Prepared by Sophia Dunn, Team Leader Jean-Pierre Silvéréano, Evaluator Sovith Sin, Evaluator September 2018 Commissioned by WFP Cambodia Evaluation Manager: Nathan Horst (The KonTerra Group) Mid-term review of USDA McGovern-Dole Grant FFE-442- 2016/015-00 for WFP School Feeding in Cambodia covering school years 2016/17 and 2017/18 FINAL Report Decentralized Evaluation Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making i Acknowledgements The review team would like to thank all the WFP Cambodia personnel who have provided input and support to the review, especially Bun Thang, Yav Long, Kannitha Kong and Francesca Erdelmann. We would also like to thank all the key informants who gave so generously of their time to input into the review. Special thanks to the MoEYS representatives who made time for us despite their busy schedules at the end of the school year. The team also gratefully acknowledges the community participants in the evaluation process – households, cooks, parents and school children. Lastly, special thanks to our translators and drivers, without whom we could not have completed our field mission. 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 ii Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary..............................................................................vi 2. Introduction.......................................................................................... 1 3. Context..................................................................................................3 4. Overview of the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme........................5 5. Mid-term review approach and methodology.........................................8 5.1. Review approach................................................................................................... 8 5.2. Methodology.......................................................................................................... 8 5.3. Site mapping ........................................................................................................10 5.4. Data collection methods and tools.......................................................................10 5.4.1. Qualitative data collection ............................................................................10 5.4.2. Verification of quantitative monitoring data................................................ 11 5.5. Limitations and risks ........................................................................................... 11 6. Mid-term review findings .................................................................... 12 6.1. Programme management approaches................................................................. 12 6.2. Programme results............................................................................................... 14 6.2.1. Review of baseline recommendations .......................................................... 14 6.2.2. Mid-term output results................................................................................ 15 6.3. National ownership readiness ............................................................................ 20 6.3.1. Transitioning to a cash scholarship model...................................................21 6.3.2. Transitioning to the HGSF model................................................................ 22 6.3.3. Support to national policies, frameworks and coordination........................23 6.3.4. Support to national school meals programme design................................. 24 6.3.5. Support to programme monitoring and reporting .......................................25 6.4. Community engagement..................................................................................... 29 6.4.1. Community support to school feeding implementation.............................. 30 6.4.2. Lessons learned in relation to community engagement in school feeding ..33 6.5. Gender dimensions of the intervention...............................................................33 7. Overall conclusions .............................................................................34 8. Recommendations...............................................................................35 9. Bibliography........................................................................................ 37 10. Annexes...............................................................................................39 iii List of Annexes Annex 1: Terms of reference............................................................................................. 39 Annex 2: MTR matrix ........................................................................................................ 51 Annex 3: Description of project activities .........................................................................56 Annex 4:............................................................................................................................ 58 Annex 5: Key informant interview guides........................................................................ 58 Annex 6: Focus group discussion guides ..........................................................................59 Annex 7: Updated Performance Monitoring Plan (2017-2019)....................................... 62 Annex 8: Documents received from WFP CO.................................................................. 64 List of Tables Table 1: Key mid-term review questions .............................................................................2 Table 2: Summary of key informants ..................................................................................9 Table 3: List of districts and schools visited .....................................................................10 Table 4: Output results: Support to improving policy frameworks................................. 12 Table 5: SO1 - Improved Literacy of School-Age Children: Output results ..................... 16 Table 6: SO2 - Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices: Output results............... 19 Table 7: Other output results: Access to food (school feeding)........................................ 19 Table 8: Public and private sector investments ................................................................27 Table 9: Output results: Community engagement........................................................... 30 iv List of Acronyms ACRC All Children Read Cambodia ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations CARD Council for Agricultural and Rural Development CO (WFP) Country Office CPE Country Portfolio Evaluation DOEYS District Office of Education, Youth and Sport DSFC District School Feeding Committee EGMA Early Grade Maths Assessment EGR Early Grade Reading EGRA Early Grade Reading Assessment EMIS Education Management Information System ESP Education Strategic Plan FAO (United Nations) Food and Agriculture Organization FAS Foreign Agricultural Service FFE Food for Education FGD Focus Group Discussion FY Financial Year GDP Gross Domestic Product GII Gender Inequality Index GPE3 (the third) Global Partnership for Education HDI Human Development Index HGSF Home Grown School Feeding HQ (WFP) Headquarters IDS Institute of Development Studies ISPA Inter-agency Social Protection Assessment KAPE Kampuchean Action for Primary Education KII Key Informant Interview LSFC Local School Feeding Committee MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries MEF Ministry of Economy and Finance MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport MoH Ministry of Health MoI Ministry of Interior MPI Multi-dimensional Poverty Index MT Metric tonne MTR Mid-term review NCI National Capacity Index NGO Non-Governmental Organization NSDP National Strategic Development Plan NSPC National Social Protection Council NSPPF National Social Protection Policy OECD–DAC Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee PCC Project Coordination Committee PDoEYS Provincial Department of Education, Youth and Sports PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PRISM Platforms for Real-time Information SysteMs PSFC Provincial School Feeding Committee PTA Parents and Teachers Association v RB (WFP) Regional Bureau RF Results Framework RMPM (WFP) Performance Management and Monitoring Division RTI Research Triangle Institute SABER Systems Approach for Better Education Results SDG Sustainable Development Goals SFTF School Feeding Task Force SFU School Feeding Unit SMP School Meal Programme SO Strategic Objective SSC School Support Committee SY School Year THR Take Home Ration ToR Terms of Reference UN United Nations UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollar (currency) USDA United States Department of Agriculture WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene WFP (United Nations) World Food Programme vi 1. Executive Summary 1. This report is for the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme in Cambodia in FY 2017-2019 (FFE-442-2016/015-00). The work is commissioned by the World Food Programme (WFP) Cambodia Country Office (CO) and is based on the Terms of Reference (ToR) provided by WFP Cambodia (Annex 1). 