP’s Country Programme 2011-2016. The KonTerra Group. WFP Office of Evaluation, Report number: OE/2014/02 46 hybrid HGSF, which have contracts in place for the purchase of complementary food commodities such as vegetables and protein-rich foods. Table 62: Number of schools with existing public-private partnership groups % of schools with PPP Number of groups Total members Female members All USDA supported schools 12 15 30 33% SMP only 11 13 24 33% SMP+THR 1 2 6 33% Comparison schools 4 4 16 38% 144. Overall, the evaluation found that the level of Government capacity on school feedingis currently consistent with SABER level 1 (out of 5) (Table 61), indicating that the Roadmap timeline of transitioning to Government ownership is over-ambitious, and the Road Map is unlikely to be achieved by 2021. Table 63 gives a subjective assessment by the KonTerra ET and does not represent findings that should be done on a systematic SABER exercise. Apart from a SABER-Teachers in 2011, Cambodia has not yet benefited from such an exercise regarding school feeding. Table 63: Progress on the achievement of the SABER quality standards SABER Standards Current stage Strong policy frameworks Latent Strong institutional structure and coordination Latent Stable funding and budgeting Latent Sound programme design and implementation, including evaluation Emerging Strong community participation and ownership Emerging Overall SABER Level 1 145. WFP Cambodia is aware of the shortcomings of the current Roadmap. In order to address these shortcomings, WFP is planning to undertake the following activities including a review of the Roadmap’s benchmarks: • Establish the 2017-18 operational plan with focus on rationalization of programme targeting (geographic, wealth) and priority setting (delivery, model building, research etc.) for the overall school meals and scholarships programme. The operational plan will also take into consideration 2018-2019 projections. • Conduct Project Coordination Committee (PCC) consultation to review key benchmarks in the signed Roadmap in context of updated MoEYS priorities, financial and institutional capacities. This consultation will also reflect on the duration of the transition, develop concrete steps towards WFP’s changed role, and agreed end product. WFP will also take on board feedback from the USDA McGovern-Dole baseline, midterm and final evaluations 2014-2017 and WFP’s Country Portfolio Evaluation 2011-2017. • Organize a stakeholder reflection workshop, bringing together all relevant stakeholders including Government representatives and development partners such as Plan International, World Education and World Vision, with the purpose of reviewing various school meals models and clarifying the updated Roadmap benchmarks. 47 3 Conclusions 146. The findings of the baseline survey indicate that USDA support over the previous phases of McGovern-Dole Programme implementation have put SMP only and SMP+THR schools ahead of the non-supported (comparison) schools in several areas. What is the current status of key performance indicators? 147. Nationally, school enrolment and attendance are high, with no significant difference found between USDA supported and comparison schools. However, female promotion rate is significantly higher in USDA supported schools than in comparison schools, 88.8 against86.9 percent.60 Similarly, more USDA supported schools use the new national literacy curriculum and World Education has already provided numerous learning materials to their targeted USDA supported schools. 148. School infrastructure is also better in USDA supported schools – especially school meals related infrastructure such as kitchens, storerooms and the use of energy-efficient stoves. However, the baseline survey identified some gaps, with less than 80 percent of USDA supported schools having sufficient separate latrines for boys and girls, and year-round access to water. There is also ongoing need for rehabilitation and maintenance to ensure that water systems and latrines remain functional and kitchens remain in good condition. What remaining progress must be made to achieve the objectives in literacy and health and nutrition as outlined by USDA? 149. Overall, the 2013-2016 phase of programme implementation was positively reviewed by the evaluation team, with most of the programme indicators being achieved or almost achieved.61 In order for the 2017-2019 programme to achieve its objectives, the programme needs to focus on the new literacy objectives regarding Early Grade Reading, as this is a change of programme indicator for the new phase. Ongoing support and training for the MoEYS will be required. 150. The baseline survey has identified a number of gaps in the school infrastructure available in USDA supported schools. This includes energy-efficient stoves, kitchens and dedicated storerooms. A continued focus on improving school infrastructure, particularly water systems, latrine construction and rehabilitation, and handwashing facilities, should result in health and nutrition indicators being met during the next phase 151. In addition to the stated programme objectives, the baseline survey has found that the programme is having some unintended benefits, including saving parents time at home. Parents reported that their children going to school without a meal at home saved the household an average of 2.3 hours per day and this benefited both male and female parents. This ‘saved’ time was then mainly used for household chores, farm work and other income earning activities. 152. Parents perceived the main benefit of the programme was that their children received food which makes them healthier and able to learn better. Nutrition (gets food) and health related benefits of school feeding are more often perceived by parents of SMP+THR children. 60 A t-student test was applied to two independent samples (USDA and non-USDA supported households), assuming unequal variances, to test the hypothesis that female promotion rates is equal in both population groups, fixing α=0.05. The hypothesis is rejected (difference=0.02, t (observed value) = 1.7982, p-value (one-tail) = 0.0370<0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that girls have significantly higher promotion rates at USDA supported schools. 61 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant (MDG) Food for Education Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Final report. The KonTerra Group 48 In addition, approximately 10 percent of households of children receiving school meals reported that some food was taken home for other members. This improves the food security not only of the school children, but of other household members too. What issues or factors need to be further invested in to ensure that objectives are met? 153. For the 2017-2019 phase of programming, WFP will need to put more focus on Government capacity building and developing models for transitioning to national ownership in line with the 2015 Roadmap62. The endline evaluation noted that most of the short-term activities outlined in the Roadmap have been completed within the allocated time frame except for a School Feeding Budget. The evaluation also found that the total Cambodian school feeding NCI score63 has increased over the last phase of implementation, however despite these improvements the evaluation assessed the Government capacity on school feeding to be SABER level 1 (out of 5), indicating that the Roadmap timeline of transitioning to Government ownership is over-ambitious, and the Roadmap is unlikely to be achieved by 2021. WFP Cambodia is already planning to take a number of appropriate steps to address these shortcomings of the Roadmap. 154. In addition, the endline evaluation of the 2013-2016 phase recommended that theWFP CO and implementing partners aim to have a minimum package of infrastructure facilities including kitchens, energy efficient stoves, store rooms, handwashing facilities and separate latrines for girls and boys in all USDA supported schools with the school meals programme. This is to help ensure that schools would be able to function efficiently under a national school feeding programme. Currently the provision of energy-efficient stoves, store rooms and kitchens were not included in the proposed budget for FY 2016. WFP will therefore need to review the programme budgets with partners and prioritize support to needed schools, either from other donors or NGO partners if available. What further investments need to be made to ensure the programme is sustainable after USDA assistance has ceased? 155. One of the main findings of the baseline survey and the endline evaluation of the 2013- 2016 programme is the low capacity of the Royal Government of Cambodia to sustain the programme after USDA assistance has ceased. At the time of the baseline survey, research findings were imminent from the MoEYS on the cost effectiveness of the cash scholarship model, and the capacity of the MoEYS to implement a HGSF model of school feeding, the evaluation recommended that WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia review the research findings as priority. This review should result in decisions that will guide the short/medium term development of a national school feeding approach. This decision should be made with input from other ministries such as Ministry of Economics and Finance, Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Interior as appropriate. 156. The inclusion of both school meals and scholarships in the 2017 National Social Protection Framework indicates that future schools feeding activities should involve other ministries, in addition to the MoEYS, particularly those involved in social protection. Considering this, the evaluation recommends that the Government review which ministry/ies are now best placed to move the school feeding agenda forward. 62 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. 63 Each of the five Quality Standards has a score ranging from 1-4, which reflects the capacity of the country. Weak or absent capacity Score: 1 point, Limited capacity Score: 2 points, Moderate capacity Score: 3 points, Strong capacity Score: 4 points. The total result is obtained by adding the scores for each of the 5 QS. The NCI score will range from 5 to 20. 49 157. Based on the research findings and decisions made above, the Roadmap should be reviewed by the WFP CO, the MoEYS and other ministries and partners as appropriate. This is already planned by WFP. The review should focus on identifying the priority actions required to coordinate and oversee implementation of a nationally owned school feeding programme (including budget). The review should also involve the development of a school meals implementation transition plan that includes specific responsibilities, timelines and budgets. 158. In addition to the above, the baseline survey has noted that several programme indicators have already been achieved or nearly achieved. For those indicators, it is appropriate to review the programme targets. 4 Recommendations Recommendation 1: Continue programme implementation as per the current agreement (2017-2019). Although some of the programme targets have already been achieved, or almost achieved, it is recommended that the programme maintains the current targets and focus on maintaining the results over the next phase. Recommendation 2: The WFP CO and literacy partners (World Education and KAPE) should ensure that all USDA supported schools receive training and support to implement the new literacy curriculum by the end of the 2017-2019 programme cycle. Early Grade Readingis a new activity and the baseline found that only 38 percent of children at the end of Grade 2 were able to read grade level text. Achieving the planned target of 75 percent will take considerable work. Recommendation 3: The WFP CO and the other implementing partners (World Vision and PLAN International) should aim to have a minimum package of infrastructure facilities including kitchens, energy efficient stoves, store rooms, handwashing facilities and separate latrines for girls and boys in all USDA supported schools with the school meals programme. This should help ensure that schools would be able to function efficiently under a national school feeding programme. Recommendation 4: The WFP CO should focus on capacity building of the Royal Government of Cambodia and review the Roadmap benchmarks as per WFP’s current plan and the findings of the 2013-2016 endline evaluation. 50 5 Bibliography ActionAid (2014) Flood Impacts on Women: Exploring the Possibility of Gender Sensitive DRR Planning. Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis. Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning CP 200202 (2011-2018). WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1 CP Cambodia 200202 (2011-2016), WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1, 3 May 2011. CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant (MDG) Food for Education Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Final report. The KonTerra Group. http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html Ministry of Planning. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia MoEYS. Education Management and Information System data. Nielsen, N et al (2010) WFP Cambodia School Feeding 2000-2010: A mixed method impact evaluation. DARA. For WFP Office of Evaluation, Rome. OE/2011/008. Reed, S et al (2014) Cambodia Country Programme 200202: A mid-term evaluation of WFP’s Country Programme 2011-2016. The KonTerra Group. WFP Office of Evaluation, Report number: OE/2014/02 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2013) Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey. National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Phnom Penh. The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. Pages 86, 180-198. The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) School garden preparation and nutrition education. Phnom Penh. The set of resources includes Guidance for Trainers, Guidance for Teachers, and Textbooks for students in Grades 4-6. CARD, MOEYS, & FAO The Royal Government of Cambodia (2013) A “Rectangular Strategy” for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency. Phase III. Page 37. The World Bank (2013) Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013 The World Bank. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ UNDP (2015) Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia. Strategy Paper. UNDP (2016) Human Development Report 2015. USDA (2016) Food for Progress and McGovern-Dole Indicators and Definitions. Foreign Agricultural Service, Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development. USDA (2016) Food Aid Proposal Guidance. Annex III: Manual for the Use of Results Frameworks and Indicators. Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and Development, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 51 WFP (2016) Cambodia County Progress Report. Innovations from the field: Gender mainstreaming from the ground up. Institute of Development Studies. WFP (2016) Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, WFP Cambodia. WFP (2016) Semi-annual Report Narrative, April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016. WFP, ActionAid, ADB, Danish Red Cross, Save the Children and UNICEF (2012) Cambodia Post-Flood Relief and Recovery Survey. WFP’s School Feeding Policy WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C. 52 6 Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Reference 1. Introduction and Context This Terms of Reference (TOR) is for the End-line evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant (MDG) Food for Education (FFE) supported school feeding activities in Cambodia in FY2013-2016.64 This TOR is also for the Baseline Survey of the USDA MGD FFE- supported school feeding activities in Cambodia in FY2013-2016. Both evaluations are included in one TOR to ensure better continuity in terms of evaluation management, leading to better understanding by the evaluation team of the programme and the context. This is anticipated to improve the usefulness of evaluation findings, while also creating efficiencies in the contracting and management of the evaluation process, ensuring better cost effectiveness. The Government of the United States of America, through the USDA MGD Programme, has been a trusted partner of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Cambodia, dating back to 2001. Since its inception, this partnership has ensured that more than 3.4 million children have benefited from School Feeding Programmes. These evaluations are commissioned by WFP’s Cambodia Country Office (CO) and will occur between 2017 and 2019. These evaluations will cover the end of actual implementation of the MGD funded operation 2013- 2016 and the implementation of the MGD funded operation for 2017-2019. The 2017-2019 MGD funded operation is a continuance of the 2013-2016 MGD programme, covering the same provinces and continuing the programme in largely the same schools. The approach and transfer, under these grants, is largely the same with some schools receiving the School Meals Programme (SMP), some schools receiving the Take Home Ration (THR) Programme and other schools receiving both programmes, depending on the detailed targeting criteria within WFP. The main difference in the two grant periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2019) is the stronger focus on government management of the programme and the accelerated pace of handing over programme responsibilities as WFP anticipated a full handover of the programming in the years after the end of the 2017-2019 grant. The 2017-2019 grant is also more focused on partnership to achieve maximum impact, with a particularly strong focus on literacy improvements. Recognizing the importance of sustainability of the school feeding programme moving forward, WFP’s overarching vision is to oversee the transition from a WFP-led school feeding programme in Cambodia to a government-led programme by 2021, as outlined in the School Feeding Roadmap which was agreed and signed between WFP and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) in May 2015. WFP’s strategy is to utilize MGD commodities and capacity building funds to increase the readiness of MoEYS, preparing them for adopting the school meals programme and absorbing the THR beneficiaries into the national cash scholarship programme. WFP’s FY2017-19 (SY 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019) MGD programme of US$15 million will be used to reach 859 schools with the SMP and THR in three of twenty-five provinces, while also supporting complementary activities focused on improving literacy as well as health and dietary practices. Resources will be used to provide 145,000 pre-school and primary schoolchildren with school meals and 15,000 children from the poorest households with THRs. The evaluation process within WFP will be managed by an evaluation manager (WFP - EM) appointed by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) who will be the main focal point for day to day contact during the evaluation period. An outside firm will be contracted to carry out the actual evaluation and will appoint their own evaluation manager in accordance with normal practice. Appropriate safeguards to ensure the impartiality and independence of the evaluation are outlined within these TORs. These evaluations will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the operation and associated interventions so far, so that WFP-Cambodia and the Cooperating Partners (CPs) can adjust the project’s course as necessary to ensure effective programme management and design, while also making 64 The 2013-2016 USDA MGD was for USD 19,224,753 and the 2017-2019 USDA MGD is for USD 15,212,822. 53 it possible to quantify the impacts of the programme. Please note, evaluations reports should contain explicit conflict of interest statements verifying the evaluators’ independence. This TOR was prepared by WFP-Cambodia based upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold: firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluation. 