2. As per the previous USDA grant (2013-2016), the 2017-2019 grant is implemented by WFP in partnership with several government ministries and NGOs. The key partner is the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) which is responsible for the implementation of the programme in targeted schools. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) implementing partners include Plan International, World Vision and for the literacy component, World Education and their partner Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE). Several other United Nations (UN) agencies including FAO, UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank and UNESCO provide support to the school feeding programme through collaboration, coordination or technical support. 3. The MTR provides an evidence-based, independent assessment of the performance of the operation and associated interventions so far, so that WFP Cambodia and partners can make mid-course corrections as necessary to ensure effective programme implementation for the remaining period to 2019. The MTR looked at four key themes: programme management approaches, programme results, national ownership readiness and community engagement. 4. The USDA McGovern-Dole FFE programme has two strategic objectives (SO): • SO1: Improved Literacy of School-Age Children, and • SO2: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices. 5. To support the achievement of the SOs, USDA McGovern-Dole allocated up to USD15,212,698 for donations of commodities and funding of ocean transportation and other authorized expenses during US fiscal years 2016-2018. Under this agreement, FAS will also provide approximatively 5,900 metric tons (MT) of fortified rice and 330 MT of vegetable oil. These inputs are used to provide a daily breakfast and/or take-home rations (often referred to as food scholarships) to primary school children in three provinces of Cambodia: Battambang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. The programme also includes several other activities including the provision of school meals and take-home rations, establishing school gardens, constructing and rehabilitating school infrastructure, and training school personnel. The programme also invests in ongoing capacity development of the MoEYS personnel at the local, regional and national level to ensure sustainability and government ownership. 6. For this MTR, no quantitative surveys were carried out. Instead, the review team collected qualitative data from national, provincial and district stakeholders and visited USDA supported schools. Qualitative data was collected through a mix of key informant interviews and focus groups discussions using semi-structured questionnaires. Overall, the review team spoke with 296 stakeholders for the MTR including government representatives, WFP personnel, donors, implementing partner personnel and Provincial and District School Feeding Committee members, and visiting eight schools to talk with local authorities, teachers, school feeding committee members, school children parents and cooks. vii Mid-term review findings 7. Programme management approaches: WFP Cambodia has had significant roles in the development of multiple government policies and that the school feeding programme aligns well with key government policies, strategies and frameworks. WFP continues to be a key technical partner for the government in areas such as food security, nutrition, and social protection. WFP also provides ongoing support and guidance to the MoEYS regarding the school feeding implementation. In the nine WFP-supported provinces, at all levels, the MoEYS now has appropriate institutional coordination bodies in place albeit with limited staff for providing training and ongoing support to programme implementation. 8. Programme results: The programme is being implemented effectively at school level, and the monitoring data indicates that the programme is on track to meet the planned targets by endline (2019). 9. National ownership readiness: The Royal Government of Cambodia has repeatedly shown its commitment to universal coverage of school feeding programs in public primary schools. However, the major challenge is how to meet the demand to provide healthy meals and support the local economy and agriculture, while keeping the school feeding program affordable. 10. Since baseline, WFP and partners have done considerable work in support of the transition to national ownership. It is now clear that the MoEYS will be implementing a school feeding programme with two components: cash scholarships and the HGSF model for school meals. The review team believe that transitioning current HGSF schools to government ownership will be smooth, while transitioning current SMP and hybrid schools to HGSFP will require considerable technical support. 11. The review notes that the scale and locations for the school meal implementation remain unclear and there has not yet been any government funding made available. The transition planning that is scheduled for later in 2018 should clarify some of the uncertainties and set out a clear exit strategy that outlines the roles and responsibilities of different actors. Those decisions will directly affect several areas including funding requirements, human resources requirements, and the timeline for transition. At this point, the scaling up of the HGSF by 2021 as outlined in the 2015 Roadmap remains overly ambitious. 12. Community engagement: The school feeding programme provides opportunities for significant levels of community participation. Local communities clearly have confidence in programme implementation at school level and are willing to provide in-kind contributions if they can. However, financial contributions are more difficult due to the poverty of households in the targeted locations. Transitioning to a HGSF model will bring even more opportunities for community participation, as local famers and suppliers take on the responsibility of providing food for the programme. The challenges to community participation identified during the MTR and the major lessons identified below indicate that the MoEYS needs to take responsibility for the key areas of the programme implementation including the payment of the cook’s incentive. Lessons learned in relation to community engagement in school feeding • Lesson 1: Community participation is not the same as community ownership • Lesson 2: Successful implementation of the school meal programme should not be dependent on community participation. Communities are willing to provide in-kind support within the limits of their capacity, but households are often unable to viii provide ongoing financial support due to their level of poverty and high levels of debt. Recommendations • Recommendation 1: WFP should strengthen and monitor the connectedness of all activities implemented under the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE program with reference to both the rationale of the programme and USDA guidance. • Recommendation 2: WFP and the MoEYS should ensure that detailed transition planning take place as soon as possible to enable the development of a realistic timeframe for transitioning to national ownership. • Recommendation 3: Ensure that the current school meals/ HGSF guidelines are revised and ready for use if/when the MoEYS HGSF proposal is funded. • Recommendation 4: WFP together with the MoEYS and other ministries as appropriate should carry out a detailed costing exercise of HGSF to enable the MoEYS and MEF to accurately budget for national transition. • Recommendation 5: WFP should continue to provide technical support and transfer of skills regarding PRISM and programme monitoring 1 2. Introduction 1. This report is for the Mid-Term Review (MTR) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition (FFE) Programme in Cambodia in FY 2017-2019 (FFE-442-2016/015-00). The work is commissioned by the World Food Programme (WFP) Cambodia Country Office (CO) and is based on the Terms of Reference (ToR) provided by WFP Cambodia (Annex 1). 