2. Reasons for the Evaluations 2.1. Rationale The WFP Cambodia CO is commissioning an end-line evaluation for the 2013-2016 MGD supported WFP Education Support activities in Cambodia to assess the performance of programme operations and associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and programme strengthening. This endline evaluation is particularly important given that WFP will hand over large parts of the programme to the government in the coming years. It is therefore critical that the successes and failures of the programme are clearly outlined so that WFP can address them more robustly in the next 3 years of programming. The WFP Cambodia CO is also commissioning a baseline survey for the 2017-2019 MGD supported WFP Education Support activities in Cambodia to assess the performance of programme operations and associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and programme strengthening. As for the 2013- 2016 endline evaluation, these exercises are important in ensuring that the weaknesses in the programme from past years are being adequately addressed in a fashion that will facilitate eventual handover of the programme. This requires not only a focus on solutions, but a focus on solutions that the Government of Cambodia can sustain over time. As one MGD supported School feeding programme is now concluding and another project period is just beginning, the Cambodia CO is keen to evaluate progress to date and to help design and tailor the MGD School Feeding programme 2017-2019 for maximum effectiveness. Further, a key component of the programme is to work in partnership with stakeholders and provide capacity building to government to eventually take over the programme. Therefore, an important part of this evaluation will be to assess the partnerships with the government and other key stakeholders, such as the local communities and NGOs. These evaluations will also fulfil a requirement of USDA that MGD funded projects critically and objectively review the progress of the 2013-2016 school feeding programme while also enabling WFP-Cambodia and USDA to assess the baseline of the 2017-2019 school feeding programme. 2.2. Objectives Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning. • Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of all MGD funded activities. • Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems. For USDA, the purpose of the evaluation is to critically and objectively review and take stock of the program participant’s implementing experience and the implementing environment, assess whether targeted beneficiaries are receiving services as expected, assess whether the project is on track to meeting its stated goals and objectives, review the results frameworks and assumptions, document initial lessons learned, and discuss necessary modifications or mid-course corrections that may be necessary to effectively and efficiently meet the stated goals and objectives. 54 2.3. Stakeholders and Users Stakeholders: A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have an interest in the results of the evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by women, men, boys and girls from different groups. Users: The primary users of this evaluation will be: • WFP Cambodia and its main implementing partner, MoEYS, notably with respect to decision-making related to programme implementation and/or design, country strategy and partnerships. • Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) (as appropriate); • Implementing partners including: World Vision, Plan International and World Education as well as others for targeted programme design, including for instance, school committees. Findings will also be shared with education development partners (DPs), including USAID and other key education, nutrition and health stakeholders. • USDA will use evaluation findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks, and critical assumptions. • WFP’s Regional Bureau in Bangkok is expected to use the evaluation findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, oversight, and to extract lessons for sharing across the region. • WFP Headquarters (HQ) may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability • WFP’s Office of Evaluation (OEV) may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses. • The government is expected to take over the management and monitoring of the school feeding program over time, therefore, information on whether the programme is yielding the desired results is of primary importance. • Other WFP regional bureaus and COs under their oversight may also benefit from the findings, which can contribute to corporate learning on implementation of capacity development interventions. • The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations. This evaluation will not be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning processes. To ensure maximum use of the lessons learned for national partners, the resulting reports will be translated into Khmer language. Importantly, this will facilitate learning amongst government, as technical staff often do not speak or read English. 3. Country Context The current economic growth has allowed Cambodia to attain lower-middle-income country (LMIC) status, with GDP per capita reaching USD 1,15965. Over the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a significantly reduced poverty rate, from 50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 201466. Ranked 143 out of 188 countries on the UNDP 2015 Human Development Index, Cambodia's growth is expected to remain robust at around seven percent, driven by solid performances in garment manufacture, construction, tourism, and production of food and cash crops. Cambodia achieved the World Bank’s LMIC status in mid-2016, though it is 65 WB. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 66 MoP. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia 55 recognised that human capital development and economic sustainability lag, thus delaying the graduation from the UN’s least developed country (LDC) rating. Persistent gender inequality is measured in the Gender Inequality Index; Cambodia is ranked 105 out of 149 countries in the 2013 index67. However, women are increasingly income generators, migrating from rural areas to urban areas to work or starting small businesses from their homes. The number of women having primary occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces68, particularly in the garment sector. Women are typically employed at lower levels and paid less. It is estimated that on average women are paid thirty percent less than men on commensurate work69. Despite economic growth and current development in urban areas, rural development lags. Rural communities, which make up 79 percent of the population, account or most of the country's poor70. A significant proportion of Cambodians lives on the brink of poverty; it has been estimated that losing just USD 0.30 a day per person in income would double the poverty rate71. This means that natural hazards such as storms, floods, droughts or serious illness could cause profound setbacks to fragile livelihoods. A joint WFP, UNICEF, FAO Household Resilience survey72 showed that 13 percent of households acquired additional debts because of the 2015/2016 El Nino event, increasing the overall percentage of indebted households to nearly 50 percent. While the poor are often disproportionally effected by shocks, near poor and middle-class households are also put under considerable stress. Food poverty reduced from 20 percent in 1993 to 4.1 percent in 2010 and zero in 2014, surpassing Cambodia’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 target. However, the newly proposed Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators, undernourishment and dietary diversity, suggest that 14 percent of households continued to consume less than the minimum dietary energy requirement while 11.6 percent had inadequate dietary diversity.73 Thus, works remains to be done to end food insecurity and hunger for all. The 2014 Cambodia Demographic Health Survey found that the stunting rate fell from 49.2 percent in 2010 to 32.4 percent in 2014; approximately half a million Cambodian children under five are stunted while wasting remains unacceptably high at 9.6 percent. While micronutrient deficiencies appear to be reducing, iodine deficiency in increasing, which impacts growth and cognitive development. Two out of three children aged 6-23 months do not have access to timely, appropriate, nutritionally adequate and safe complementary food. Total mortality rate of children under five is 35 per 1,000 live births of which malnutrition contributes 12.25 percent. It is important to note that while under-nutrition continues to play an important role in determining population wellness and productivity, over-nutrition is on the rise; while 14 percent of women between 15 and 49 years of age have a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 (thin), 18 percent are overweight (BMI> 25). This double burden is indicative of economic shifts and predicts greater challenges in future, including those associated with non-communicable diseases, unless addressed in a timely manner. In education, Cambodia has made good strides in improving primary education programs in rural areas. The net primary school enrolment figure increased from 81 percent in 2001 to 98.4 percent in 2015-2016. The dropout rate has not changed significantly, with primary education stagnating at about 10 percent and lower secondary education at about 20 percent; though not captured at aggregate level, attendance and absenteeism are of concern. Available national statistics don’t show substantial differences between boys and girls. The ASEAN integration in 2015 and the desire of Cambodia to be a middle-income country by 2030 require Cambodia to make considerable investment in education. The Royal Government of Cambodia is expected to double its national budget for education in 2017; much of this budget is allocated for the recruitment, training and retention of teachers. 67 Human Development Report,2015, UNDP 68 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning 69 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 70 Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey,2013 71 WB Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013 72 Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, May 2016, WFP. 73 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning 56 4. Approach of the Evaluations 4.1. Overall Scope The 2013-2016 End-line evaluation will cover the WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA MGD Grant FFE￾442-2013/035-00-A while the 2017-2019 Baseline will cover the WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA MGD Grant FFE-442-2016/015-00, including all activities and processes related to their formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting relevant to answer the evaluation questions. These evaluations, commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, will cover the end of implementation of the 2013-2106 MGD funded operation and the baseline for the implementation of the MGD funded operation 2017-2019. The endline evaluation for the 2013-2016 MGD grant will be conducted at the same time as the baseline survey for the 2017-2019 MGD grant. The justification for joining these exercises is largely due to the cost efficiency of such an approach. It will also give the evaluation company a unique understanding of what has been achieved to date, where things currently stand and how to achieve the results required by USDA moving forward. In practice, joining these exercises requires the evaluation team to follow the methodology of the previous baseline survey for the 2013-2016 grant while also devising a new methodology for the 2017-2019 period. This means that survey work for both exercises may diverge slightly, with study cohorts for the endline and baseline not necessarily matching exactly. This is particularly true of control schools as USDA has endorsed the Cambodia CO approach of defining control schools in a different way.74 4.2 Quality Assurance WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for quality assurance, templates for evaluation products and checklists for the review thereof. It is based on the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community, Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to best practice and meet WFP’s quality standards. DEQAS does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. Refer to WFP Directive (#CP2010/001) on Information Disclosure. DEQAS should be systematically applied to this evaluation and the evaluation manager will be responsible to ensure that the evaluation progresses in line with its process steps and to conduct a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their submission to WFP. The CO will designate an Evaluation Manager who has no involvement in the daily implementation of the school meals programme. An internal evaluation committee (IEC) will be chaired by the Country Director (CD) or his/her deputy. The IEC will ensure due process in evaluation management, providing advice to the evaluation focal point and clearing evaluation products submitted to the Chair for approval. The CO will further establish an evaluation reference group of WFP and external stakeholders to review the results of the evaluation to ensure appropriate safeguards for independence and impartiality. WFP’s OEV has developed a quality assurance checklist for its independent evaluations. This includes checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. These checklists will be applied to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs. In addition, a post-hoc quality assessment of the final decentralized evaluation report will be conducted by OEV. 74 Control schools were previously schools within the same province that were not selected for inclusion in the programme. This approach did not work because the overwhelming majority of schools within targeted provinces were included in the programme. Those not selected tended to be urban or peri urban schools which were fundamentally different in terms of performance and quality than rural schools, rendering them poor controls. USDA has now endorsed a decision to select control schools from surrounding non-target provinces to attempt to fix this issue. 57 Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data. 4.3. FY2013-2016 End-line evaluation Purpose & Scope: The Final Evaluation will serve both accountability and learning purposes, assessing whether the project achieved the results outlined in the results framework as well as assessing the projects effectiveness/efficiency of design, implementation, and management, providing lessons learned for stakeholders. The main goal of the evaluation will be to delineate the progress made over the past project period and the likely improvements needed in the coming project period to ensure a smooth handover to government in the coming 5 years. Where USDA support corresponds exactly to the school feeding program cycle, the evaluation will commence from the beginning of the current cycle of USDA support. Where the two do not coincide precisely, the life cycle of the school feeding program as a whole will take precedence (and dates of baselines) in order to ensure that the school feeding program is assessed holistically and USDA’s support as a contribution to it. The evaluation will focus on locations receiving USDAsupport. Key Evaluation Questions: The final evaluation will use the internationally agreed criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The final evaluation will put greater emphasis than the Mid Term Evaluation, conducted in 2015, on the effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the program. The final evaluation is thus focused on accountability (against intended results) and learning (for the continuance of the school feeding in Cambodia). The final evaluation will assess the impact of the program against the following objectives: improved quality of literacy instruction and materials; increased student and teacher attendance; increased student enrolment rates; decrease in student absences; improved knowledge of health, hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation practices; and increased government engagement and capacity building to manage and implement school meals programs. The evaluation will document the trends in literacy achievement from students in program schools and non-program schools, where data is available.75 Preliminary emphasis of the final evaluation would include an examination of: Areas for analysis will include the extent to which the objectives, targeting, choice of activities and of transfer modalities were: Are the activities and transfers appropriate to the needs of the target population? The appropriateness of the program The results of the program Are the activities and transfers aligned with relevant stated national policies, including sector policies and strategies and do they seek complementarity with the interventions of relevant humanitarian and development partners [as well as with other CO interventions in the country, if relevant]? Are the activities and transfers aligned with WFP strategies, policies and normative guidance? While ensuring that differences in benefits between boys and girls from different groups are considered, the evaluation will analyze: The efficiency of the program (attainment of the planned outputs, cost factors, logistics and pipeline performance); The effectiveness of the program (the contribution of outputs to selected program objectives); 75 In line with WFP’s School Feeding Policy WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C. 58 Why and how the operation produced the observed results Sustainability of the project moving forward The intended and unintended impacts of the program (comparing to non-program schools/areas against selected program objectives). MoEYS capacity to manage school feeding moving forward Does the Government of Cambodia have adequate institutional and human resource capacity to assume responsibility for future school meals and scholarship activities? Is the design of the programme suitable to government management? Which procurement models are feasible for government and how can they designed in such a way to ensure accountability and transparency? Is there a functioning government reporting and monitoring and evaluation system? Are community feedback mechanisms in place? The evaluation should generate insights into the main internal and external factors that caused the observed changes and affected how results were achieved. The inquiry is likely to focus, amongst others, on: Internally (factors within WFP’s control): the processes, systems and tools in place to support the operation design, implementation, monitoring/evaluation and reporting; the governance structure and institutional arrangements (including issues related to staffing, capacity and technical backstopping from RB/HQ); the partnership and coordination arrangements; etc. Externally (factors outside WFP’s control): the external operating environment; the funding climate; external incentives and pressures; etc. The implications for this as the programme transitions to MoEYS With a roadmap for national ownership of the school feeding programme already being implemented, the government will begin to gradually assume ownership of the programme over the next 5 years. As such, the evaluation should have a strong focus on various implementation models tested over the course of the project period. It should draw conclusions about the following: Cost effectiveness, efficiency and practicality of each of the models tested Government buy in on each model tested Recommendations on which model may be most appropriate given the findings Evidence that activities are likely to be sustained or scaled up beyond the project life The evaluation should also assess the success of USDA supported initiatives to improve information systems within MoEYS to ensure transparency and cost effectiveness of the programme. 