2. As per the previous USDA phase (2013-2016), the 2017-2019 grant is implemented by WFP in partnership with several government ministries and NGOs. The key partner is the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MoEYS) which is responsible for the implementation of the programme in targeted schools. Within the MoEYS, WFP works closely with several departments including the Primary Education Department/Scholarship Office which supports the implementation and monitoring of the programme. Other ministries involved include the Ministry of Health (MoH), the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD). Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) implementing partners include Plan International, World Vision and for the literacy component, World Education and their partner Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE). Several other United Nations (UN) agencies including FAO, UNICEF, WHO, the World Bank and UNESCO provide support to the school feeding programme through collaboration, coordination or technical support. 3. The MTR provides an evidence-based, independent assessment of the performance of the operation and associated interventions so far, so that WFP Cambodia and partners can make mid-course corrections as necessary to ensure effective programme implementation for the remaining period to 2019. The main objectives of the MTR as indicated in the ToR are: • Accountability: The review will assess and report on the output related performance and results of all McGovern-Dole funded activities, during the school years 2016-17 and 2017-18. • Learning: The review 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. 4. The Government of the United States of America, through the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme, has been a trusted partner of the WFP in Cambodia, since 2001. Since its inception, this partnership has supported more than 3.4 million children with school feeding programmes. For USDA, the MTR serves multiple purposes: to assess project implementation and relevance of interventions, provide an early signal of the effectiveness of interventions, document lessons learned, assess sustainability efforts to date, and discuss and recommend mid-course correction if necessary. 5. Similarly, the CO is keen to assess the progress of programme implementation from October 2016 to date and make any required changes to tailor the McGovern-Dole School Feeding programme for maximum effectiveness. Further, since 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, an important part of the MTR was to assess the partnership with the government and other key stakeholders including local communities and NGOs. 6. To meet the expectations of both the donor and the CO, the MTR will focus on four key areas: programme management approaches, preliminary results of the programme, 2 national ownership readiness, and community engagement as per the ToR. The main sub￾questions under each theme can be found below in Table 1. The MTR included the progress of the output indicators in the project agreement and Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) and the recommendations of the baseline survey from 2017. Outcome indicators will not be assessed until the endline evaluation, so the MTR performance results includes output indicators only. A detailed review matrix, including the key questions, sub-questions, indicators, source of information and data collection methods is in Annex 2. Table 1: Key mid-term review questions Programme management approaches How is the school meal programme aligning to the existing/emerging national governance and administration framework? How is the school meal programme leveraging the efforts made to strengthen capacity at the sub-national level? Preliminary results of the programme What progress has been made towards intended outputs level deliverables (in so far as these can be assessed at the mid-term point as demonstrated by available monitoring data)? e.g. Did assistance reach the intended beneficiaries in the intended quantity and quality as planned? Particular attention will be given to gender disaggregation and analysis. National ownership readiness What steps have WFP and USDA taken to build the capacity of the government to transition towards a national school feeding model by 2021? What have been the role of WFP and USDA in mobilizing national interests to transition towards a national school feeding model and the reasonable likelihood of success by 2021? Is the programme sustainable based on the eight sustainability areas: 1) strategy for sustainability; 2) sound policy alignment; 3) stable funding and budgeting; 4) quality programme design; 5) institutional arrangements; 6) local production and sourcing; 7) partnership and coordination; 8) strong community participation and ownership? Community engagement What are the lessons learned in relation to the involvement of parents and communities in the design and management of the programme at school level, the engagement of volunteer cooks at schools etc? 7. There are several expected users for the MTR report. The primary users will be WFP and partners that will use it as a basis for making decisions related to programme implementation and/or design, partnerships, scaling up of activities or interventions. The key users include the following: • WFP Cambodia CO and the main implementing partners, notably with respect to decision-making related to programme implementation and/or design, country strategy and partnerships. • Other key government partners including the MoH, MAFF, CARD, MoI and MEF might also use this review findings for their learning. • USDA will use the MTR findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks and critical assumptions. • WFP’s Regional Bureau (RB) in Bangkok is expected to use the findings to provide strategic guidance, and programme support, and for sharing lessons across the region. • WFP Headquarters (HQ) may use MTR findings for wider organizational learning and accountability. • WFP Performance Management and Monitoring Division (RMPM) may use this review findings for learning across WFP project and programme. • WFP’s governing body, the Executive Board, has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations. 3 3. Context 8. Cambodia’s HDI value for 2017 is 0.582 - which put the country in the medium human development category—positioning it at 146 out of 189 countries and territories.1 Cambodia attained lower-middle-income country status in mid-2016, and the current GDP per capita is USD1,269.91.2 Economic growth reached 6.8 percent in 2017 according to preliminary estimates, and is expected to remain strong over the next two years (6.9% in 2018 and 6.7% in 2019) as recovering tourism activity coupled with fiscal expansion compensate for some easing in garment exports and construction growth.3 9. Coupled with the strong economy over the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a significantly reduced poverty rate, dropping from 50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 2014.4 However, although the official poverty rate has fallen dramatically, the poor have not risen very far above the poverty line and multi-dimensional poverty5 remains high.6 In 2017 the multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI) was 0.146 with 33 percent of the population affected.7 10. Cambodia has a GII value of 0.473, ranking it 116 out of 160 countries in the 2017 index8, which indicates that gender inequality still exists. The Gender Development Index results are better at 0.553 in contrast with 0.605 for males, resulting in a GDI value of 0.914, placing it into Group 4 which is an improvement since 2015 when it was in Group 5 (the lowest/worst group).9,10,11 Labour force participation of women is also slowly improving, with female participation in the labour market being 80.9 percent compared to 88.7 for men.12 Women are increasingly earning more, migrating from rural areas to urban areas to work or starting small businesses from their homes. In fact, the number of women having their primary occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces.13 This is 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 thirty percent less than men for commensurate work.14 11. Migration: Cambodia is susceptible to two forms of migration: in-country and cross￾border migration, both due to people moving in search of education or employment. Migration either temporary, long-term or permanent for extra earning income has now become a major issue in Cambodia. Around 40 percent of villages in Siem Reap, Battambang, and Kampong Thom are engaged in aquaculture and agricultural crop production and migration in search of seasonal work is common.15 12. The relationship between migration and schooling of children is ambiguous. On one hand, migration can increase household income through remittances and thus increase 1 UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update: Cambodia. 