59 Methodology: As with the Mid Term Evaluation, the Final Evaluation will take a program theory approach based on the results framework. It will draw on the existing body of documented data as far as possible. Documents will include previous evaluations of the school feeding program as well as all monitoring data and the Mid Term Evaluation. The evaluation will use mixed methods (including quantitative and qualitative survey techniques) and triangulate information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability of findings. Participatory methods, like focus group discussions and key informant interviews, will be used where relevant to highlight lessons learned and case studies representative of the interventions. Fieldwork will mirror the methodology of the baseline survey, which followed a quasi-experimental design. Before/after comparison will be done through use of the same sampling strategies followed in the 2014 baseline survey76. Through these methodological options, the evaluation will endeavour to analyse questions on impact of project interventions (Key Question 2) Partnership with local research firms is encouraged in order to ensure that there is local knowledge including as a part of the evaluation team. This includes the use of local enumerators for any survey work, ensuring that culturally and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration teams have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries. The final evaluation will be conducted in two (of the three) USDA supported provinces, Siem Reap and Battambang. Kampong Thom province will be excluded from the evaluation given the methodology decided upon by the research agency that handled the baseline survey in 2014. According to the company that handled the baseline survey, Kampong Thom could not be included as only part of the USDA programme was implemented in the province (there was SMP but no THR beneficiaries). Inclusion of this province therefore would complicate the analysis of project outcomes without providing added benefits (given that poverty and educational indicators in Kampong Thom are quite similar to the situation observed in the other two provinces). This complication is a result of the various cohorts that were examined individually in the initial baseline methodology. Excluding Kampong Thom, the final evaluation, as is based on the baseline, will consist of a sample survey among USDA-supported beneficiaries in 531 target schools and communities as well as non-beneficiaries in control schools and communities. Control schools have been “matched” to USDA supported schools according to geographic proximity and socioeconomic characteristics, including poverty status of surrounding communities and school infrastructures (as much as possible). All schools selected for the baseline and midline survey will be visited again for the final evaluation. Upon request of USDA, the evaluation company is also requested to assess Kampong Thom separately, examining the implementation and management of the SMP in Kampong Thom, and determine whether program targets and results were achieved in the province through quantitative analysis of key performance indicators. The research agency or other entity is requested to provide the following resources and outputs: • Conduct a detailed desk review and consultations with relevant staff at MoEYS and Plan International • Develop survey methodology based on baseline and midline surveys and develop the qualitative assessment tools required • Develop an inception report • Undertake data collection • Manage data entry, cleaning and analysis • Draft final evaluation • Final presentation and dissemination of findings Timeline77: The duration of the assignment is from July to October. The specific timetable is shown in Table 1. 76 Case and control schools selected in the 2014 baseline are the same schools to be visited for the endline evaluation. 77 Please note, the baseline survey and mid-term evaluations were conducted in March in 2014 and 2015 so comparability issues need to be assessed. 60 Table 1: Final Evaluation Planning Timeline Activities July August September October Inception phase Field work Data entry Reporting Presentation of final results Deliverable timelines: The main deliverables will be the following: Deliverable Due Date Description Inception Report 7 August 2017 Report should describe the following: Understanding of the project based on project documents and literature review Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan, control group selection. and field procedures Quality assurance plan Communication protocol Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and timing) Data collection tools Data Tools Collection 7 August 2017 Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of data collection tools Final Data Cleaned 15 September Clean and final English versions of: 2017 Draft final evaluation report PowerPoint Presentation quantitative data sets in Microsoft-Excel and any other utilized format (SPSS, STATA, etc) qualitative transcripts, field and interview notes, complete list of key informant interviews and FGDs in Microsoft￾Word document 15 October 2017 The report should be submitted in English addressing all the evaluation objectives and questions listed in the scope of work 15 October 2017 Presentation should include an abbreviated list of evaluation findings that can be presented to relevant internal and external stakeholders 61 Final evaluation report 31 October 2017 Report should include the following sections: • Acknowledgements • List of Acronyms and abbreviations • Table of Contents • Executive Summary (no longer than two pages) • Background (Program description and purpose of baseline) • Methodology and Implementation • Methodology Limitations (strengths and weaknesses) • Results and Findings (in accordance with theobjectives) • Lessons Learned • Recommendations (for future similar project) • Annex: Table of key program indicators from the PMP with updated values in comparison to baseline values (for the midterm and final evaluations) • Annex: Scope of Work for the evaluation • Annex: Inception Report for the evaluation • Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), survey(s), interview protocol(s), focus group discussion protocol(s) 4.4. FY2017-2019 Baseline survey Purpose & Scope: A baseline survey78 will be conducted to establish background demographic and socioeconomic characteristics and benchmark information for outcome indicators and targets as specified in the results section as well as the performance monitoring plan. A key purpose of the baseline survey also includes validating project design assumptions and identifying threats to project implementation, providing the information necessary to ensure better implementation and maximise impacts. The baseline also examines additional outcomes of interest such as food security, nutrition, health, coping strategies, dietary diversity and livelihoods. Individual, household and community level surveys will be conducted, while also utilizing information from School Assessments and regular monitoring checklists. The baseline survey will be conducted in all MGD supported provinces, including Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Battambang. The baseline survey consists of a sample survey among beneficiaries in target schools and non-beneficiaries in control schools. WFP will not attempt to locate control schools within the areas of intervention, as this has historically been difficult given the widespread coverage of the programme in rural areas. In the past, this has resulted in control schools largely being located in peri- urban areas, thus tending to be better off than the average rural school. Thus, control schools will be identified from the nearest unassisted provinces, with the independent evaluator, after a careful review, responsible for identifying them. This decision will hopefully provide more comparability amongst assisted and comparison schools, more effectively delineating the impact of the programme on literacy, health and nutrition. As indicated above, a key component of the baseline survey will be school assessments, conducted at the end or start of every school year. These school assessments help identify gaps and set priorities for programming. Preliminary Key Questions: The baseline serves as a benchmark for the programme activities and targets, providing the evidence-base against which it is possible to measure progress throughout the course of the project period as well as assess achievements and impact during the final evaluation. The survey is designed to address the following questions: • What is the current status of key performance indicators such as literacy, retention, enrolment, attentiveness, attendance, food security, hunger, water and sanitation facilities and health and 78 The baseline survey will be coupled with the end-line survey from the previous MGD grant, maximizing the efficient use of MGD funding. 62 nutrition, taking into account that WFP has been running a school feeding programme in these areas for several years? • What remaining progress must be made to achieve the objectives in literacy and health and nutrition as outlined by USDA? • What issues or factors need to be further invested in to ensure that objectives are met? • What further investments need to be made to ensure the programme is sustainable after USDA assistance has ceased? Methodology: The evaluation team will design the baseline methodology during the inception phase, including the sampling methodology, sample size calculations, and, in coordination with WFP, identification of control schools. The baseline survey should employ quantitative and qualitative data collection methods conducted in parallel. Quantitative data should be collected via a cross-sectional survey of a sub-sample of SFP schools and beneficiaries. Extensive desk research should complement this process. Qualitative data should be collected through focus group discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and provided an independent source of information to triangulate and support the quantitative findings. A quasi￾experimental design is preferred for the baseline and final evaluations. Probability, multi- stage/cluster sampling will be utilized for the survey-based portion of the baseline to select target schools and schools/ respondents. The survey modules utilized include a household and child questionnaire as well as school questionnaire (which were developed in accordance with corporate outcome indicators and guidelines from WFP and USDA). Overall, the baseline methodology should consider the following: Partnership with local research firms is encouraged in order to ensure that there is local knowledge including as a part of the evaluation team. This includes the use of local enumerators for any survey work, ensuring that culturally and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration teams have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries. Adopt a program theory approach based on the results framework agreed with USDA. The evaluation team will review, verify, and elaborate if necessary, the theory of change preparing the framework for the baseline survey. Specifically, this will include government capacity assessments, previous evaluations of WFP￾Cambodia’s School Feeding Program, as well as all monitoring data; Draw on the existing body of documented data, and triangulate this with information to be collected in the field using the quantitative, sampling methodology as well as appropriate qualitative information The adequacy of available CO monitoring data to inform the evaluation needs to be reviewed and the methodology adjusted depending on the findings; Include: a desk review, semi-structured interviews and focus groups (to ensure that a cross section of stakeholders is able to participate so that a diversity of views is gathered) and observation during field visits. The selection of field visit sites will be based on objectively verifiable criteria and may include stratified sampling to ensure a representative selection. Field work should take approximately two weeks, however, the service provider is invited to indicate if there are circumstances that would dictate less or more time required. Exact timing of the field visits will be negotiated with the country office to ensure that there is no overlap with regular country office missions; Timeline79: The duration of the assignment is from July to October. The specific timetable is shown in Table 2. Table 1: Final Evaluation Planning Timeline Activities July August September October Inception phase Field work 79 Please note, the baseline survey and mid-term evaluations were conducted in March in 2014 and 2015 so comparability issues need to be assessed. 63 Data entry Reporting Presentation of final results Deliverable timelines: The main deliverables will be the following: Inception Report 7 August 2017 Report should describe the following: Understanding of the project based on project documents and literature review Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan, control group selection. and field procedures Quality assurance plan Communication protocol Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and timing) Data collection tools Data Collection Tools Final Cleaned Data Draft final evaluation report PowerPoint Presentation Final evaluation report 7 August 2017 15September 2017 15 October 2017 15 October 2017 31 October 2017 Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of data collection tools Clean and final English versions of: quantitative data sets in Microsoft-Excel and any other utilized format (SPSS, STATA, etc) qualitative transcripts, field and interview notes, complete list of key informant interviews and FGDs in Microsoft-Word document The report should be submitted in English addressing all the evaluation objectives and questions listed in the scope of work Presentation should include an abbreviated list of evaluation findings that can be presented to relevant internal and external stakeholders Report should include the following sections: • Acknowledgements • List of Acronyms and abbreviations • Table of Contents • Executive Summary (no longer than two pages) • Background (Program description and purpose of baseline) • Methodology and Implementation • Methodology Limitations (strengths and weaknesses) • Results and Findings (in accordance with the objectives) • Lessons Learned • Recommendations (for future similar project) Deliverable Due Date Description 64 • Annex: Table of key program indicators from the PMP with updated values in comparison to baseline values (for the midterm and final evaluations) • Annex: Scope of Work for the evaluation • Annex: Inception Report for the evaluation • Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), survey(s), interview protocol(s), focus group discussion protocol(s) 5. Organization of the Evaluation 5.1. Evaluation Conduct The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close communication with the WFP evaluation manager. The team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition. The independent evaluation consultants or consulting companies will conduct and report on the evaluation according to USDA and WFP standards: • Evaluators must be financially and legally separate from the participant's organization; • Evaluators must have personal and professional integrity. • Evaluators must respect the right of institutions and individuals to provide information in confidence and ensure that sensitive data cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators must take care that those involved in evaluations have a chance to examine the statements attributed to them. • Evaluators must be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs of the social and cultural environments in which they work. • In light of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender inequality. Evaluations sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Also, the evaluators are not expected to evaluate the personal performance of individuals and must balance an evaluation of management functions with due consideration for this principle. To ensure the independence of the studies and the evaluations the role of Evaluation Manager is distinguished from the role of the independent evaluation team. As a result, the Evaluation Manager cannot take the role of a Study and Evaluation Team member. The main functions and tasks expected from the Evaluation Manager, the Evaluation Team, the WFP COs, the OMB and the USDA FAD are described below. 5.2. Team composition and competencies The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of the Evaluation Manager. The team will be hired by the company following agreement with OEV on its composition. The evaluation team will comprise of a team leader and other team members as necessary to ensure a complementary mix of expertise in the technical areas covered by the evaluation. The size of the team should be devised by the selected evaluation company per the design of the evaluations themselves. The team is encouraged to be a mix of internationals and nationals, utilizing partnerships with local research institutes. This ensures that cultural and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration teams have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries. The evaluation team leader will have strong evaluation skills and experience as well as leadership skills. At least one team member should be familiar with WFP’s FFE work and with the USDA monitoring and evaluation (M&E) policy. The team will be selected during a competitive bidding process in line with WFP’s regulations. 65 The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance of expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas: • Institutional capacity development (with a focus on handover process, cost-efficiency analysis, supply chain management, logistics) • School feeding, education, nutrition and food security • Agro-economics/rural development • Knowledge management • Gender and protection expertise / good knowledge of gender issues within the country/regional context as well as understanding of UN system-wide and WFP commitments on gender. All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience, and expertise or experience in the country or region. All team members should have strong skills in oral and written English. Given that local counterparts and beneficiaries may have limited English, partnership with local organization/firm for field work in Khmer will be recommended. Experience working or partnering with other institutions that have worked in Cambodia The Team leader will have technical expertise in one of the technical areas listed above as well as expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience in leading similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership and communication skills, including a track record of excellent English writing and presentation skills. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, exit debriefing presentation and evaluation report in line with EQAS; The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required and have a track record of written work on similar assignments. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s). 5.3. Security Considerations Security clearance where required will be obtained through the Cambodia CO. As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that: The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground. The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc. 6. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders The Cambodia Country Office management will be responsible for: • Timely provision of comments and inputs on all deliverables. WFP COs will appoint an EM who will serve as the main contact person in the country office for the MGD evaluation, serving as the focal point 66 for compilation of secondary information for the evaluation as well as handling the logistics for the evaluation team. The EM will review main quality assured deliverables and share these with the internal evaluation committee (see below), to solicit comments and inputs and to consolidate and return these to the service provider through the Regional Bureau. The CO EM will facilitate CO participation in teleconferences, briefings and debriefings relating to all deliverables and will also be responsible for inviting external stakeholders to attend dissemination events. • An internal evaluation committee chaired by the CD/Deputy Country Director (DCD) will approve Terms of Reference, budget, evaluation team, inception and evaluation reports, which helps to maintain distance from influence by programme implementers. • Acting as Key Informants and providing documentation on school meals programmes for baseline studies, and evaluations. Relevant country office staff, as required, will be available to act as Key Informants and provide the documentation and data sets required for production of the evaluations. The WFP CO MGD Focal Point will facilitate site visits and meetings for the evaluation mission. Specifically, the CO MGD Focal Point will facilitate contact details, communications and make the necessary contacts with relevant persons for the evaluation but the CO will not facilitate the logistics. • Endorsing all deliverables (draft and final) before submitting these to the Evaluation Reference Group. • Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials as required • Endorsing all deliverables (draft and final) before submitting these to the USDA FAD through the WFP Washington Office. The WFP COs will pre-endorse all deliverables before transmitting these for final approval or comments to the USDA Food Assistance Division (FAD) through the WFP Washington Office. • Provide management response to evaluation findings and recommendations for follow-up action and participate in debriefings and teleconferences to discuss study and evaluation findings. The Regional Bureau will take responsibility to: • Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate. • Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the evaluation subject as relevant, as required. • Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports • Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the recommendations. While the Regional Evaluation Officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other RB relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or comment on evaluation products as appropriate. The WFP Washington Office will be responsible for: • Managing all communication with the USDA FAD relating to Performance Management including USDA FAD provision of comments on deliverables and organization of FAD participation in stakeholder discussions of evaluation findings and project-level follow-up; USDA FAD • Provide inputs and comment on all evaluation draft ToRs. • Participate in an introduction teleconference with the selected independent evaluator prior to evaluation field work for the baseline and final evaluation. • Participate in discussions of findings and recommendations that suggest changes in the project strategy, results frameworks and critical assumptions. Headquarters: Some HQ divisions might, as relevant, be asked to discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and to comment on the evaluation TOR and report. The Office of Evaluation (OEV), through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is responsible for providing access to the 67 outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk function upon request. 7. Communication and budget 7.1. Communication To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. This will be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders and by producing clear deliverables that are written in both English and Khmer: The Evaluation Manager will submit all final deliverables to the WFP Evaluation Committee for approval. Upon approval of the final deliverables, the Evaluation Manager CO will forward them to the Evaluation Reference Group. All communication with USDA will be transmitted via WFP’s Washington Office including invitations to the FAD programme staff to participate in teleconferences to discuss CO management responses to evaluation findings and recommendations. The service provider will deliver an evaluation report. USDA comments on final draft report will be taken into consideration by the evaluation team in addition to comments from external stakeholders in the evaluation reference group. The evaluation team will produce an excel file indicating all comments received and how these were addressed. Exit debriefings will follow all field visits. A final presentation on the overall findings will be delivered to the RBB and the CO. A management response will be provided and the evaluation will be posted for the public. 68 Annex 2: List of intervention and comparison schools 2017-2019 BASELINE INTERVENTION SCHOOLS School Code Provinces District School Name 1 2130307024 Battambang Koah Kralar Prey Sinh 2 2130402007 Battambang Koah Kralar Kauk Poun 3 2130404009 Battambang Koah Kralar Tuol Mates 4 2130408025 Battambang Koah Kralar Boeung Raing 5 2130411012 Battambang Koah Kralar Samrong 6 17030102002 Siem Reap Banteay Srey Khnar 7 17030201025 Siem Reap Banteay Srey Tuol Kruos 8 17030305007 Siem Reap Banteay Srey Ta Koh 9 17030604012 Siem Reap Banteay Srey Sras Khvav 10 17030604027 Siem Reap Banteay Srey Ta Pen 11 17040209006 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Wat Kandal 12 17040510016 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Khnar Thnung 13 17040516020 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Kilometer Ta Chhim 14 17040707030 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Kbal Kduoch 15 17040907071 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Chup Tnot 16 17040910077 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Sop Mong 17 17041001038 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Chamreun Rath 18 17041002039 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Boeung 19 17041003040 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Spean Touch 20 17041106046 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Damrei Chhlang 21 17041107047 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Kanseng 22 17041211052 Siem Reap Chi Kreng Lovea 23 17060403030 Siem Reap Kralanh Lork Ta Ma 24 17060405011 Siem Reap Kralanh Prasat Khnar 25 17060603013 Siem Reap Kralanh Damnak Kchas 26 17060717028 Siem Reap Kralanh Sela Rumduol 27 17060806029 Siem Reap Kralanh Prey Longeang 28 17060903019 Siem Reap Kralanh Sranal 29 17061003023 Siem Reap Kralanh Hun Sen Ta An 30 17061007025 Siem Reap Kralanh Teuk Chum 31 17070207066 Siem Reap Puok Prasat Char 32 17070209004 Siem Reap Puok Peam 33 17070307006 Siem Reap Puok Kdei Run 34 17070803025 Siem Reap Puok Trakeat 35 17071006027 Siem Reap Puok Ta Tork 36 17071010030 Siem Reap Puok Chambak He 37 17071106032 Siem Reap Puok Prasat 38 17071109033 Siem Reap Puok Pradak 39 17090508019 Siem Reap Prasat Bakorng Pongror 69 School Code Provinces District School Name 40 17110114045 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Prasat Sanloang 41 17110601024 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Thlat 42 17110604025 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Kauk Sangker 43 17110807052 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Popel Kandal 44 17111001039 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Boeung Ngot 45 17111002063 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Punleuvichea Chup Sman 46 17111004041 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Phka Rumchek 47 17111005050 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Champei 48 17111008042 Siem Reap Saut Nikum Boeung Vean 49 17130107025 Siem Reap Svay Leu Sre Robang 50 17130201012 Siem Reap Svay Leu Kantuot 51 17130202005 Siem Reap Svay Leu Hun Sen Khnar Krao 52 17130305006 Siem Reap Svay Leu Anlung Thom 53 Siem Reap Kralanh Chhouk Raingsei 54 17140309020 Siem Reap Varin Khnar Phtaul 55 17140311022 Siem Reap Varin Trapaing Krasaing 56 17140404015 Siem Reap Varin Russey Tauch 57 6010505077 Kampong Thom Baray Prey Dom 58 6010611038 Kampong Thom Baray Praing Samrong 59 6011701064 Kampong Thom Baray Tnot Chum 60 6020303059 Kampong Thom Kampong Svay O Ta Sek 61 6020411021 Kampong Thom Kampong Svay Anlung Krasaing 62 6040106026 Kampong Thom Prasat Balaing Kruos 63 6040305004 Kampong Thom Prasat Balaing Kranhoung 64 6040602020 Kampong Thom Prasat Balaing Trach 65 6050112006 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Prasat 66 6050113011 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Veal Veng 67 6050201013 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Kampong Chvea 68 6050406029 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Choam Boeung 69 6050407031 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Tumnup 70 6050508033 Kampong Thom Prasat Sambo Kampong Chheu Teal 71 Kampong Thom Staung Tum Pich 72 6060510022 Kampong Thom Sandann Phtorl Rumpos 73 6060701033 Kampong Thom Sandann Danghet 74 6060707039 Kampong Thom Sandann Svay 75 6070101001 Kampong Thom Santouk Boeung Lovea 74 Kampong Thom Staung Tum Pich 77 6070408015 Kampong Thom Santouk Chi Meak 78 6070503022 Kampong Thom Santouk Trapaing Pring 79 6070806032 Kampong Thom Santouk Chambak Khang Cheung 80 6070906037 Kampong Thom Santouk Chhouk Rumduol Choam Thna 81 6080103002 Kampong Thom Staung Beng 70 82 6080109007 Kampong Thom Staung Sla Kor School Code Provinces District School Name 83 6080201011 Kampong Thom Staung Preah Naingkoal 84 6080202079 Kampong Thom Staung Sampor 85 6080203014 Kampong Thom Staung Srey Rongeut 86 6080303021 Kampong Thom Staung Trapaing Choa 87 6080913054 Kampong Thom Staung Ta Treal 88 6081004057 Kampong Thom Staung Leuk Cheah 89 6081007058 Kampong Thom Staung Prasat 90 6081214069 Kampong Thom Staung Lovea 71 2017-2019 BASELINE COMPARISON SCHOOLS School Code Provinces District School Name 1 2020411043 Battambang Thmar Kaul Tuol Preah Khe 2 2060502002 Battambang Maung Russey Angkrorng 3 10040904029 Kratie Sambo Rovieng 4 3130812058 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor Kampong Samnanh 5 2010203048 Battambang Banan Phnom Chi Hang 6 2120103001 Battambang Sampeuv Loun Angkor Ban 7 2050601010 Battambang Ek Phnom Prey Chas 8 2010703029 Battambang Banan Sneung 9 13030106024 Preah Vihear Choam Ksan Bun Rany Hun Sen Trapaing 10 10030508023 Kratie Prek Prasap Prek Prasap Leu 11 2110606022 Battambang Samlaut Spong Chreuv Krom 12 2070506027 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Kiri Chum 13 2110605024 Battambang Samlaut Phoum Tnot 14 2080602047 Battambang Sangker Sala Trav 15 13030601005 Preah Vihear Choam Ksan Kantuot 16 2120403019 Battambang Sampeuv Loun O Thmar 17 2060902040 Battambang Maung Russey Kuoy Chik Dei 18 3150902014 Kampong Cham Steung Trang Prek Kak 19 2060901039 Battambang Maung Russey Bung Bei 20 10040603038 Kratie Sambo Sre Chhouk 21 13060503014 Preah Vihear Sangkum Thmei Trapaing Raing 22 2020602016 Battambang Thmar Kaul Nikum 23 2070207037 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Tvak 24 2010505045 Battambang Banan Bos Khnor 25 2060409087 Battambang Maung Russey Svay Bopha 26 3150102001 Kampong Cham Steung Trang Areak Tnot 27 2070303016 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Boeung Khtum 28 13060101001 Preah Vihear Sangkum Thmei Chamroeun 29 2070401007 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Treng 30 2050404020 Battambang Ek Phnom Rohal Suong 31 3020207007 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Preus Meas 32 2010205020 Battambang Banan Kampang Keut 33 2110106010 Battambang Samlaut Sre Andaung 2 34 2020804018 Battambang Thmar Kaul Ta Meak Chraneang 35 2021003042 Battambang Thmar Kaul Saray Andet 36 2080905021 Battambang Sangker Dambauk Khpuos 37 10040206039 Kratie Sambo Tonsong Thleak 38 3020304011 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Trapaing Russey 39 2010602022 Battambang Banan Kampeuv 40 3130707027 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor Memeang 41 2120506014 Battambang Sampeuv Loun BoeungTrakuon 42 2120205008 Battambang Sampeuv Loun Chambak 72 School Code Provinces District School Name 43 2060802065 Battambang Maung Russey Kilometer Lekh 4 44 2080906022 Battambang Sangker Tuol Lovieng 45 2080407033 Battambang Sangker Ta Pon 1 46 3020504030 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Por Preng 47 2070206011 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Kandal Stung 48 10040601017 Kratie Sambo Pa Khle 49 13030506017 Preah Vihear Choam Ksan Choam Sre 50 13030104003 Preah Vihear Choam Ksan Phoum Veal Po 51 2070403043 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Chumnap Phas Komathsu 52 3131001036 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor Sosen 53 3020610038 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Sre Preal 54 10030505020 Kratie Prek Prasap Prek Praing 55 2020306026 Battambang Thmar Kaul Prey Dach 56 3150405005 Kampong Cham Steung Trang Chheu Teu 57 2110103021 Battambang Samlaut O Chrab 58 3131309049 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor O Ta Thok 59 13030214034 Preah Vihear Choam Ksan Sen Techo Morokot 60 2010704057 Battambang Banan Chak Angkam 61 3130402019 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor Baray 62 3020701040 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Ta Ong 63 3151201032 Kampong Cham Steung Trang Sopheas 64 3130606025 Kampong Cham Prey Chhor Phoum Thmei 65 10030303012 Kratie Prek Prasap Kampong Kor 66 2060115091 Battambang Maung Russey Boh Pouy 67 3020305012 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Trapaing Lopeuv 68 3020407015 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Phoum 3 69 2020102035 Battambang Thmar Kaul Wat Thmar Kaul 70 2060404046 Battambang Maung Russey Chrey Run 71 10040704044 Kratie Sambo Koh Real 72 2110101001 Battambang Samlaut Sovann Kiri 73 2120402011 Battambang Sampeuv Loun Kandoal 74 3020105003 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Bos Khnor 75 3020110028 Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Phoum 35 76 2050407022 Battambang Ek Phnom Bak Rotes 77 2020303023 Battambang Thmar Kaul Veal Trea 78 2070403043 Battambang Ratanak Mondul Chumnap Phas Komathsu 79 2050703003 Battambang Ek Phnom Koh Chi Vaing 79 2020303023 Battambang Thmar Kaul Veal Trea 73 Annex 3: Methodology for selection of comparison schools The comparison group for the 2017-2019 baseline survey is built by using a Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Schools in the treatment group will be paired to schools located in districts in the table below where no school feeding program is implemented. The independent variables included in the PSM is the percentage of poor households. Thus, effects in schools with poorer students will be compared to those in schools with poorer students. Districts from which control schools are selected Province District Battambang Banan Ek Phnom Maung Russey Ratanak Mondul Samlaut Sampeuv Loun Sangker Thmar Kaul Preah Vihear Sangkom Thmei Chom Ksan Kratie Prek Prasap Sambo Kampong Cham Chamkar Leu Prey Chhor Steung Trang As a new baseline, this survey employs a comparison group constructed by matching techniques (propensity score matching), selected from schools in the above districts in which no support is provided to any schools. It will serve to examine differences at baseline and next endline phases (through the difference-in-differences test), to quantify the change in key outcomes in the presence and in the absence of the intervention. The construction of the Propensity Score for matching comparison schools to treatment schools, as computed with the R software (MatchIt function), has been based on a logit model. The algorithm applied for matching was the nearest neighbour, with replacement (given the small number of available control schools compared to treatment schools, one comparison school can be paired to several treatment schools). The independent variable was the percentage of poor households80. Graphs and tables (see Figure 2) below show how matching has resulted in a control sample in which schools are comparable to treated ones in terms of the independent variables: • Matched data QQ Plots show that control and treatment groups follow a similar distribution (more than all data QQ plots do). • Histograms for Matched control groups are similar to those of Matched treated groups (showing satisfactory regions of common support) • Balance improvement indicators are generally high, all above 67% 80 Percentage Poor HH, as it appears in following graphs and tables. 74 Logistic regression for propensity score estimation !"#$% = 1.0627 ∗ !/"0. !##" 11 − 0.2765 Note: logit regression. The dependent variable (Proba) is 1 if the school is targeted by WFP interventi on, and 0 otherwise. The coefficient represents the contribution of variable percentage of poor house holds (Perc. Poor HH) to the probability that the school is targeted. Deviance Residuals: Min 1Q Median 3Q Max -1.285 -1.127 -1.078 1.221 1.294 Coefficients: Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|) (Intercept) -0.2765 0.1286 -2.150 0.0315 * Perc.Poor HH 1.0627 0.7066 1.504 0.1326 --- Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1 (Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1) Null deviance: 1582.8 on 1143 degrees of freedom Residual deviance: 1580.5 on 1142 degrees of freedom AIC: 1584.5 Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 3 Figure 2. Propensity Score Matching Percent balance improvement Propensity Score X..IDPoor Sample sizes All 602 542 Matched 316 542 Unmatched 286 0 Discarded 0 0 Mean Diff. eQQ Med eQQ Mean eQQ Max 99.8356 68.9951 67.4969 75.2708 99.8340 68.9767 67.5573 75.4431 Control Treated 75 Effect size and error estimations Three provinces Girls / boys Universe Number of schools 580 Number of students (HH) 131,201 Sample Sample size for schools 90 Sample size for HH (6 per school) 540 270 Effect size81 detected at school level 7.368 Effect size82 detected at HH level 8.700 12.4 Sample error83 at HH level 5.160 7.3 81 At school level, effect calculations are based on a paired t-test on the differences in outcome variable (the change Δ = ystart - yend).The Outcome variable proxy used is promotion rate. The estimation is based on a power of 80 %, an error of 5% (Threshold probability for rejecting the null hypothesis, Δ =0). The Standard Deviation of change is estimated through the formula: S(Δ )= S*(2(1-rwithin))1/2, S being the standard deviation of the outcome (promotion rate) in the treatment school population at baseline and rwithin the within-subject correlation of the outcome. For the three provinces together, S(Δ )=14.41, as S= 10.38481915 and rwithin = 0.0367 82 At HH level, effect calculations are based on a Chi-squared statistic (or z test), to compare proportions with a dichotomous outcome between two samples. The estimation is based on a power of 80 % and a 5% error. As outcome variable, we used “Percent of student (girls/boys) who, by the end of grade 6 demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards at USDA supported schools” and its value at baseline for the treatment group, 56%. 83 For each population group, error calculations are based on the estimation of the variance of the dichotomous variables’ estimates from a single survey, i.e. variance of the estimate of the proportion of the population that verifies a particular characteristic. This is done assuming a 95 % confidence interval, and a probability of 50%, which is most conservative value for the true proportion of the population that verifies a particular characteristic. At household levels, the design effect of the cluster sampling is estimated at 1.5. 76 Annex 4: Household questionnaire Household Survey Questionnaire McGovern-Dole School Feeding and Take-home Rations Endline/Baseline Survey for McGovern-Dole My name is ……………. and I work for ……………….. (name) and my colleague is ………………….. and works for.................We are part of a team carrying out a survey to gather information on the Impact of WFP’s interventions in this commune. We would like to ask you some questions about your family. The interview usually takes around 1 hour to complete. Any information that you provide will be kept strictly confidential and will not be shown to other people. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or all of the questions if you want. However, we hope that you will participate since your views are important. Do you have any questions? May we begin now Yes⎕↓ (go to the following questions) No ⎕ →Refused Outcome of interview 1. Completed 2. Partially completed 3. Interview postponed 4. Others SECTION AA – BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION, QUALITY CONTROL AND DATA ENTRY QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION AA01.Questionnaire Number: AA02. Location: Province District Commune Village Name: __________ __________ ___________ ___________ Code: __________ __________ __________ ___________ AA03. Date: |____|____| / |____| ___ | / 2017(Day/Month /Year) AA04. Start time End time ____________________________ AA05. Name of enumerator ______________________ QUALITY CONTROL AA06. Name of team leader ______________________ AA07. Date of checking: |____|____| / |____| ___ | / 2017(Day/Month /Year) AA08. Remark: 77 SECTION AB – BASIC INFORMATION OF INTERVIEWEE AB01. Name of FIRST interviewee AB02. Gender of interviewee (circle) 1 = Male 2 = Female AB03 Relationship to children Refer to Codelist – A03 AB04. Phone number (if any) | | | | | | | | | | | AB05. Name of interviewee (Mother/Main Female) Can be the same as AB01 if the same respondent AB06. Gender of interviewee (circle) 1 = Male 2 = Female AB07 Relationship to children Refer to Codelist – A03 AB08. Phone number (if any) | | | | | | | | | | | AB09. Sample type (circle) 1= Treatment 2= Control AB10. Name of child (sample selection) AB11. Type of benefit received (For treatment only) 1 = SMP+THR 2 = THR 3 = SMP AB12. Name of primary school AB12a. Code of primary school | | | | | | | | | | |_- | | Main respondent will be the household head (or adult male or female); answers for some module will be taken from the mother or main female of the household and school going child (who have been selected from school for household survey). interviewer must record which module is answered by which respondent. 