2 World Bank. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 3 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview 4 Ministry of Planning. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia 5 Multi-dimensional poverty takes into consideration three dimensions: health, education and standard of living. 6 Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis. 7 The index identifies deprivations across the same three dimensions as the HDI and shows the number of people who are multidimensionally poor (suffering deprivations in 33% or more of the weighted indicators) and the number of weighted deprivations with which poor households typically contend with. 8 UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update: Cambodia. 9 Ratio of female to male HDI values. Gender Development Index scores range from 0 to 1 with a score of 1 indicating equality between men and women. 10 Gender Development Index groups: Countries are divided into five groups by absolute deviation from gender parity in HDI values. Group 5 comprises countries with low equality in HDI achievements between women and men (absolute deviation from gender parity of more than 10 percent). 11 UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update: Cambodia. 12 Ibid. 13 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning 14 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 15 Royal Government of Cambodia (2015). A Crump Series Report: Migration and left-behind households in rural areas in Cambodia: Structure and socio-economic conditions. December 2015. 4 investment in education; as a result, children’s education improves. On the other hand, migration disrupts the family’s life and may lead to a negative impact on children’s school performance. The adverse effects result from two channels: 1) Absence of parents or adult members may reduce the level of supervision and inputs into children’s education. Consequently, children may drop out of school or be held back due to non-completion or unsatisfactory completion of their work. 2) Migration means losing adult working members and thus may force older children to undertake housework or engage in income earning activities to meet short-term labor and cash shortages. 13. Nutrition: The Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) indicators covering 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.16 Work therefore remains to be done to end food insecurity and hunger for all. 14. Malnutrition remains a significant problem in Cambodia and is a contributing cause in one third of child deaths17 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 Survey18 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.19 Acute malnutrition (wasting) is under ten percent (9.6 percent) which is moderately severe. Micronutrient deficiencies are also 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. 15. Education: Cambodia has made good strides in improving primary education programmes and the gender disparity in education in rural areas. The overall net primary school enrolment figure increased from 88 percent in 2002/2003 to 97.7 percent in 2016- 2017, with girls achieving 87 and 98.2 percent respectively.20 However, progression and retention until the last grade remain unsatisfactory and repetition is high even in the first grade of schooling (11.6 percent in 2015/2016).21 Dropout is also pervasive in some regions, particularly towards the end of the primary school cycle as students become more likely to leave school rather than repeat a year. For example, based on the Education Management Information System (EMIS) in school year 2016/17, in rural area schools, the dropout rate increases with each year of schooling from 4.1 per cent in Grade 3, 5.8 per cent in Grade 4 and 6.7 percent in Grade 5. The gross primary enrolment rate of 118.2 percent suggests late enrolment and high repetition.22 16. School dropout appears to have geographical discrimination aspects, with dropouts more likely to happen in a rural area than in an urban area.23 Boys and girls face different challenges remaining in school, with girls in rural areas dropping out due to severe poverty and end up caring for younger siblings, work alongside their parents in the rice fields, or travel to urban centers to find work in factories.24 Similarly, boys from poor households 16 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf 17 Ibid. 18 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh 19 http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html 20 Country Programme-Cambodia (2011-2018), Standard Project Report 2017 21 Public Education Statistics & Indicators 2016 – 2017. Department of Education Management Information System, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. 22 Project/Program Concept Paper – Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) (5 years/16.5 M USD) – Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, Cambodia – KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency) / Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport / WFP. 23 Heng, K. et al (2016) Research report. School Dropout in Cambodia: A case study of Phnom Penh and Kompong Speu. Korea International Cooperation Agency, Cambodia Country Office. Royal University of Phnom Penh, Faculty of Education 24 UNESCO/UNICEF (2012) Asia/Pacific: End of Decade Notes on Education for All – EFA Goal #5 Gender Equity. Bangkok: UNESCO and UNICEF. 5 are often pressured to leave school and find employment. Although most of national education performance indicators do not differ between boys and girls in primary school, girl completion was significantly higher than their boy counterpart in school year 2016/2017 (83.22 vs 76.71) particularly in rural areas (85.38 vs. 78.74). 17. The fourth Education Strategic Plan (ESP) (2014-2018)25 cites numerous education challenges still to be addressed by the MoEYS including the need to focus on expanding equitable access to primary school education for remote communities, improving the quality of education by developing an accountability framework, the provision of highly qualified teachers, and better textbooks and learning materials. The ASEAN integration in 2015 and the desire for Cambodia to be a middle-income country by 2030 also requires the authorities to make considerable investment in education. As a result, The Royal Government of Cambodia is expected to increase investment in this area, with much of the current budget allocated for the recruitment, training and retention of teachers. 18. School feeding programme: School feeding is a major component of WFP Cambodia’s overall Country Programme (2011-2018).26 Through the Country Programme, WFP is currently implementing school feeding in nine out of the 25 provinces of Cambodia27 targeting 1,919,744 beneficiaries. This includes three provinces where the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE programme is implemented: Battambang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. The overall school feeding programme provides multiple food assistance modalities including school meals programme (SMP), and cash or food scholarships (or take-home rations) (THR). A Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model is also being implemented through support from other donors in which all the food for the school meal is provided by local farmers through local suppliers. A hybrid model that uses some externally procured foods and some locally procured foods is also being implemented with USDA support as a transition step from SMP to the HGSF modality. The hybrid model includes rice and oil from USDA and protein foods and vegetables/fruit from local farmers. 19. In the USDA supported schools, a daily school meal (breakfast) is provided to all pre￾primary and primary school children attending morning classes, aimed to encourage student’s enrolment, attendance and completion of their primary education, and also to reduce short-term hunger and improve their concentration in the classroom. THR is provided to poor children in grades 4 to 6 to support their progression to higher grades and support more equitable access to the government’s scholarship programme for the poor in grades 7 to 9. 20. 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. The transition to national ownership was agreed in May 2015 with the signing of a School Feeding Roadmap between MoEYS and WFP.28 21. The MoEYS started taking over USDA’s THR beneficiaries in 2016 and providing them with a cash scholarship, and this transition is ongoing. Outside of WFP-led school meals activities in the 9 provinces, there is currently no government-led SMP. WFP’s strategy is to utilize USDA McGovern-Dole commodities and capacity building funds to increase the readiness of MoEYS to prepare them for implementing the SMP. 4. Overview of the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme Timing 25 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan (2014-2018) Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. 