78 PART I: Respondent: The Household head or an adult who knows educational information of all school-age children in the household SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION (All household members who currently live and eat at the household including the respondent) INTERVIEW: RECORD SINGLE ANSWER PER COLUMN PER ROW ID Code Name Relationship to household head (See Code below) Sex 1. Male 2. Female Age (years) Under 10 – all singe Marital Status 1. Single 2. Married 3. Widow/ widower 4. Divorced/ separated 5. Desert Age at First Marriage Can [Name] read and write? 1. Can read and write 2. Can sign only 3. Can read only 4. Cannot read and write Education (highest class completed) (See Code below) Currently attending school? 1. Yes 2. No (skip to A12a) If yes, is this school included in the same selection? (The interviewer will ask the name of the school, and then fill this answer by corroborating the name with the list provided to him/her of sample schools) Yes No Current two main occupations 1st 2nd A01 A02 A03 A04 A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12 a A12 b 01 HHH 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 79 Code of A03. Relationship to household head Code of A09. Education (highest class completed) Code of A12a-A12b. Occupation 1. Household head 2. Husband/wife 3. Son/daughter 4. Brother/Sister 5. Father/mother 6. Uncle/aunt 7. Father/mother- in-law 8. Grandson/daughter 9. Niece/nephew 10. Cousin 11. Other relatives 12. Permanent servant 13. Other non-relatives 14. Son /Daughter-in￾law 15. Grandfather/mother 99. Never attended school 98. Still in grade 1 97. Preschool class (general) 1. Completed grade1 . . . 12. Completed grade12 14. Vocational trainings 16. BA/BSc pass 18. MA/MSc and above 1.Farming activities 2.Pastoral activities 3.Fishing/ activities 4.Agricultural labour (daily wage) 5.Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 6.Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith/hair cutter/ cobbler/carpenter/mason/plumber/electrician/motor mechanic 7.Government officer 8.Private sector employee/worker (monthly / bi-monthly salary) 9. NGO worker 10.Driver 11. Other salaried worker 12. Doctor/engineer/ lawyer 13. Teacher 14. Religious worker 15. Midwife/nurse 16.Food processing 17. Handicrafts 18.Sand harvester 19. Charcoal production 20.Brewing 21. Petty trader/ Vendor 22.Business/shop 23.Medium/ large scale trader 24.Contractor 25.Student 26.Housewife 27.No occupation Exchange Rate&Gold price 1 USD = 4,000 Riels 1 Thai Baht = 132 Riels Gold (kilo) = 160 USD/Chi 80 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION B1: EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (Children aged 6-11 years old OR anyone in Grades 1-6) TO BE FILLED FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS who are 6-11 years old, or in Grades 1-6 (Please copy I.D. code from family list in SECTION A carefully) ID Code At what age (in years) did [NAME] start school? (write 999 and skip to B1.10a if never attended school) Can [Name] read or write a simple sentence? 1. Yes 2. No If [NAME] is currently attending school If not currently attending school If [NAME] never attended school Highest completed grade # of days attended school last week / Last week of school year Did [NAME] receive any external (non￾household) support for this school year? If yes, name the most important (See Code below, allow multiple) Can you give 2 important reasons why [NAME] attend this school (See Code below) Do you plan on enrolling [NAME] in school next year? 1. Yes 2. No Reason for stopping school (name up to 2 reasons) (See Code below) Can you give 2 main reasons why [NAME] never attended school? (See Code below) 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B1.6 B1.7a B1.7b B1.8 B1.9a B1.9b B1.10a B1.10b Code of B1.6. Name of external support Code of B1.7a-B1.7b. Reasons of attend school Code of B1.9/1.10a-B1.9/1.10b. Reasons for stopping/never attending school 1. Financial 2.Food 3.Other in-kind 4. No support at all 1.Good teachers 2.Parents’encouragement 3.The child is very devoted to studies 4.Meal is available at school 5. The teachers teach very well and help my child in studying 6.Boarding facilities in the school 7.Good academic performance of the child 8.The school has very good facilities (classrooms, toilets, drinking water etc.) 1.The child doesn’t want to study 2. The child did not do well in school and dropped out 3. No suitable school available/school is too far 4. No teacher/Supplies 5. Cannot afford the cost of schooling due to poverty 6. The child must engage in paid work to contribute to household income 7. The child must help with household chores (taking care of children/elderly 8. The child is disable and not eligible to attend a regular school 9. The child has been suffering from long term illness (over 3 months) 81 9.Take home rations 10. No meal is offered at school 11. I want my child to get an education 11. Already completed desired schooling 12. The school is located near to my house 10.Other 12. The child got married and dropped out of school 13. Going to school is not safe for the child (e.g. risk of being harassed on way to school) 14. Other (specify) 82 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION B2: EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (Continue) B2.1. Now we will ask you if you have considered the following factors when you made a decision about your child’s schooling (ask about the sample child). 1. Very important 2. Imporant 3. Not important 4. I did not consider this factor INTERVIEWER: USE SHOWCARDS Reasons Description Answer B2.1.1. The school is close to my house B2.1.2. Good quality of education at the school B2.1.3. Good quality of infrastructure at the school (e.g. classroom, toilets, drinking water) B2.1.4. Good future career/livelihood prospect of the child if s/he finishes the school - B2.1.5. My child need to do household chore rather than going to school (e.g. taking care of siblings/elderly at home) B2.1.6. Scholarships received for continuing school B2.1.7. Hot breakfast at school (school feeding program) B2.1.8. B2.1.9. Costs of schooling (e.g. fees, uniforms and books) B2.1.10. Concern about security of the child when traveling to school (e.g. personal security risks as a result of ethnic conflict, civil disturbances, physical violence (harassment, rape, corporal punishment at school B2.1.11. Long term illness/disability of the child B2.1.12. Others (please specify) B2.2. Please identify 3 benefits of primary education? 1. *Do not read the options first. Record the answers. (Please _________________ probe as much as possible) ________ My child will learn to read and write 2. Primary education will make my child a good human being _________________ Primary education will help him/her to continue studying in upper _______ classes 3. Primary education will provide my child with valuable life skills _________________ Primary education will help to get a good job ________ Primary education will help him/her to be good farmer Primary education will help my child to become a better father/mother when they are adult Primary education will open up more opportunities in the future Others (specify) 83 98. Don’t know 99. No benefit B2.3. How does your child travel to primary school (the most often)? _________________ _________________ 1. Foot __ 2. Bicycle 3. Any carts 4. Motorcycle 5. Koyun 6.Others (specify) B2.4. How long does it take to go to school from home if the child walks? _________________ _________________ 1. Less than 15min __ 2. 15min to 30 min 3.30min to 45min 4. 45min to 1hr 5. More than 1 hr B2.5 How much does it cost to go to school (one way) if the child uses public transport (most often)? _________________ _________________ **If respondent never uses public transport, identify the __ most common public transport in this area. In USD (99 = N/A if the school is too close to use a public transport) 84 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION C1 – HOUSEHOLD INCOME Now I would like to know about income earned by household members in the last 12 months (Respondent: main adult or HHH). Member ID Code (from section A) Income activity (see codes below) In the past 12 months, how many months was income earned from this activity? Which months? List months in below col (see code below) How much was earned from this activity? (total of 12 month, in US Dollar) C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5 Total C1.2. Code of income activities C1.4. code of months 1. Farming activities 2. Pastoral activities (pig, cow, chicken) 3. Fishing/ activities 4. Agricultural labour 5. Non-agricultural labour 6. Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith/ cutter/cobbler/carpenter/mason plumber/electrician/motor mechanic 7. Government officer 8. Private sector employee hair 15. Midwife/nurse 16. Food processing 17. Handicrafts 18. Sand harvester 19. Charcoal production 20. Brewing 21. Pretty trader 22. Business/shop 23. Medium/ 1 = January 2 = February 3 = March 4 = April 5 = May 6 = June 7 = July 8 = August 9 = September In the last 12 months, how much did your household members receive from the following activities Activity C1.6 Annual Cash Income (in US 85 C1.6.1. Agricultural product sale C1.6.2. Animal sale C1.6.3. Animal product sale (milk, eggs…) C1.6.4. THR sale C1.6.5 total Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION C1 – HOUSEHOLD INCOME (continue) In the last 12 months (from August 2016-July 2017) did your household receive any income/assistance from the following sources, in addition to your salary/household production sales? Description Estimated Earning C1.7. Income in Cash C1.8. Cash Non￾1.Remittance from foreign country 2.Remittance within home country 3.Rice and cash from WFP (THR) 4. Assistance (cash or kind) from International 5. Assistance from government 6. Interest earning/periodic payment received from collective 7. Interest earning from Credit (money lent to others) 8. Rice and cash from others 9. total C.2 Describe the main materials used in the house: (INTERVIEWER TO OBSERVE AND RECORD BELOW) 2 Wall RECORD CODE ________________________ [1] Hay/straw/jute stick/palm leaf/plastic [2] Bamboo 3 Roof RECORD CODE ________________________ [3] Mud [4] Taly/tiles 4 Floor RECORD CODE [5] Tin [6] Cement/brick /rod [7] Wood 86 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION C2 – HOUSEHOLD ASSTES Please list # of the following assets owned by the household (m2= 0.0001 ha, Ar= 0.01 ha, Kong=0.09 ha, 1Rai = 0.16 ha) Productive Assets Non-Productive Assets C2.1 Assets C2.2 1=Yes 2= No C2.2 # of assets C2.1 Assets C2.2 1=Yes 2= No C2.2 # of assets owned 01. Up land (in ha) 18. Television 02. Rice land (in 19. Radio 03. Rice miller 20. Bicycle 04. Hand hammer 21. Motorbike 05. Plough 22. Car 06. Hoe 23. Cell phone 07. Axe 24. Bed 08. Cart 25. Table 09. Hand tractor 26. Chair 10. Tractor 27. Metal cooking pot 11. Water pump 28. Water collecting bin 12. Sewing machine 29. Water storage bin 13. Buffalo 30. Jewelry 14. Cow 31. Gold 15. Pig 16. Chicken Others (specify) __________________ 17. Cash savings (in USD) 32. Total 18. Generator Others ___________ 87 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. MODULE D: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON EDUCATION Now I would like to ask you aboutthe expensesrelated to education. Please tell me how much your household spent on each of the listed items in last one day/month/year? (All children in the household) D1. D2. Items D3. Amount D4. Frequency of Codes [1] Daily [2] Monthly [3] Quaterly [4] Yearly [5] One time Serial (US Dollar) expense (see code) 1. Admissions / Registration 2. Materials and books 3. Extra Tuition fees 4. Travel to/from School 5. Food, snacks, water at school 6. Uniforms 7. Other expenses related to education 88 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION E1 – FOOD AND SMALL NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES How much did your household approximately spend on the following items in the last 30 days? *Record as 0 if none; if bought product for whole year: divide by 12 Items Approximate value in US Dollars (in cash) Not include your own product Approximate value in US Dollars (in credit) E1.a E1.b E1.c E1.1 Paddy / Rice E1.2 Other cereals & staples E1.3 Pulses/beans/nuts E1.4 Vegetables E1.5 Fruits E1.6 Meat, fish, eggs E1.7 Cooking oil E1.8 Other food items E1.9 Firewood /cooking fuel E1.10 Energy (e.g., battery, gas) E1.11 Cigarettes/Alcohol E1.12 Drinking water E1.13 Personal care (e.g. soap, toothpaste, razor, sanitary napkins, hair cut) E1.14 Communication (cell phone, phone card) E1.15 Total 89 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION E2 – NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES How much did your household approximately spend on the following items in the last 6 months? Items Approximate value in US Dollars in cash) Not include your own product Approximate value in US Dollars (in credit) E2.a E2.b E2.c E2.1 Healthcare for adults and child. More than 5years old E2.2 Healthcare for children Less than 5 years old E2.3 Transportation (maintenance and repair, gasoline and diesel for own transportation, moving fee) E2.4 Clothing and footwear E2.5 Debt repayment E2.6 Sending remittances E2.7 House construction/maintenance including electricity & water E2.8 Shop/trade/commerce E2.9 Farming (seeds, fertilizers, labor costs…), Livestock breeding (vaccines, fodder…) E2.10 Fish breeding, fishing E2.11 Celebrations/social events/donation E2.13 Total E3.1 Have you ever encountered difficulties covering the expense? 1. Yes, usually 2. Yes, sometimes 3. No, never 90 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION F1 – REDUCED COPING STRATEGIES INDEX During the last 7 days, how many days did your household have to employ one of the following strategies to cope with a lack of food or money to buy it? (READ OUT EACH STRATEGY) Frequency (# of days from 0 to 7) F1.1 Relied on less preferred, less expensive food | | F1.2 Borrowed food or relied on help from friends or relatives | | F1.3 Reduced the number of meals eaten per day | | F1 4 Reduced portion size of meals | | F1.5 Reduction in the quantities consumed by adults/mothers for young children | | Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION F2 – LIVELIHOOD COPING STRATEGIES (SHOWCARD) F.2. In the past 30 days, have there been times where you did not have enough food or enough money to buy food? 1= Yes  CONTINUE 2= No  SKIP TO F3 IF YES: In the past 30 days, did you do any of the following things in order to get food or money to buy food? 1= Yes 2 = No F2.1 Sold household goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, television, jewelry, clothes, utensils etc.) | | F2.2 Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing machine, wheelbarrow, bicycle, ploughing tools, seeds etc.) | | F2.3 Reduced essential non-food expenditures such as education, healthcare, etc. | | F2.4 Spent savings | | F2.5 Borrowed money / food from a formal lender / bank or informal sources | | F2.6 Sold house or land | | F2.7 Withdrew children from school | | F2.8 Illegal income activities (theft, prostitution, etc.) | | F2.9 Sent an adult household member to sought work elsewhere (regardless of the usual seasonal migration) | | F2.10 Begged | | 91 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION F3 – HOUSEHOLD HUNGER SCALE F3.1In the past 30 days, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your house because of lack of resources to get food? 0 = No (Skip to F3.2) 1 = Yes F3.1a How often did this happen in the past 30 days? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than 10 times) F3.2 In the past 30 days, did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food? 0 = No (Skip to F3.3) 1 = Yes F3.2a How often did this happen in the past 30 days? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than10 times) F3.3 In the past 30 days, did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything at all because there was not enough food? 0 = No (Skip to Section G) 1 = Yes F3.3a How often did this happen in the past 30 days? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times) 2 = Sometimes (3–10 times) 3 = Often (more than 10 times) Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. MODULE G: BENEFITS OF SCHOOL FEEDING Benefits of the child G1. How many days in the last month did your child attend MORNING SESSIONS in school? Insert number of days_____________ (answer should be less than 30 days) IF 0 = SKIP TO G3 G2. Did your child receive a meal everyday during each of these sessions? 1 = yes 2 = No G3. Does your child bring part of the food from school to share with the other members of the household when he/she received SMP? (SHOWCARD) 1 = Yes, always 2 = Most days, 3-4 days per week 3 = Sometimes, 1-2 days per week 4 = Rarely 5 = Never G4. Does school feeding benefit your child? (Record all mentioned, Showcard) 1 = Child gets food 2 = Child is more active/attentive 3 = Child is learning better 4 = Child is healthier 92 5 = Child has more opportunity 6 = Students’ shirking of school using excuses of illness reduced Other 7 = No, it does not benefit my child G5. Does school feeding benefit the Households 1 = No benefit (Record all mentioned) (showcard) 2 = School feeding saves time for parents 3 = School feeding saves food/money for household 4 = School feeding saves time for household skipping morning cookng Other Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION H: OTHER EFFECTS OF SCHOOL FEEDING H01.When your children go to school, does anyone in your household save time? 1. Yes 2.No (Skip to H02) H01a.If yes, who? 1. Men 2. Women; 3. Both H01b. If yes, from which activity? (More than 1 answer) 1. Preparing food; 2. Taking care of children 3. Both; 4. Other H01c. If yes, how much time do you save? (Hours per day) H01d. If yes, how do you use this time? (You can choose maximum 2 activities) 1 = Household chores 2 = Rest/Leisure 3 = Income-earning activity 4 = Farm/livestock work 5 = Child care 6 = Other 1st___________________________________ 2nd___________________________________ H02.When your children attends school, is it time consuming for anyone in your household? 1. Yes 2.No (Skip to Module J) H02a.If yes, who? 1. Men; 2. Women; 3. Both H02b. If yes, from which activity must be done? (choose 2 activities) 1. Taking the child to school 2. Helping the child with the home work 3. Meeting with the teachers/school staff 4. Preparing school material (books/clothes) 5. Doing tasks that are usually done by the child 6. Others 1st___________________________________ 2nd___________________________________ H02c.If yes, how much time do you consume? (Hours per day) 93 Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. MODULE I: PARENTS/COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAM I1. Are you a member of the PTA (Parent Teacher Association)? 1 = yes 2 = No I2. Are you a member of the School Feeding Committee (SFC)? 1 = yes 2 = No I3. Are you a member of the School Management Committee (SMC)? 1 = yes 2 = No I4. Are you a member of the Mothers’ Committee (MC)? 1 = yes 2 = No I5. How many times did you visit the school last year (excluding bringing the child to school)? # of times Part-2: Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent. PART 2: RESPONDENT: The main female member of the household or an adult who was involved in the household food preparation and present and ate food together with the household members in the past week (starting from yesterday) SECTION K1 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 1(Yesterday) K1.1 K1.2 K1.3 # of meal Frequency This # compared to usual time over the last 6 months Quantity eaten per meal compared to usual time over the last 6 months Codes for K1.2 & K1.3: 1= Less 2= Same 3= more 01. How many meals were eaten by adults (aged >=15) living in your household yesterday? (e.g. breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper) 02. How many meals were eaten by children (aged less than 15) living in your household yesterday? 