26 WFP Cambodia Country Programme 200202 27 Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Battambang, Banteay Meanchey, Oddar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, and Staung Treng 28 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. 6 22. The 2017-2019 McGovern-Dole funded operation is a continuation of the 2013-2016 McGovern-Dole Program. The grant under review is to cover three school years over the period October 2016 to August 2019 (three school years). The MTR covers the first two school years: 2016/17 and 2017/18 from October 2016 to August 2018. Objectives 23. The USDA-McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program has two strategic objectives (SOs): to improve the literacy of school-age children and increase the use of improved health and dietary practices. These objectives are to be achieved while simultaneously providing a safety net to vulnerable and at-risk households and children. The McGovern-Dole legislation29 seeks to use the procurement of agricultural commodities and the provision of technical assistance to improve literacy and primary education of school-age children in developing countries. 24. In keeping with the key goals of the legislation, the USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) has developed two results frameworks (RF) each of which depicts a development hypothesis or a theory about how the highest-level result (the strategic objective) can be achieved based on a cause-and-effect logic. 25. Each RF shows how the achievement of lower-level intermediate results (outcomes) leads to the achievement of the next highest level of results, achieving the framework’s SOs. While results may be achieved over a period of years, FAS expects that 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 strategic objective of this framework is the Improved Literacy of School-Age Children. • RF 2: Health and Dietary Practices Results Framework: The strategic objective 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. Outcomes 26. Achievement of RF1 related literacy is dependent upon the achievement of three ‘result streams’ (outcomes) related to Improved Student Attendance, Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction, and Improved Attentiveness. In accordance with WFP Strategic Plans and School Feeding Policy, the school feeding programme also aims to improve food security and encourage enrolment, attendance and completion of primary education through the provision of nutritious meals and food scholarships (THR) to primary schoolchildren. Achievement of RF2 has one main outcome: Reduced health-related absences. 27. The 2017-2019 grant also has a strong focus on government management of the programme and the accelerated pace of handing over programme responsibilities as The Royal Government of Cambodia is expected to take over the management and monitoring of the school feeding programme in 2021. This grant is also more focused on partnership to achieve maximum impact, with a particularly strong focus on literacy improvements. Inputs, outputs and activities 28. To support the achievement of the SOs, USDA McGovern-Dole allocated up to USD15,212,698 for donations of commodities and funding of ocean transportation and other authorized expenses during US fiscal years 2016-2018. Under this agreement, FAS will also provide approximatively 5,900 metric tons (MT) of fortified rice and 330 MT of vegetable oil. 29 https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program 7 29. These inputs are used to provide a daily breakfast and/or take-home rations (often referred to as food scholarships) to primary school children in three provinces of Cambodia: Battambang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap. More specifically, WFP uses commodities donated by USDA-McGovern-Dole and the funds provided by the FAS to carry out a range of project activities including the provision of school meals and take-home rations, establishing school gardens, constructing and rehabilitating school infrastructure, and training school personnel. The programme also invests in ongoing capacity development of the MoEYS personnel at the local, regional and national levels to ensure sustainability and government ownership. In total, there are 15 project activities are as per the project agreement are listed below, with complementary details given in Annex 3. • Capacity Building: Local, regional, national level • 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 • Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines • Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and water stations/systems • Building/Rehabilitation: Kitchens • Provide energy-efficient stoves • Training: Good health and nutrition practices • Raising awareness on the importance of education. 30. Over this phase of programming, WFP will continue to transition the school feeding programme to the MoEYS as per the 2015 Roadmap including transitioning schools to the HGSF by using a hybrid model and reducing their THR activities to zero as students transition to the government’s cash scholarship. Planned beneficiaries 31. The USDA McGovern-Dole school feeding programme for FY2017-19 will reach 862 schools in Battambang, Kampong Thom and Siem Reap Provinces while also supporting complementary activities focused on improving literacy and health and dietary practices. Programme resources will be used to provide 152,000 pre-school and primary schoolchildren with regular school meals. In addition, 15,000 children from the poorest households will receive THRs this phase, with THR beneficiary numbers gradually decreasing as they transition to the government’s cash scholarship. 8 5. Mid-term review approach and methodology 5.1. Review approach 33. The MTR used a utilization focused approach to provide the CO with practical recommendations on improving programme implementation. Although the use of the OECD-DAC30 evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability are not explicitly stated for the MTR, the review will concentrate on identifying issues that affect the effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention. The baseline survey already determined that the intervention is highly relevant, and impact level evaluation will be done at endline, using the same case and comparison groups as for the baseline. The review is based on the USDA McGovern-Dole programme theory and the two RFs described earlier. 34. The review covers all activities implemented through the FFE programme. This includes the provision of a SMP, SMP+THR and the complementary activities outlined above in the programme overview. The review team also visited schools implementing the hybrid model31 to assess how the transition to the HGSF model is working. 35. The review focused on the implementation of the programme with the findings targeted at adjustments or programme management decisions that will help improve implementation. As such, the MTR is focused on interim or anticipated output results, partnerships, implementation arrangements and systems, and any factors affecting the output results achieved at the mid-point. The review did not quantitatively assess the achievement of project outcomes as this will be done during the endline evaluation. 36. Another key component of this MTR was to assess whether the baseline recommendations had been appropriately taken forward. The fact that the same team of independent consultants conducted the previous endline evaluation and baseline for this phase facilitated the follow up of the recommendations. 37. The UNEG guidance on gender and the ethical standards outlined in WFP Office of Evaluation’s Evaluation Policy32 have been used to shape the review approach. The methodology integrates a gender equity lens as part of the overall analysis, addressing the substantive aspects related to gender and equity issues within the programme. The MTR applied gender analysis where possible and assess the extent to which the different needs, priorities, voices and vulnerabilities of women, men, boys and girls have been considered in the design, selection, implementation and monitoring of the programme. 38. The review team also ensured that all stakeholders were informed that participation was voluntary and that all responses are confidential i.e. no statements from key stakeholders will be personally attributable. Head teachers were told in advance that the review team would be visiting, and teachers and/or parents were asked to provide permission for school children to participate in the review. 