94 Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION K2 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 2 Please tell me how many days in the past week (beginning from yesterday) your household has eaten the following foods and what was the source of these foods (includes meals prepared or bought by household and food taken away from home by all or most of household members such as having food at restaurant, wedding party etc. and NOT including school meals eaten by the child at school). Record “0” for items not eaten over the last 7 days. Record “99” for second source if only one source. NB: If less than 15g of fish or meat shared by household, record as Condiments codes for K2.2 & K2.3 1= Own production 6= Exchange of items for food 2= Fishing, hunting, 7= Received as gift gathering 3= Purchase 8= Food aid as part of the SMP /THR 4= Borrowed 9= Other (specify) 5= Exchange of labour for food K2.0. Food items K2.1. # of days eaten over the last 7 days K2.2. Main source (Majority of the source) K2.3. Second source 01. Rice Maximum 7 02. Maize 03. Bread 04. Cassava 05. Sweet potato, potato, yam 06. Bean, groundnut, other pulse 07. Fish 08. Other aquatic animal (frog…) 09. Meat (beef, pork, chicken) 10. Wild meat 11. Egg 12. Vegetable (incl. leafy) 13. Fruit 14. Sugar/sweet 95 15. Vegetable oil, animal fat 16. Milk product 17.Prahok 18. Condiments or seasoning Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION K3: DIETARY DIVERSITY For Control Group only K3.1. Do your children have breakfast every day? 1. Yes 2. No K3.1a. If yes, what does [SAMPLED CHILD] usually eat for breakfast? SHOWCARD 1=rice; 2 = bread 3= fresh fish; 4=dried fish 5=meat; 6=vegetables 7=porridge; 8=noodles 9 = sweet desserts; 10 = others (specify) (allow for multiple) For Treatment Group only (SMP or SMP+THR) K3.2. During July this year, did SAMPLED CHILD] have breakfast when it was not offered at the school? 1. Yes 2. No K3.2a. If yes, what did SAMPLED CHILD] eat? SHOWCARD 1=rice; 2 = bread 3= fresh fish; 4=dried fish 5=meat; 6=vegetables 7=porridge; 8=noodles 9 = sweet desserts; 10 = others (specify) (allow for multiple) Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent. Benefit Received (for treatment group only, and if you are asking control group please skip to section M) (Complete below table if respondent receive benefit from WFP) – CASE ONLY [Respondent: Head of the household or mother of the child who was picked in school (1th-4thgrade) through the random sampling process] K3.3. How many years have you received school meals or THRs? (# of years) (0 if none) K3.3a. SMP K3.3b. THR______________________ K3.3b. How many time do you receive THR from November 2016 to July 2017? ………………………..times [Only if they receive THR] How many household members benefits Quantity of food received each time (taking into account THR only) (in kg) Who do you share your THR with? Do you sell any of your THR? If you sell your THR, what do you Do you use iodized salt for your family? If yes, do you have it now? 1. Yes Do you use vitamin A fortified oil for If yes, do you have it now? 96 from THR? (#) Rice Oil Beans (See Code below) (See Code below) use that money for? (See Code below) 1. Yes 2. No 2. No your family? 1. Yes 2. No 1. Yes 2. No K3.4 K3.5a K3.5b K3.5c K3.6 K3.7 K3.8 K3.9 K3.10 K3.11 K3.12 Code of K3.6. Who do you share your THR? Code of K3.7. Do you sell any of your THR? Code of K3.8. If you sell your THR, what do you use that money for? 1. Other household members 2. Family outside the household 3. Friends/neighbours/other 4. I don’t share my THR 1. Yes, usually 2. Yes, sometimes 3. No, never 1. To buy food 5. To invest in a 2. To buy other productive activity household/personal 6. To meet education items expenditures 3. To buy clothes 7. Other 4. To meet health related expenditures Respondent will be HHH or mother. Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION L: CHILD HEALTH Respondent: head of household, or mother, referring to child who was picked in school by random sampling process We would now like to know health status and illnesses ID code (Copy from SECTION A) Age (in years) Has the child been dewormed in the past 6 months? 1. Yes, at school 2. Yes, at the health center 3. Yes, bought it 4. No Has the child suffered from any illness in the last 2 weeks? (2 weeks of the last school year if interview during the vacation) 99. No illness How many days in the last two weeks ((2 weeks of the last school year if interview during the vacation) has the child been unable to attend school due to illness? (number of days) 1. Diarrhea 2. Vomiting 3. Fever 4. Cough 5. Measles 6. Other L01 L02 L03 L04 L05 97 Respondent will be mother of the child. Please write the ID code of the respondent. [The following questions are to be answered by Mother of the child selected through the sampling process or head of household] L1. Have you ever heard of night blindness (local term)? 1.Yes 2. No L2. Does any of your children have difficulty seeing in dim light (For instance at dusk or in a dark place)? 1.Yes 2. No L3. Have you ever received a vitamin A capsule like this one for your child? 1.Yes 2. No (Skip to L5) L4. If yes, how many months ago did your child take the last capsule? 1. Less than 6 months 2. More than 6 months 98. Don’t know L5. What kind of toilet facility does your household use? (showcard) 1. Flush latrine/toilet with water 2. Traditional pit latrine 3. Partly open pit (no roof or wall) 4. River/pond side 5. Bush/open field 6. Other (specify) L6. What is the household’s main source of drinking water? (showcard) 1. Pond/river/canal 2. Open ring well 3. Closed ring well 4. Openspring 5. Hand pump 6. Tapped water 7. Rain water 8. Bought water 9. Hand dug (no ring) 10. Other L7. Can you say three important health or hygiene practices? (don’t read the answer) 1.Bathing 2. Hand washing 3.Wound care 4.Clean toilets 5. Clean water 6. Clean food before cooking 7. Eating healthy food 8. Don’t know 9. Others 1. 2. 3. L8. Can you tell me your main source of information on good health practices? (don’t read the answer) (choose only one answer) 1. Poster 2. TV 3. Radio 4. Health center 5. School 6. Don’t know 7. Other Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent. MODULE M: MORBIDITY (Questions to be asked about members aged 6-11 years OR anyone in Grades 1-6: M1. ID M2. First Name (Please bring all members from Module A between 6 and 11 yrs old or in Grades 1- 6) M3. Has [NAME] suffered from any illness in the last 1 month? (if school is closed, refer to the whole month of August) M4. What did [NAME] suffer from? M5. How many days in the last1 month [NAME] suffered from this illness? (if school is closed, refer to the whole month of August) M6. How many days has [NAME] been unable to go to school? (if school is closed, refer to the whole month of August) Illness Code: 1= Fever 2= Cough or colds 3= difficulty in breathing 4= Diarrhoea 5= Fever with chills like malaria 6=Worm 7= Skin infections 8=Stomach-ache 9= Measles Others(Specify) 98 Part-3: Respondent will be the school going child (the sample child) of the household. Respondent will be the school going child. Please write the ID code of the respondent. SECTION N3 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 3 (DIETARY DIVERSITY) Please tell us the number of meals that you ate yesterday during day and night and even you eat outside. Please start with morning meal. N3.1. Please, insert day of week (see codes below): 1- Monday 2- Tuesday 3- Wednesday 4- Thursday 5- Friday 6- Saturday 7- Sunday Was the food they ate part of SMP or THR? N3.2. Id code of child (from SECTIONA01): Source N3.3a. Breakfast 1. Yes 2. No N3.3b. Snack 1. Yes 2. No N3.3c. Lunch 1. Yes 2. No N3.3d. Snack 1. Yes 2. No N3.3e. Dinner 1. Yes 2. No N3.2a. Did the child eat this yesterday? (If No, Skip N3.2.1 & N3.2.2) N3.2.1. it was not part of SMP or THR N3.2.2. It was part of SMP or THR After finishing answering the above question, please fill info about group of food depending on the above answer. For group of food that is not mentioned please ask the question: N3.4 Did the child eat this kind of food yesterday? Code 1. Yes (it was not part of SMP or THR) 2. Yes (it was part of SMP or THR) 3. Yes (Both SMP and THR) 4. Yes (SMP/THR and Family food) 4. No 98. Don’t know Food Group Description N3.4 N3.4.1. Cereals Corn/maize, rice, wheat or any other grains or foods made from these (e.g., bread, noodles, porridge or other grain products or pastes or other locally available grains) N3.4.2. Vitamin a rich vegetables and tubers Pumpkin, carrots or sweet potatoes that are orange inside + other locally available vitamin-A rich vegetables, yellow vegetable N3.4.3. White tubers and roots White potatoes, white sweet potatoes, taro, white yams, white cassava, or other foods made from roots N3.4.4. Dark green leafy vegetable Dark green/leafy vegetables, including wild ones + locally available vitamin-A rich leaves such as amaranth, cassava leaves, kale, spinach etc. N3.4.5. Other vegetable Other vegetables (e.g. tomato, onion, eggplant...), including wild N3.4.6. Vitamin A rich fruits Ripe mangoes, cantaloupe, ripe papaya, other orange or yellow N3.4.7. Other fruits Other fruits, bananas, including wild fruits N3.4.8. Organ meat (ironic) Liver, kidney, heart or other organ meats or blood-based foods N3.4.9. Flesh meats Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, dog, wild game, chicken, duck, or 99 N3.4.10. Eggs Chicken, duck, guinea hen or any other egg N3.4.11. Fish Fresh or dried fish or smoke fish, seafood or shellfish, snail, frog N3.4.12. Legumes, nuts, and Beans, peas, lentils, tofu, nuts, seeds or foods made from these N3.4.13. Milk and milk Milk, cheese, yogurt or other milk products N3.4.14. Oils and fats Oil, fats or butter added to food or used for cooking N3.4.15. Sweets Sugar, honey, sweetened condensed milk, sweetened soda or sugary foods such as chocolates, candies, cookies and cakes N3.4.16. Spices, condiments, beverages Spices (black pepper, salt, chili powder), condiments (soy sauce, hot sauce), coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages OR local product: sour palm juice Respondent will be the school going child. Please write the ID code of the respondent. Benefit Received (for treatment group only) [Only if they receive SMP] Answer N3.5. Do you eat all your school meal every school day (morning sessions)? (The respondent is the child that eats hot meal at school) 1. Yes 2. No. It’s not available everyday during morning sessions 3. No, it’s not offered to me 4. No, I don’t like it 5. No, I don’t have time to eat 6. No, I’m not hungry 7. No, I like to take some of it home to my family 8. Other………………… N3.6. How often do you bring home your school meal (not THR) to your family) when you receive it? 1. Everyday 2. 3-4 days a week 3. 1-2 days a week 4. Rarely 5. Never 100 Annex 5: School assessment School Assessment Questionnaire SY 2015-2016 for Education Programme I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Date: ………………… Start time: ……… End time: 2. Interviewer name:................................................................Tel: 3. Interviewee name: ………………… …………… 4. Sex: ○M ○F 5. Interviewee is: 6. Interviewee Tel: ○School director/Deputy Director ○School …………………………………………………………… …… Administrator ○ Head Teacher 7. Province: 11. School name: ………………………………………………… ………………… …………………………………………………………… 8. District: 12. School code: ………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………… ………………… … 9. Commune: 13. School type: ………………………………………………… ……………… ○ SMP alone ○ SMP+THR ○ THR alone ○ Control 10. Village: ………………………………………………… ………… Please provide information on school mapping 14. Number of primary-school-age (6-11) children in the school’s catchment area during this school year, 2016-2017 Total: Female: *confirm with school census record ……… ……… ……… ……… *the number of eligible students in catchment area may be more or less than the actual number of enrolled … … students 14.a. Number of students aged 6 to 11 years in this school. Total: Female: ……… ……… ……… ……… *confirm with school records together with interviewee … … 14.b. Number of students aged over 11 years in this school during school year (2016- 2017) Total: ……… Female: ……… 101 102 17. Number of students in this school year, 2016-2017 by grade and gender 17.a. Grade 17.b. Number of enrolled student 17.c. Numbe r of promote d student 17.d. Number of repeated student 17.e. Number of dropped out student Total Female Total Female To tal Fe ma le Total Female 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Disability Data information 1 2 3 4 5 6 Improved literacy of school- age children 19. Has your school conducted the national standard test of reading comprehension for grade 6 students in this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No (skip to Q20) ○ N/A (skip to Q20) 19.a. Have you received the results of the above test? ○ Yes ○ No (skip to Q20) 19.b. Number of students tested Total: Female: ………………… ………………… 19.c. Number of students passed Total: Female: ………………… ………………… II. IMPROVED QUALITY OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION 103 20. Number of teachers and contractual teachers for grade 1-6 in this school year, 2016-2017 (exclude school director, even though s/he also taught) Total teachers from grade 1- Female: 6: ………………… ………………… 21. Number of contractual teacher if any Total: ………………… Female: ………………… 22. Number of full time equivalent teaching staff in this school year, 2016-2017 (Include school director if s/he also taught) (can be administrator that can teach sometime) 3.a. Total teachersfrom grade Female: 1-6: ………………… ………………… 23. Does the school have attendance sheets/ books in this school year, 2016-2017? (Please observe or ask school director to show it) 23.1. Number of classroom that have attendance sheets/books in this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No …………………………….classrooms 24. Total number of studying days for this school year, 2016-2017 (preparation days of teacher) ………………… days 25. Attendance of grade 1-6 Teachers in this school year Nov 2016- July 2017 (LOGIC: check with Q20) 25.a. Teacher (one teacher per line) 25.b. Sex (1. M and 2. F) 25.c. Number of teaching days 25.d. Number of absent days 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 104 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. Does the school have: (Multiple answers) □ School development plan □ Safe school environment (school gate, fence, and fence around pond (if applicable) at a minimum. Additional features may include slope/ ramp for disabled students, and playground) □ Record and reporting system □ Don’t have any above 27. Number of teachers using the national literacy curriculum and the related instructional materials last school year. a. Total: b. Female: III. IMPROVED SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE (Please observe and check with relevant people) 28. Number of Grade 1-6 classrooms available in use in this school year, 2016-2017 ………………… classroom(s) 29. How many Grade 1-6 classrooms have sufficient literacy instructional materials for effective instruction in this school year, 2016- 2017? Note for enumerator: - Alphabet poster (reading related material) - Numeric (mathematics related material) - Picture with description (ie. Human structure, animal) ………………… classroom(s) 105 - Science related poster (observe the class) 30. Did the school receive school materials or learning package in this school year, 2016- 2017? ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A 31. Did the school receive stationery package in this school year, 2016-2017? (Folders, hole￾punchers, calculators, whiteboards, and other non-food items…) ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A 32- 39. USE OBSERVATION SHEET IV. INCREASED ENGAGEMENT OF LOCAL AND COMMUNITY GROUPS 40. Does the school have a Local School Feeding Committee (LSFC), or School Support Committee (SSCs)? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 41) 40.a. Is it functioning and contributing to the school? ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A 40.b. Number of parents who are members of LSFC, or SSCs Total: ………………… Female: ………………… 40.c. Has there been any training for LSFC/SSC on the importance of education? ○ Yes ○ No 40.d. How many times were awareness-raising events/trainings conducted per school year? ○ 1 time ○ 2 times ○ More than 2 times ○ None (Skip to Q 41) 40.e. When were awareness-raising events/trainings conducted? (Multiple answers) □ At beginning of the school year □ At village meeting □ Other, specify ……………… 41. Are there public-private partnerships formed in this school? (eg: farmer association HGSF) ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 42) 41.a. If yes, how many members? 41.a.1. Number of groups: …………. 41.a.2. Total: …………… Female: …………… 106 42. How much did community/ parents contribute to 42.a. In cash: …………………………………………… the school in this school year, 2016-2017? USD/ year 42.b. In kind: …………………………………………… USD/ year V. INCREASED USE OF HEALTH DIETARY PRACTICES 43. Does the school have soap and water at a hand washing station in this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 45) 43.a. Did students use hand washing station? How often? ○ Yes, always ○ Yes, often ○ Yes, sometimes ○ Yes, rarely ○ Did not use ○ Don’t know 44. How long does the school have current soap supply in stock (hand and/or dish soap)? ○ Less than 1 week ○ 1 month to 3 months ○ 1-2 weeks ○ 4 months to 6 months ○ 2-3 weeks ○ Whole school year ○ 3-4 weeks ○ No soap 44.a. Who provided soaps for hand washing to school? (Multiple answers) □ PB budget □ Other NGOs □ WFP/PLAN □ Companies □ Community □ Other, specify ………………… □ Charity persons 44.b. How frequently does the school buy or receive soap? ○ Weekly ○ Every 1-3 months ○ Every 2-3 weeks ○ Every 4-6 months ○ Every 3-4 weeks ○ Annually ○ Monthly ○ Never 45. Did the school receive kitchen utensil packages? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q V.3.c) 45.a. If yes, who provided kitchen utensil packages? (Multiple answers) □ PB budget □ Other NGOs □ WFP/PLAN □ Companies □ Community □ Other, specify ………………… 107 □ Charity persons 45.b. If yes, what are they? And How many? □ Cooking pots:…… □ Knife:…….. □ Serving pots:……... □ Spoon and Plat:…….. □ Cutting board:……. □ Cooking equipment:……. □ Storage equipment:……. □ Other, specify ………………… 45.c. If no, why? (IF CONTROL SCHOOL, NOT APPLICABLE) ……………………………………………………………………… 45.d. Do schools arrange meals distribution directly from cooking pot? ○ Yes ○ No 45.e. Do schools arrange meals distribution by class by stainless steel pots ○ Yes ○ No 45.f. Do schools arrange meals distribution by class by plastic pots ○ Yes ○ No 45.g. In July 2017, what types of plate do children use and what percentage? (Multiple answers) ( 0 if none) □ Ceramic:……...% □ stainless steel............ % □ plastic:………...% □ plastic bags.................% 46. Did the school receive hygiene packages for a yearly supply? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q V.5) 46.a. If yes, who provided hygiene packages for yearly supply? (Multiple answers) □ PB budget □ Other NGOs □ WFP/PLAN □ Companies □ Community □ Other, specify ………………… □ Charity persons 46.b. If yes, what are they? Note: Don’t read answers (Multiple answers) □ Soap □ Toothpastes and brushes □ Water filters □ Hand towel □ Bowls □ Nail cutter □ Combs □ toilet brushes □ long brooms □ Other, specify ………………… 47 Did the school receive the training on food preparation and storage practices in the last year? ○ Yes ○ No 48. What did the school implement for food preparation and storage practices? Note: Don’t read answers (Multiple answers) □ Clean cooking area □ Store food at the appropriate temperatures (not in plastic pan, petrol tank) □ Cover cooked food and store in safe place □ Wash hand before cooking □ Other, specify ………………… 108 49. Do teachers/ stakeholders know about proper food storage? (Meat, vegetable, cooked meal, etc.) ○ Yes ○ No 50. Did the school receive the training on good health and nutrition practices? ○ Yes ○ No 51. Do you know what the 3 food groups are? Note: Don’t read answers (Multiple answers) □ Energy (Carbohydrates. Ex: rice, sugar, potato, oil) □ Building (Protein. Ex: meat, fish, peanuts, eggs) □ Protective foods (Vitamins & minerals. Ex: green leaves, pumpkin, banana, mango) Solid waste disposal 52. Does the school have bins or other equipment for managing solid waste? ○ Yes ○ No 53. Is solid waste collected daily and safely disposed of? ○ Yes ○ No ADDITIONAL PROGRAM SUPPORT 54.15.Is there any support programme being implemented /implemented in this school year, 2016-2017? 1. Yes 2. No (skip to 2.16) 54.15.a. If yes, what are they? o 1.Building (Construction, rehabilitation, repair) o 2. Material for Study/ Office supply o 3.Morning meal program or meal program o 4. Others (specify)…………………………... 