39. The MTR also included an assessment of the integration of the overall Humanitarian Principles (Humanity, Neutrality, Impartiality and Independence) into the programme. Assessment of the WFP CO’s measures to respond to the Humanitarian Principles will be triangulated through multiple-stakeholder perspectives from different levels (internal and external to WFP, government, civil society and beneficiaries). 5.2. Methodology 30 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Development Assistance Committee 31 In the hybrid model, USDA provides in-kind rice, oil and salt, and provides financial support for local suppliers to provide vegetables, fruits and protein foods. 32 Including WFP’s Code of Conduct and the Code of Conduct for Evaluators 9 40. The baseline assessment33 included two quantitative surveys (school and household) covering 86 USDA schools, 75 matched comparison/control schools (no school feeding) and 963 households so that the situation at the beginning of the programme could be recorded. The future endline evaluation (2019) will carry out the same quantitative and qualitative surveys as the baseline so that direct comparisons can be made, and the impact of the project evaluated. 41. For this MTR, no quantitative surveys were carried out, and the review team primarily collected qualitative data from key stakeholders at national, provincial and district level and a small number of USDA supported schools in order to answer the key review questions described earlier. 42. Qualitative data was collected through a mix of key informant interviews (KIIs) and FGDs with a range of stakeholders during the field mission. The KIIs, done using semi-structured questionnaires and based on the questions outlined in the review matrix. Each questionnaire was intended to be adapted appropriately according to the expertise and relevance of the key stakeholders. A wide range of stakeholders were included, to promote the participation of different groups, including beneficiaries (school children – both boys and girls), parents, teachers and other school staff. Overall, the review team spoke with 296 stakeholders for the MTR (Table 2). Table 2: Summary of key informants Key informants Number USDA, other donors and embassies 10 WFP Country Office 21 Government personnel (national and provincial) 42 NGO partners and UN agencies 20 District school feeding committee members 48 School personnel (School Directors, Teachers/ Storekeepers) 23 Community members (Cooks, Parents, School committee members, School children) 132 TOTAL 296 43. School visits: The review team followed the same qualitative mission approach used for the qualitative data collection in the baseline survey i.e. conduct visits to schools and communities in selected communes receiving assistance from USDA-McGovern-Dole￾WFP. The main objective of the school visits was to collect information from key programme implementation stakeholders at local level and from beneficiaries (school children, teachers and parents). In each school, the review team therefore conducted the following:  An interview with the Head Teacher and other teachers including the storekeeper  Interviews with the school cook/s  FGD with school children (both boys and girls).  FGDs with members of the Local School Feeding Committee (LSFC), School Support Committee (SSC), and parents (men and women). Both the LSFC and the SSC include community leaders (village chiefs and commune leaders). 44. In each school, the review team assessed the storeroom, kitchen, hand-washing and toilet facilities. The review team also observed the provision of the school breakfast in one school (Banteay Srey), visited a school implementing the pilot school lunch model (full day schooling) (Angkor Thom), and also spoke with local farmers and a supplier for the HGSF model. 33 Dunn, S et al (2017) Baseline Report for WFP Cambodia and the USDA/McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme 2017- 2019. 10 5.3. Site mapping 45. School visits were conducted in all three McGovern-Dole supported provinces. The review team elected to visit two schools per province for the full interview schedule. These schools were selected from two different districts or communes (Table 3). An additional two schools were visited so that the Review Team could observe the provision of school meals. In total between the baseline and the MTR, the review team have conducted a comprehensive range of qualitative interviews in 14 USDA supported schools. Table 3: List of districts and schools visited Province District Commune School School ID Modality # schools Battambang Koas Kralor Hab Hob 2130607018 Q1 SMP, Q2 HGSF-Hybrid 2 Thipakdei Tuol Mates 2130404009 Q1 SMP, Q2 HGSF-Hybrid Kampong Thom Prasat Sambor Tang Krasau Kampong Chheu Teal 6050508033 SMP+THR 2 Staung Samprouch Ampil 6081210066 SMP+THR Siem Reap Varin Svay Sa Russei Tauch 17140404015 SMP 4 Angkor Chum Ta Saom Kauk Chan Primary 17010704999 SMP Banteay Srey Visit school breakfast Angkor Thom Don Oy Primary Visit school lunch (full day schooling model) Total 8 46. The review team intentionally chose schools that did not participate in the quantitative baseline survey in 2017. During the endline survey in 2019, all the baseline schools (both case and comparison schools) will be re-surveyed. To reduce school respondent fatigue and enable inclusion of a greater number of schools into the overall project evaluation frame, the review team have chosen the MTR participating schools based on the following criteria: • Did not participate in the baseline survey; • Accessibility within the timeframe of the field mission; and • Interest to include schools using different modalities. 5.4. Data collection methods and tools 5.4.1. Qualitative data collection 47. The MTR used focus groups and key informant interviews and triangulated information from both methods and stakeholder groups to enhance the reliability of findings. Wherever appropriate, the team used FGDs to gather information from similar groups of stakeholders (WFP staff, partners, school committee members, etc.) as well as groups that work together in the field to carry out McGovern-Dole supported programme activities. 48. The review team developed semi-structured interview guides for each type of key informant interview and focus group discussion (Annexes 5 & 6). The ones used for the baseline survey were used as the basis and then amended to give a greater focus on the handover of schools and the key themes of this review: programme management approaches, preliminary results, national ownership, and community engagement. 49. The interview format followed a standard introduction of the team and explanation of the review’s purpose. The team’s independence, neutrality and confidentially of responses was also mentioned, as well as the approximate time (40-50 minutes) of the meeting/interview. 11 The review team also ensured that a gender sensitive approach was used, to create an adequate environment for confidentiality and participation. The Team Leader (female) also had a female translator and the whole team ensured where possible that the timing of the review interviews is appropriate to allow participation of both men and women. 50. Questions were included in the FGD to enable assessment of the effect and relevance of the project on gender dimensions including whether the project meets the specific gender challenges in education in Cambodia. The review also assessed the extent to which the monitoring systems allows collection of the data necessary to assess participation and gender transformation of the project in the context of school, empowerment of women working as cooks (e.g. are they paid appropriately. Other specific gender indicators such as whether women occupy positions on the school feeding committees will be assessed as endline. 51. Ultimately, focus group discussions were not separated on gender as both men and women were used to having open discussions. Furthermore, due to time constraints and the distances between schools the review team split for the school visits and the Team Leader conducted all the interviews in some schools while the other two review team members worked together. Gender specific interviewer and interviewees were therefore not possible. 5.4.2.Verification of quantitative monitoring data 52. In addition to the qualitative data collection described above, the review team verified WFP’s and partner’s monitoring data especially the data provided in WFP’s semi-annual report to USDA (1 October 2017 – 30 March 2018). Although no quantitative surveys were carried out, the verification was done through discussion with the Head Teacher in the selected schools, document review with each of the implementing partners, and triangulated by other key informant’s interviews and FGDs, and by comparing findings to the baseline results. These output results were then used to update the Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP). 5.5. Limitations and risks 53. Overall, the MTR process went smoothly, with no challenges that affected implementation as per the initial plan. 54. Language and cultural barriers for the two international team members were ameliorated by the presence of the national evaluator and the use of translators. The review team provided both translators with a briefing of the project ahead of the field visit to ensure that key concepts are understood during any interpretation required. 55. The MTR took place during the end of the school year, which is a key period in MoEYS calendar and included the national Year 12 exam. Due to the high demand on MoEYS staff time during that period, it was difficult for some key informants to be available. However, after repeated revision of the MTR interview schedule – all planned key informants (except for two) managed to participate in the review. 12 6. Mid-term review findings 6.1. Programme management approaches MTR Q1: How is the school meal programme aligning to the existing/emerging national governance and administration frameworks? 56. The 2013-2016 endline evaluation of the USDA FFE programme34 established that the school meal programme in Cambodia aligned well with national policies and strategies. As a result, the MTR has not repeated the assessment of the programme’s relevance but has looked at the alignment of the programme to recent government policies and frameworks. “Overall, this (endline) evaluation found the FFE programme to be appropriate to the education, food security, and gender contexts, and coherent to the policy framework of the Government as well as to WFP corporate guidance.35 57. It remains clear that WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia, particularly the MoEYS, have a strong and durable relationship. The MoEYS relies on technical support36 from WFP for guiding policy direction and programme implementation support particularly in non-education areas such as nutrition, food security and social protection. This aspect of WFP’s work has also previously been positively reviewed.37 58. During this phase WFP has continued to actively provide technical support and guidance to the government’s development of various policies, strategies, guidelines and frameworks. This includes the School Health Policy which is in the final stages approval, the new ESP (2019-2023) which is currently in the early stages of drafting, and three Early Grade Reading (EGR) standards developed with the support of World Education and KAPE. WFP is also supporting the development of the National Scholarship Policy and relevant guidelines. This work is shown in Table 4 under two output indicators. Table 4: Output results: Support to improving policy frameworks Overall target Baseline MTR % Target Achieved 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 School Health Policy at Stage 3 __ Number of educational policies, regulations or administrative procedures in the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance 4 0 Education Sector Policy (2019-2023) at Stage 1 and three EGR standards have been developed. __ 59. All these policies will be important for supporting a transition of school meals to the government and ensuring that school feeding is recognized as a means of addressing food insecurity and malnutrition in school age children, while providing an important social safety for poor households. 60. WFP has also continued their work from the previous phase (2013-2016) to ensure the inclusion of school feeding into national governance. Last phase, WFP participated in the development of the National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 2014-2018 and ensured 34 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Evaluation Report 35 Ibid. 36 Technical support includes the provision of information on specific topics, discussion on global best practice, provision of data and supporting an understanding of the linkages between the same. 37 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Evaluation Report 13 that school feeding was mentioned in other policies/strategies, such the National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 2014-2018. This phase, WFP has helped ensure that school feeding was included in the National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPPF) 2016-2025, and into the national School Health Policy. MTR Q2: How is the school meal programme leveraging the efforts made to strengthen capacity at the sub-national level? 61. Prior to this phase of programming, WFP has worked for many years to establish multiple school feeding coordination bodies at national and sub-national (provincial, district and school) level to support the implementation and monitoring of the school feeding programme. The national and sub-national school feeding organizational structure has been established over previous programme phases including in both USDA supported and the Country Programme supported provinces. It is therefore difficult to make a clear delineation between what was done through the support of USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme, and especially difficult to determine what developments occurred during the specific period under review. 62. The previous endline evaluation (2017) established that 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.38 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. These coordination structures have been replicated at sub-national level through the establishment of Provincial School Feeding Committees (PSFCs), District School Feeding Committees (DSFCs) and Local School Feeding Committees (LSFC) at school level. At provincial level, the Provincial Department of Education, Youth and Sport (PDoEYS)/ PSFC are involved in the coordination and monitoring of the programme and the DSFCs and the LSFCs ensure regular implementation, including daily food management, preparation and serving breakfast to children, and reporting. These structures are not limited to the three USDA supported provinces but implemented in all provinces where WFP implements the education component of its Country Programme. In 2016 the MoEYS established a Scholarship Office within the Department of Primary Education, to oversee the implementation of school meals and cash scholarships. 63. The MTR found that at both national and sub-national level, these committees have continued to contribute to the overall planning, implementation, coordination and monitoring of school feeding activities. Sub-national capacity building and the implementation of the programme at school level was highlighted in the endline evaluation (2013-2016) as being one of the areas of greatest progress. However, as at endline/baseline, the MTR found that government capacity differs widely between provinces and districts, with a greater understanding and commitment to the programme at district and school level. At provincial and district level there are no full-time staff responsible for the school feeding programme and at school level, high staff turnover means that repeated training is required. Several stakeholders therefore mentioned the need for full time school feeding personnel at sub-national level who would be available to provide formal training, as well as mentoring and coaching as required to ensure new staff have the capacity to implement the programme appropriately. Until the MoEYS provide 38 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Endline Evaluation of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia (2013-2016). Evaluation Report 14 full time staff for the school feeding programme at sub-national level, WFP will continue to provide training for new assigned staff. 64. The review team notes that although the USDA FFE programme is just one part of the larger Country Programme, the implementation of the FFE programme and the education component of the Country Programme are very much connected. The implementation structures (school feeding committees) described above, and the implementation processes are aligned where possible albeit with a different specific objective of the FFE being literacy outcomes. Both school feeding programmes have also leveraged key learning from the other, for example the Country Programme began the process of forming school feeding implementation structures, while the MoEYS capacity development work under the FFE has contributed to improving the quality school feeding implementation across nine provinces, not just the USDA supported provinces. Indeed, ongoing support from USDA has enabled WFP to work together with the MoEYS at all levels and discuss the transition to national ownership. This will affect both the USDA supported schools, and the schools implementing school feeding under the Country Programme. “The renewal of a multi-year donation for school meals and take-home rations by the McGovern-Dole Programme of the United States Department for Agriculture, starting from late 2016, offered a three-year horizon around which to organize the transition of the programme to national ownership as outlined in the school feeding roadmap”39. 