54.16. Has this school ever been received any support programme in the lastschool year, 2015-2016? 1. Yes 2. No 54.16. a. If yes, what are they? o 1.Building (Construction, rehabilitation, repair) o 2. Material for Study/ Office supply o 3.Morning meal program or meal program o Others (specify)…………………………... 109 School Assessment Questionnaire SY 2016-2017 for Education Programme I. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Date: ………………… time: Start time: ……… End 2. Interviewer ……………………………………Tel: name: 3. Interviewee name: ………………… …………… 4. Sex: ○M ○F 5. Interviewee is: 6. Interviewee Tel: ○School director/Deputy Director ○School ……………………………………………………… ………… Administrator ○ Head Teacher 7. Province: 11. School name: ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… …………… …… 8. District: 12. School code: ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… …………… ……… 9. Commune: 13. School type: ……………………………………………………… ………… ○ SMP alone ○ SMP+THR ○ THR alone ○ Control 10. Village: ……………………………………………………… …… III. IMPROVED SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE (Please observe and check with relevant people) 32. Does the school have latrines? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 33) 32.a. Number of latrines in the school grounds ( 0 if no non- functioning or functioning latrine) 32.a.1. Functioning: ………………… 32.a.2 Non￾functioning: …………… 32.b. Number of latrines rehabilitated or constructed in this school year, 2016-2017 ( 0 if no latrine rehabilitated or constructed and skip to Q III.5.c) 32.b.1. Rehabilitated:………. 32.b.2. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN/World Education  Other, specify OBSERVATION FORM 110 32.b.3. Constructed:………... 32.b.4. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN/World Education  Other, specify 32.c. Are the functioning latrines separated for teachers and students? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32e) 32.d. If 5c yes, how many functioning latrines for teachers? Number:………………… 32.e. Are the functioning latrines for students separated for boy and girl students? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32.g) ○ N/A 32.f. If 5e yes, how many? 32.f.1. Functioning latrines for boy students:…………… 32.f.2. Functioning latrines for girl students:…………… 32.g. Functioning latrines non-separated Number:………………… 32.h. Dose the schools have suitable latrine for students with disability for accessing in your schools ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32.i) 32.h.1. If yes, how many latrine for students with disability? Functioning latrines for disable students:…………………. 32.h.2. Facilities of latrine for students with disability (Multiple answers) □ Suitable size for students with disability □ Slop for students with disability □ Handle for students with disability □ Other, specify: …………………………… □ Don’t have any above 32.i. What are the current conditions of functioning latrines? (skip if all latrines are non-functioning Q 32j) (Multiple answers) □ Clean and well maintained □ Dirty, not well maintained □ Broken but still usable □ Other, specify: …………………………… 32.j. What are the current conditions of non￾functioning latrines? (skip if all latrines are functioning Q 32.k) (Multiple answers) □ Door is broken □ Commode is broken □ Pit latrines is broken or full □ Washbasins are broken □ Other, specify: …………………………… 32.k. How do you manage and maintain the latrines? (Multiple answers) □ Train students and take turn to clean latrines sometimes □ Keep soap/hand washing facilities within or near the toilets sometimes □ Lock latrines during school vacation 111 □ Ensure washbasin is full of water □ Propose users to leave shoes outside of latrine stalls □ Other, specify: …………………………… 33. Does the school have kitchen? (Ask kitchen key) ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 34) 33.a. Number of kitchens rehabilitated or constructed in this school year, 2016-2017 ( 0 if no kitchen rehabilitated or constructed and skip to Q 33.b) 33.a.1. Rehabilitated:……... 33.a.2. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN  Other, specify 33.a.3. Constructed:……… 33.a.4. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN  Other, specify 33.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the kitchen? (Multiple answers) □ Good condition □ Lacking kitchen utensils □ Clean cooking and eating equipment □ Leaking roofs □ Flooded during rainy season □ Using rocks as stove □ Other, specify: …………………………… 34. Does the school have energy-saving stoves? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q III.8) 34.a. Number of energy-saving stoves rehabilitated or constructed in last school year, 2015-2016 ( 0 if no energy-saving stove rehabilitated or constructed and kip to Q III.7.b) 34.a.1. Rehabilitated:………………….. 34.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 34.a.3. Constructed:……………… 34.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 34.b. If yes, what is the current condition of the energy-saving stoves? (single answer) ○ Good condition and function well ○ Poor condition but still work ○ Broken, not functioning ○ Other, specify: …………………………… 35. Does the school have a storeroom (or place to store food)? ○ Yes ○ No, please specify where the food stored: ………………………………………………………… (and, skip to Q 36) 35.a. Number of storerooms (for food) rehabilitated or constructed this school year, 2016-2017 35.a.1. Rehabilitated:………………… 35.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 35.a.3. Constructed:………………… 112 ( 0 if no storeroom rehabilitated or constructed and Skip to Q 35.b) 35.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 35.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the storerooms? (Multiple answers) □ Well cleaned □ Floor is dry □ Pallets for food storage □ Door is locked well □ Security guard at night time/ during school vacation □ Foods are stored in order □ Leaking roofs □ Broken windows/door □ Damaged walls □ No walls □ Food was stored off ground □ Storeroom had ventilation □ Other, specify: …………………………… 36. Does the school have drilled wells/water stations? (Drinkable water) ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 37) 36.a. Number of drilled wells/water stations rehabilitated or constructed in this school year, 2016-2017 ( 0 if no drilled wells/water station rehabilitated or constructed and kip to Q 36.b) 36a.1. Rehabilitated:……………… 36.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 36.a.3. Constructed:……………… 36.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 36.b. Number of functioning drilled wells or water station installed on the school grounds? (0 if doesn’t have and skip to Q III.9.d) 36.b.1 Functioning drilled well: ………………… 36.b.2. Functioning water station: ………………… 36.b.3. Other, specify:………………………………: ……………………… 36.c. What are the current conditions of the functioning drilled wells/ water station? (Multiple answers) □ Functioning well year-round □ Water is used for human consumption □ Platform is clean □ System to clean the wells □ Other, specify: …………………………… 36.d. Number of non-functioning drilled wells or water station installed on the school grounds? (0 if doesn’t have and skip to Q III.10) 36.d.1. Non-functioning drilled well: ………………… 36.d.2. Non- Functioning water station: …………… 36.d.3. Other, Specify: ……………………………: ……… 113 36.e. What are the current conditions of the non-functioning drilled wells/ water station? (Multiple answers) □ Functioning only during rainy season □ Water is used for animals only □ Arsenic (poisonous) □ Hand pump/ rain water station was broken □ Other, specify: …………………………… 37. Does the school have year-round access to a clean and safe water source? ○ Yes (whole school year) ○ No (some months not available) ○ No (no water) 38. Does the school have hand washing station in the school? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 39) 11.a. If yes, how many hand washing station in the school? 38.a.1. Fix hand washing station:…………….. 38.a.1.1. Single Student: ………… 38.a.1.2. Multiple Student: ………… 38.a.2. Mobile hand washing station:…………….. 38.a.2.1. Single Student: ………… 38.a.2.2. Multiple Student: ………… 38.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the hand washing station? Description Fix hand washing station Mobile hand washing station 38.b.1. Good condition & function well year￾round 38.b.2. Good condition & function well only during rainy season 38.b.3. Poor condition but still work year round 38.b.4. Poor condition but still work only during rainy season 38.b.5. Broken, not functioning 114 38.b.6. Other, specify ………… ………… 38.c. Number of hand washing stations rehabilitated or constructed in this school year, 2016-2017 ( 0 if no hand washing station rehabilitated or constructed and kip to Q III.12) 38.c.1. Rehabilitated:..38c.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 38.c.3. Constructed:…38.c.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify 39. Does the school have vegetable gardens? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 40) 39.a. Are vegetable gardens rehabilitated o established in this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 40) 39.b. If yes, what were the purposes for establishing the gardens? □ Practicing life skills □ Supplementing SMP recipe □ Both 39.c. How many hours a week were children mentored on school gardens? ○ 1 – 2 hours ○ 3 – 5 hours ○ > 5 hours 39.d. How did schools get vegetable seed? □ Purchased using PB □ Purchased using School Improvement Grant □ Donated by PLAN □ Donated by WFP 39.e. Which months did you grow vegetable in the gardens in this school year, 2016-2017? (Multiple answers) □Oct □Nov □Dec □Jan □Feb □Mar □Apr □May □Jun □Jul □Aug □Sep □Don’t grow vegetable 39.f. How did you manage and maintain the vegetable garden? (Multiple answers) □ Children are mentored by trained teachers and community □ Children from grade to grade are assigned to each plot of land □ Prevent animals from entering school compound by repairing schools’ fence once per year □ Other, specify: …………………………… 115 Sc Prog Annex 6: Teachers questionnaire hool Assessment Questionnaire for Education ramme (Teacher) 1. GENERAL INFORMATION USDA McGovern Dole 1.1. Date: 1.2. Enumerator Name: 1.3. School name: 1.5. District: 1.7. Village: 1.8. Teacher Name 1.8.1. Contact Number: 1.4. Province: 1.6. Commune: 1.9. Teaching Grade: Grade 2 , Grade 4 , Grade 6  ALL INTERVIEWS TO BE DONE ABOUT MORNING SHIFT 2. IMPROVED STUDENT ATTENTIVENESS 2.1. Number of absent students in your class on 9th August a. Total: b. Female: 2.3. Total Number of students in your class 2.4 Percentage of students in your class eat breakfast at school (school provided) Short-term hunger a. Total: b. Female: 2.5. Please estimate the number of children being hungry during classes and frequency of this happening (Daily + Sometimes = Total) a. Total: b. Female: a. Daily: b. Sometimes: 2.5.1. Does it vary by season? 2.5.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students come to school hungry ( 2.6. Please estimate the number of children who are inattentive (sleepy, inactive) during classes and frequency of this happening (Daily + Sometimes = Total) 1. Yes:  2. No:  Month: ___________ a. Total: a. Daily: b. Female: b. Sometimes: 2.6.1. Does it vary by season? 2.6.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students are inattentive 116 1. Yes:___________ 2. No:___________ Month: ___________ a. Total: b. Female: 117 2.7. Please estimate the number of children who are attentive or very attentive during class/instruction a. Daily: b. Sometimes: 2.7.1. Does it vary by season? 1. Yes__________ 2. No_______________ 2.7.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students are attentive Month: ___________ Signature of the teacher: 118 Annex 7: Key baseline findings by province • Gender of full time teachers (Grades 1-6) & teacher attendance for SY 2016/17 Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Percentage of male teachers (%) 33% 39% 46% 32% Percentage of female teachers (%) 67% 61% 54% 68% Number of school days in a year (mean) 210 211.1 216 215.5 Number of days teachers being absent (mean) 5.8 6.1 5.4 4.4 Percentage teacher attendance during official SY 2016/17 97% 97% 97% 98% • Promotion, repetition and drop-out rates (2016/17) Promotion rate (%) Repetition rate (%) Drop-out rate (%) Total Girls Total Girls Total Girls Battambang (SMP+THR) 96% 96% 1% 1% 3% 3% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 84% 88% 12% 9% 6% 4% Siem Reap (SMP only) 83% 87% 12% 9% 8% 6% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 86% 89% 10% 7% 6% 5% • Teacher’s use of improved literacy tools % of Teachers using national literacy curriculum Battambang (SMP+THR) 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 40% Siem Reap (SMP only) 4% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 17% Overall Average 21% • Number of schools receiving stationery packages SY2016/2017 # of schools received learning package # of schools received stationery materials % of schools received learning package % of school received stationery materials Yes No Yes No Battambang (SMP+THR) 4 1 3 2 80% 60% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 31 1 31 1 97% 97% Siem Reap (SMP only) 20 0 20 0 100% 100% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 28 1 29 0 97% 100% 119 • Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are “hungry” or “very hungry” during the school day Indicator Target Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class daily ≤10% 18.0% 7.4% 6.9% 9.3% Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class sometimes 13.8% 12.1% 13.4% 11.8% Total perc. of hungry children (daily + sometimes) ≤10% 31.8% 19.5% 20.3% 21.1% Total perc. of hungry girls (daily + sometimes) 24.1% 18.6% 18.5% 22.8% • Reported inattentiveness of students Indicator Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class daily Everyday 0.0% 2.8% 5.8% 3.6% Percentage of students reported to be hungry in class sometimes Sometimes 9.4% 8.1% 7.4% 7.3% Total perc. of hungry children (daily + sometimes) Total 9.4% 10.9% 13.2% 10.8% Total perc. of hungry girls (daily + sometimes) Girls 5.6% 6.5% 8.7% 7.8% • Number of classrooms in surveyed schools # of Grade 1-6 Classrooms # of classrooms with sufficient material # of classrooms per school % of classrooms with sufficient material Battambang (SMP+THR) 26 24 5 92% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 143 130 4 92% Siem Reap (SMP only) 95 84 5 90% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 135 129 5 96% 120 • School kitchen facilities Total # with kitchen Battambang (SMP+THR) 5 4 Kampong Thom (SMP only) 32 32 Siem Reap (SMP only) 20 18 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 29 28 Total 86 82 • Condition of kitchens in USDA supported schools Good condition Lacking kitchen utensils Clean cooking and eating equipment Leaking roofs Flooded during rainy season Using rocks as stove Battambang (SMP+THR) 60% 60% 60% 40% 20% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 53% 84% 38% 34% 13% 13% Siem Reap (SMP only) 55% 55% 10% 25% 10% 5% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 69% 55% 21% 21% 3% 10% Overall 59% 66% 27% 28% 9% 9% • Use of energy-efficient stoves Total # using E-E stove Battambang (SMP+THR) 5 52 Kampong Thom (SMP only) 32 39 Siem Reap (SMP only) 20 13 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 29 0 Total 86 • Condition of energy efficient stoves in USDA supported schools Total Good condition and function well Poor condition but still work Without E-E stove Battambang (SMP+THR) 5 5 Kampong Thom (SMP only) 32 16 10 6 Siem Reap (SMP only) 20 12 1 7 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 29 10 3 16 Total 86 38 14 34 • Schools with foodstorerooms Total # with storeroom Battambang (SMP+THR) 5 1 Kampong Thom (SMP only) 32 23 Siem Reap (SMP only) 20 16 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 29 24 Total 86 64 120 • Condition of storerooms in USDA supported schools Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+ THR) Total Well cleaned 20% 47% 70% 69% 58% Floor is dry 20% 59% 60% 72% 62% Pallets for food storage 20% 50% 45% 55% 49% Door is locked well 20% 72% 75% 69% 69% Security guard at night time/ during school vacation 0% 9% 10% 10% 9% Foods are stored in order 20% 22% 25% 45% 30% Leaking roofs 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Broken windows/door 0% 0% 10% 7% 5% Damaged walls 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% No walls 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Food was stored off ground 0% 6% 20% 10% 10% Storeroom had ventilation 20% 38% 60% 55% 48% • Schools storing food off the ground Schools storing food off the ground # % Battambang (SMP+THR) 1 20% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 17 53% Siem Reap (SMP only) 12 60% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 17 59% Total 47 55% • Number of functioning drill wells/ water catchments Total drilled wells Total water catchments % Functioning drilled wells % Functioning water catchments Battambang (SMP+THR) 3 12 100% 92% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 28 45 86% 100% Siem Reap (SMP only) 35 48 74% 96% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 43 48 60% 98% Total 109 153 72% 97% 121 • Condition of well-functioning drilled well/rain water catchments Functioning well year￾round Water is used for human consumption Platform is clean System to clean the wells Useable in rainy season Battambang (SMP+THR) 40% 80% 60% 20% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 75% 69% 75% 19% 0% Siem Reap (SMP only) 85% 50% 40% 10% 5% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 79% 66% 62% 7% 3% Total 77% 64% 62% 13% 2% • Condition of non-functioning drilled well/rain water catchments Functions only during rainy season Water is used for animals only Arsenic in water (poisonous) Hand pump/ rain water station broken Lack of pump The ground collaps ed There is rust in the water The well is dry Battambang (SMP+THR) 20% 0% 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 6% 0% 0% 9% 3% 3% 0% 3% Siem Reap (SMP only) 10% 0% 0% 30% 0% 0% 5% 0% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 3% 3% 0% 31% 0% 0% 3% 0% Total 7% 1% 1% 21% 1% 1% 2% 1% • School access to year-round clean water % of schools with year-round access to a clean water source Yes (whole school year) No (some months not available) No (no water) Battambang (SMP+THR) 80% 0% 20% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 53% 19% 28% Siem Reap (SMP only) 60% 15% 25% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 76% 7% 17% Total 64% 13% 23% 122 • Percentage of schools with fixed hand and mobile hand washing stations % of schools with hand washing station % fixed handwashing % mobile handwashing Battambang (SMP+THR) 100% 20% 100% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 75% 53% 44% Siem Reap (SMP only) 90% 70% 50% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 93% 69% 72% Total 86% 60% 58% • Condition of fixed (non-mobile) hand washing stations Good condition & function well only during rainy season Good condition & function well year￾round Poor condition but still work year-round Battambang (SMP+THR) 0% 100% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 6% 88% 6% Siem Reap (SMP only) 0% 93% 7% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 0% 90% 10% Total 2% 90% 8% • Condition of mobile hand washing stations Broken, not functioning Good condition & function well year￾round Poor condition but still work year-round Battambang (SMP+THR) 0% 100% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 0% 79% 21% Siem Reap (SMP only) 0% 90% 10% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 10% 81% 10% Total 4% 84% 12% • Percentage of schools with soap present at handwashing stations # of schools with soap at handwashing stations % of school with soap at handwashing stations Battambang (SMP+THR) 5 100.0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 25 78.1% Siem Reap (SMP only) 19 95.0% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 28 96.6% Total 77 89.5% 123 • Student handwashing practices – frequency of handwashing with soap and water Schools with soap all year round Schools without soap all year round Don’t know Yes, always Yes, often Yes, sometimes Battambang (SMP+THR) 0.00% 80.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 3.13% 37.50% 25.00% 12.50% 21.88% Siem Reap (SMP only) 0.00% 45.00% 25.00% 25.00% 5.00% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 0.00% 34.48% 37.93% 24.14% 3.45% Total 1.16% 40.70% 29.07% 18.60% 10.47% • Provider of soap Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Total PB budget 80% 66% 80% 69% 71% WFP/PLAN 80% 53% 70% 83% 69% Community 0% 0% 5% 3% 2% Charity persons 0% 3% 5% 7% 5% Angkor Children's hospital 0% 0% 0% 21% 7% Beautiful Cambodia 0% 3% 0% 0% 1% Orphanage organization 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% SIG 20% 0% 5% 0% 2% Student bought it 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% World Vision 0% 0% 0% 28% 9% Other NGOs 0% 0% 5% 10% 5% • Functional and non-functional latrines in surveyed schools % of functional latrines % of non￾functional latrines # of functional latrines per school # non￾functional latrines per school Battambang (SMP+THR) 100% 0% 3.2 0.0 Kampong Thom (SMP only) 89% 11% 4.4 0.5 Siem Reap (SMP only) 92% 8% 5.8 0.5 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 88% 12% 5.7 0.8 Total 90% 10% 5.1 0.6 124 • Presence of functioning latrines for teachers # surveyed schools with separate functioning latrine for teachers # of functioning latrines for teachers % of functional latrines for teachers # of teachers per functional staff latrine84 Battambang 3 5 27% 5.1 Kampong Thom (SMP 24 34 24% 5.4 Siem Reap (SMP only) 14 22 20% 5.8 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 26 44 27% 4.9 Total 67 105 24% 5.3 • Presence of functioning latrines separated for boys and girls and disabled students % of non-separate functioning latrines for students % functioning latrines for disabled students Battambang (SMP+THR) 17% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 24% 14% Siem Reap (SMP only) 25% 7% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 15% 9% Total 21% 10% • Condition of functioning latrines Clean and well maintained Dirty, not well maintained Broken but still usable Handwashing facility, broken toilet Have to across the river to find toilet in rainy season Battambang (SMP+THR) 80% 20% 20% 0% 0% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 97% 0% 6% 0% 3% Siem Reap (SMP only) 100% 0% 10% 0% 0% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 97% 0% 10% 3% 0% Total 97% 1% 9% 1% 1% 84 In order to estimate this average value, when no functional latrines in the school, the maximum ratio in sample (8) has been assumed. 125 • Condition of non-functioning latrines Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Total Door is broken 0% 55% 50% 50% 52% Commode is broken 0% 27% 25% 63% 39% Pit latrines is broken or full 0% 9% 25% 50% 26% Washbasins are broken 0% 18% 25% 50% 30% Is not working but clean 0% 0% 0% 13% 4% Lock it as there is a new toilet 0% 9% 0% 0% 4% The room is locked 0% 9% 0% 0% 4% Toilet bowl is too high 0% 9% 0% 0% 4% • Solid waste disposal Schools with bins or other equipment for solid waste management (%) Schools with daily solid waste collection (%) Battambang (SMP+THR) 80% Yes Kampong Thom (SMP only) 94% 100% Siem Reap (SMP only) 100% 94% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 100% 100% Total 97% 97% • Schools with vegetable gardens % of schools with vegetable garden Battambang (SMP+THR) 80% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 81% Siem Reap (SMP only) 100% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 79% Total 85% • Percentage of schools participating in community awareness raising events on the importance of education Percentage of schools conducting training for LSFC/SSC on the importance of education Percentage of schools participating in community awareness raising events Battambang (SMP+THR) 100% 100% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 91% 91% Siem Reap (SMP only) 100% 100% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 93% 86% Total 94% 92% 126 • Participation of parents in school activities Programme indicator Target Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education 85% 73% 92% 75% 79% • Schools with existing LSFCs and SSCs % of functioning committee % Female members % Male members Battambang (SMP+THR) 100% 33% 67% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 97% 29% 71% Siem Reap (SMP only) 90% 24% 76% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 90% 26% 74% Total 93% 27% 73% • Availability of school management tools School development plan Safe school environment (school gate, fence, ...) Record and reporting system Battambang (SMP+THR) 100% 20% 80% Kampong Thom (SMP only) 100% 94% 100% Siem Reap (SMP only) 100% 95% 100% Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 97% 79% 93% Total 99% 85% 97% • Average amount of community contributions to each school in SY 2016/17 In cash (US$) In kind (US$ equivalent) Battambang (SMP+THR) 215.20 - Kampong Thom (SMP only) 177.50 103.34 Siem Reap (SMP only) 107.15 89.25 Siem Reap (SMP+THR) 244.66 106.72 Total 185.98 95.20 127 • Household Food Consumption Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Average Household Food Consumption Score 58.1 53.7 51.3 55.3 • Reduced Coping Strategies Index Battambang (SMP+THR) Kampong Thom (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP only) Siem Reap (SMP+THR) Reduced CSI (Calculated so that CSI=0 when the HH does not go through difficulties) 11.5 6.6 8.6 10.1 • Percentage of children who received a school meal and took some home Percentage of children who received a school meal every day Percentage of children who received a school meal every day* Percentage of children who brought school meal home at least once aweek Battambang 80% 92% 10% Kampong Thom 83% 92% 15% Siem Reap (SMP 83% 100% 12% Siem Reap 76% 87% 9% *NB. Out of those whose school provided a meal every day 128 Annex 8: Additional findings from the teacher and school surveys • Schools included in the survey sample, by province Province USDA supported schools Comparison schools Total schools (%) SMP only SMP + THR Battambang 5 42 47 29.2% Kampong Cham 18 18 11.2% Kampong Thom 32 32 19.9% Siem Reap 20 29 49 30.4% Kratie 8 8 5.0% Preah Vihear 7 7 4.3% Sub-Total (%) 57 29 75 161 100 35.4% 18.0% 46.6% Total 86 75 161 • School using drill wells Total # using drill wells Total USDA supported schools 86 82 SMP only 57 53 SMP + THR 29 29 Comparison schools 86 76 • Schools with handwashing stations Total # with hand washing stations Total USDA supported schools 86 74 SMP only 57 47 SMP + THR 29 27 Comparison schools 86 49 • Student handwashing practices Yes No Don’t know Missing values Total Always Often Sometimes Rarely All USDA supported schools 40.7% 29.1% 18.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 10.5% 100% SMP only 43.9% 24.6% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 14.0% 100% SMP+THR 34.5% 37.9% 24.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.4% 100% Comparison schools 40.7% 11.6% 8.1% 2.3% 2.3% 0.0% 34.9% 100% 129 Annex 9: T-tests on survey data School teacher survey indicator: Percent of students identified as “hungry” (sometimes or always) during class. t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of “hungry” boys vs. “hungry” girls. Comparison schools only. Perc. hungry girls Perc. hungry boys only Mean 0.31 0.39 Variance 0.09 0.11 Observations 249 249 Pearson Correlation 0.6588 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 248 t Stat -4.4127 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000 t Critical one-tail 1.6510 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000 t Critical two-tail 1.9696  The hypothesis of equal mean is rejected. Boys are significantly more often hungry than girls in comparison schools. School teacher survey indicator: Percent of students identified as “inattentive” (sometimes or always) during class. t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means of “inattentive” boys vs. “inattentive” girls. Comparison schools only. Perc inattentive girls Perc inattentive boys only Mean 0.09 0.21 Variance 0.02 0.03 Observations 249 249 Pearson Correlation 0.3393 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 248 t Stat -10.0007 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000 t Critical one-tail 1.6510 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000 t Critical two-tail 1.9696  The hypothesis of equal mean is rejected. Boys are significantly more often inattentive than girls in comparison schools. 130 Household survey indicator. Percent of household heads who can read and write. T-test, unequal variances. Control Treatment Mean 0.65 0.52 Variance 0.23 0.25 Observations 515 514 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 1024 t Stat 4.4321 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000 t Critical one-tail 1.6463 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000 t Critical two-tail 1.9623  The hypothesis of equal percentage is rejected. Household heads in comparison sample can more often read and write. School principal survey indicator: Promotion rate. T-test, unequal variances Promotion rate - Case schools Promotion rate - Control schools Mean 0.85 0.84 Variance 0.00 0.01 Observations 86 86 Hypothesized Mean 0 Difference df 168 t Stat 0.6651 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2535 t Critical one-tail 1.6540 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.5069 t Critical two-tail 1.9742  The hypothesis of equal promotion rates cannot be rejected. 131 1. Can read and write 2. Can sign only 3. Can read only 4. Cannot read and write Comparison schools SMP+THR SMP only All USDA supported schools Annex 10: Additional findings from the household survey • Highest education level of heads of household • Literacy level of heads of household • Sources of drinking water and toilet facilities of surveyed households Sources of drinking water Toilet facilities Improved Unimproved Flush toilet/ latrine with water Traditional pit toilet/ partly open pit Bush/open field/river/ pond site All USDA supported schools 50% 50% 59.6% 0.9% 39.5% SMP only 43.3% 56.7% 62.5% 0.5% 37.0% SMP + THR 54.4% 45.6% 57.1% 1.2% 41.7% Comparison schools __ __ 66.1% 1.8% 32.1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Comparisonschools SMP + THR SMP only All USDA supportedschools Highest class completed Secondary Highest class completed High school or above Highest class completed Never Highest class completed Primary 132 • Main reported household livelihood activity All USDA supported schools SMP Only SMP+THR Comparison schools Farming activities 65% 67.0% 63.6% 55.% Agricultural labour (daily wage) 3.7% 4.6% 3.2% 10.8% Petty trader/ vendor 4.6% 5.5% 4.1% 7% Housewife 5.5% 1.6% 8.1% 4.4% No occupation 5.6% 5.5% 5.6% 3.7% Fishing/ activities 0.7% 0.9% 0.6% 3.7% Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith /hair cutter/cobbler 3.3% 5.0% 2.1% 3.1% Teacher 0% 0% 0% 2.4% Government officer 1.4% 2.3% 0.8% 2.2% Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 2.2% • Main reported livelihood activity of other household members All USDA supported schools SMP Only SMP+THR Comparison schools Farming activities 40.9% 41.5% 40.6% 38.3% Housewife 16.3% 17.5% 15.6% 22.4% Student 12.7% 11.1% 13.7% 6.7% No occupation 9.8% 10.2% 9.6% 9.9% Petty trader/ vendor 4.9% 6.8% 3.6% 7.9% Pastoral activities 3.1% 2.1% 3.7% 1.4% Agricultural labour (daily wage) 2.5% 3.2% 2.1% 3% Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 1.8% 2.5% 1.3% 0.9% • Consumption coping strategies Coping strategies All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP +THR Comparison Schools Reduced number of meals eaten per day 44.5% 43.5% 45.2% 46.4% Reduction in the quantities consumed by adults 37.4% 33.5% 39.9% 45.4% Reduced portion size 33.6% 30.2% 35.8% 37.4% Borrowed food or relied on help from friends and relatives 25.9% 26.1% 25.8% 28.1% Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods 50.6% 45.5% 53.8% 56.1% 133 • Household dietary pattern Food Groups All USDA supported schools SMP only SMP +THR Comparison Schools G1.1 Maize, porridge, rice, pasta, bread 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 G1.2 Cassava, sweet potato, potato, tubers, plantains 25.8 27.8 24.5 16.8 G2. Beans, peas, ground nuts, cashews… 39.1 38.6 39.5 35.0 G3. vegetables, green leaves 96.9 98.4 96.0 95.7 G4. Fruits 32.0 34.6 30.3 36.2 G5. Beef, pork, poultry, eggs, fish 99.9 100.0 99.8 99.7 G6. Milk and diaries 12.8 11.6 13.6 20.5 G7. Sugar and sugar products 76.3 77.6 75.4 69.9 G8. Oils, fat 77.9 74.4 80.1 67.5 G9. Tea, condiments, spices, fish powder 97.2 95.3 98.5 94.4 • Percentage of households who reported NOT EATING the following food items in the last 7 days Fruit Pulses Milk All USDA supported schools 65.69% 61.78% 82.63% SMP+THR 69.02% 62.36% 86.54% THR 62.81% 61.28% 79.25% Comparison schools 60.87% 58.70% 78.99% NA 60.87% 58.70% 78.99% Total 64.90% 61.28% 82.03% • Children’s dietary pattern Food Groups SMP only SMP +THR All USDA supported schools Comparison Schools Milk and milk products 9.9% 8.3% 9.0% 16.1% Legumes, nuts and seeds 9.4% 8.9% 9.1% 11.7% Eggs 43.9% 40.9% 42.1% 46.5% Meat and fish 84.6% 58.6% 68.8% 72.3% Organ meat 11.2% 16.0% 14.1% 18.9% Other fruits and vegetables 50.3% 50.6% 50.5% 59.3% Vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables 47.5% 34.4% 39.5% 45.3% Dark green leafy vegetables 62.8% 62.1% 62.4% 61.4% Starchy staples 17.7% 25.1% 22.2% 25.6% 134 • Dietary pattern of school-aged children (as reported by the child) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Starchy staples Dark greenleafy vegetables Vitamin A rich fruitsand vegetables Other fruits andvegetables Organ meat Meat and fish Eggs Legumes, nuts and seeds Milk and milk products Comparison Schools SMP +THR SMP only 135 Annex 11: SABER stages of transition to national ownership SABER (Systems Approach for Better Education Results) – School Feeding is a government￾led process that helps to build effective school feeding policies and systems. These in turn provide the foundation for strong nationally -led and sustainable school feeding programmes that ensure school children receive the nourishment they need. 136 Annex 12: Additional findings on capacity building of the Government • Progress on key short- term activities from the Roadmap Quality Standard Activities Policy framework Advocate for the integration of school feeding into key national policies (National Strategic Development Plan, Education Strategic Plan, National Social Protection Strategy, National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition, School Health Policy, Child Friendly School, MoEYS Annual Operational Plan) MoEYS to prepare the National Basic Education Scholarship policy MoEYS to prepare the National Basic Education Scholarship Operational Guideline Implement the School Health Policy and guideline Further develop the Child Friendly School M&E system by integrating SMP and Scholarship programmes, as well as the creation of a database system, and begin implementation Funding & budgeting Continue efforts to advocate for additional funding sources from RGC to contribute to SFP implementation Create a national budget line for SPF within MoEYS from 2015 Government budget (PB/SIG) to be used for school feeding costs Funding from Global Partnership of Education (GPE)-Scholarship to contribute to a small pilot of a school lunch programme (e.g., additional teacher salary) Small administrative cost from Program Based Budget (PB)/School Improvement Grant (SIG) budget to be used for SFP, e.g., for food storage and off-loading, kitchen, cooking utensils, vegetable garden, etc. Strengthen School Support Community (SSC) roles and responsibilities in mobilizing resources/community contribution to SFP Advocate for strengthened Commune funding contribution to SFP Institutional arrangements and coordination Set up Programme Coordination Committee (PCC) and, School Feeding Task Force (SFTF) and Sub-National SFP committees Conduct quarterly Coordination Meetings and Annual Workshops for SFP Conducted the National Capacity Index (NCI) assessment on annual basis WFP to continue provision of technical and financial support for SFP Integrate SFP annual work plan into AoP of MoEYS and well align with the priority plans of sector departments under MoEYS Strengthen the involvement of relevant departments within MoEYS (School Health Department, Early Childhood Education Department, Teacher Training Department, Curriculum Development Department, and Planning Department) for SFP implementation Quality programme design Continue implementing and scaling up food/cash scholarship programme, either through support from development partners or government budget Develop Cash Scholarship Manual (GPE) based on the existing scholarship manual with further review of cash scholarship transferring through mobile banking system Design and preparation for the School Lunch programme pilot. In this case, GPE fund supports teacher incentive for two sessions classes, WFP provides technical and financial support to the pilot implementation, while Quality Assurance Office monitors/ assesses the achievement of education quality Integrate SFP into education results based M&E system including database and server setup Conduct study tour for senior management and technical staff involved in program design to other countries that have been implementing national school feeding /HGSF programs successfully Conduct one stakeholders workshop to bring all relevant stakeholders to discuss the national program modality Strong Community Participation Strengthen the community participation and ownership of SFP Integrate SFP into School Development Plan (SDP) and CIP/CDP Strengthen the implementation of School Support Committee Guideline (SSC) Advocate for community and local authority participation in School Meals and Scholarship activities, as required Advocate for resource mobilization from communities and local authorities to contribute to school feeding program Strengthen communities’ participation in program monitoring and their accountabilities to the support provided to the school Continue to advocate for commune fund contribute to SFP 137 Annex 13: FFE Programme Performance Monitoring Plan 2017-2019 By result Indicator Baseline result Target Improved literacy of school-aged children Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions 0 256,000 Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 0 226,000 Percent of students who, by the end of two grades or primary schooling, demonstrate that they can read and understand the meaning of grade level text Overall: 38% Boys: 26% Girls 50% 75% Increased Government support Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance 0 0 Increased engagement or local organizations and community groups Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) or similar school governance structures supported as a result of USDA assistance 590 590 Improved policy and regulatory framework Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations or administrative procedures in the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance 1 1 Number of educational policies, regulations or administrative procedures in the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance 0 4 Improved literacy instructional materials Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 50085 5,386 Increased skills and knowledge of teachers Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. 0 2,400 Number ofteachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 1,16786 3,000 Increased skills and knowledge of school administrators Number of school administrators in target schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools as a result of USDA assistance. 0 177,613 Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 0 600 Increased access to food (school feeding) Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children as a result of USDA assistance 0 38,945,000 85 As per World Education baseline figures (July 2017). 500 National Standard reading books have been provided 86 As per World Education figures as at July 2017 138 Number of individuals receiving take￾home rations as a result of USDA assistance 0 16,000 Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance). 0 177,000 Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance 0 249,000 Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance 0 176,000 Improved student attendance Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported schools 195,400 27,000 Increased knowledge of nutrition Number of individuals trained in children health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 0 3,600 Increased access to clean water and sanitation Number of schools using an improved water source 433 500 Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 574 590 Improved school infrastructure Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, and latrines) rehabilitated/ constructed as a result of USDA assistance 0 750 WFP Cambodia http://www1.wfp.org/countries/cambodia Phnom Penh, December 2017, Report