65. The endline evaluation will have to assess to what extent achieved outcomes listed in the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE PMP are a result of USDA assistance. Conclusions re programme management approaches 66. Overall, the MTR finds that WFP Cambodia has had significant roles in the development of multiple government policies and that the school feeding programme aligns well with key government policies, strategies and frameworks. WFP continues to be a key technical partner for the government in areas such as food security, nutrition, and social protection. WFP also provides ongoing guidance to the MoEYS regarding the school feeding implementation. In the nine WFP-supported provinces, at all levels, the MoEYS now has appropriate institutional coordination bodies in place albeit with limited staff for providing training and ongoing support to programme implementation. 6.2. Programme results 6.2.1. Review of baseline recommendations 67. The baseline included four recommendations for the implementation of the 2017-2019 phase of the programme. These recommendations stem not only from the baseline assessment but from the findings of the previous endline evaluation (2013-2016) as they were conducted by the same team. • Recommendation 1: Continue programme implementation as per the current agreement (2017-2019). • 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. • 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. 39 WFP Country Programme Cambodia (2011-2018), Standard Project Report 2016. 15 • 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. 68. Recommendation 1: At baseline, no major changes were identified for the programme design for this phase. As a result, the programme has been implemented as per the original agreement with USDA with minor modifications. 69. Recommendation 2: The previous endline evaluation (2013-2016) noted that the literacy component of the programme had not been adequately implemented and that more effort was needed to ensure that SO1 would be met by endline (2019). The review team notes that the literacy partners for this phase, World Education and KAPE were engaged for the start of school year (SY) 2016/17 and that since then, progress in the literacy area has been rapid. The review team notes that all the literacy activities regarding EGR had been implemented in all the schools visited as part of the field mission (See more detail in Section 5.2.2.1). In addition, more stakeholders described literacy activities and outcomes when discussing the programme with the review team than during the endline evaluation in 2017. The review team also found that there was a greater understanding among key stakeholders that school feeding not only contributes to school enrolment and attendance but that it also supports learning. Despite these improvements, literacy continues to be seen as a complementary activity, and not seen as the main objective of the USDA McGovern-Dole funding. 70. Recommendation 3: Again, as a result of the previous endline evaluation findings that indicated that not all USDA supported schools had the full package of infrastructure (kitchen, energy-efficient stoves, food store, handwashing facilities and separate latrines for boys and girls), the team recommended that this work be carried over into the current phase to ensure that all USDA supported schools had the full package of infrastructure before 2019. Two additional activities were therefore added to the original project agreement – building/rehabilitation of kitchens, and the provision of energy-efficient stoves. During the MTR, the team spoke with the implementing partners and reviewed the output data and found that the majority of construction work (kitchens, food stores, handwashing facilities, stoves and latrines) is now complete, and that maintenance and rehabilitation work is ongoing. These output results are described in more detail in Section 5.2.2.2. 71. Recommendation 4: The endline evaluation determined that the planned 2021 timing of the transition to national ownership was overly ambitious and recommended that this phase of programming focus on capacity building and the transition. Multiple actions have taken place in this regard as described ahead in Section 5.3, as national ownership readiness is a key theme of the MTR. 72. Overall, the review team found that all of the baseline recommendations have been appropriately actioned. 6.2.2.Mid-term output results MTR Q3: What progress has been made towards intended output level deliverables? 73. Since no quantitative survey was included in the MTR, the review team used the WFP/partners output monitoring data, interviews with implementing partners and interviews with school personnel and community members to assess the mid-term performance of the programme. The review team verified the output data at the schools included in the field visits and found the data to be correct. Unless otherwise indicated, the output data included in this report is up to June 2018, which is halfway through the period of implementation. 16 6.2.2.1 SO1: Improved literacy of school-aged children 74. Since SY 2016/17, World Education and their partner KAPE have been responsible for the implementation of the literacy component of the FFE programme. This includes providing literacy materials to the USDA supported schools, and training teachers and school administrators in early grade reading teaching techniques. 75. Activities during the first three quarters of SY 2017/18 were implemented as planned. During the third quarter Grades 1-3 teachers, school directors, librarians and Technical Grade Leaders from Year 1 intake schools (SY 2016/17) attended the last two-day training workshop in the FFE teacher training programme. For the Year 2 intake schools (SY 2017/18), the first day of training was provided to school directors, deputies and officials from the District Technical Monitoring Teams on how to best support ongoing professional development among the teachers who have been trained under USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme. 76. The review team noted that during the third quarter of 2018, additional teachers from seven non-USDA assisted schools were present at a training for teachers from Sandann District in Kampong Thom Province after a request from the DoEYS. This inclusion of personnel from non-USDA supported locations should have been first agreed with WFP during quarterly meetings as they raise questions about the connectedness of the literacy component with the other activities implemented under the McGovern-Dole FFE Programme. 77. Table 5 shows selected output results related to the SO1: Improved literacy of school-age children. The latest progress report from World Education (April-June 2018) indicates that 1,371 teachers/educators have been trained (89% of overall programme target) and 1,900 teachers/educators fully certified (86.4% of target). Significant effort has also been made to provide teaching materials to all the USDA supported schools with 94.6% of the programme target already reached. Similarly, World Education and KAPE have done several trainings for teachers of early grades (Grade 1-3) to ensure they have the skills to teach reading. Overall, the review team felt that the literacy activities under this SO are on track to be completed by 2019. Table 5: SO1 - Improved Literacy of School-Age Children: Output results Indicators Overall target Baseline MTR % Target Achieved Improved literacy instructional materials Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 163,404 __ 154,540 94.6% 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. 1,540 0 1,371 89.0% Number of teachers/educators/ teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 2,200 1,167 1,900 86.4% 78. Important developments in the literacy and Early Grade Reading (EGR) arenas also occurred at national level, with the USDA McGovern-Dole programme making contributions to the USAID/MoEYS national All Children Reading Cambodia (ACRC) initiative that is developing a nation-wide package of EGR teaching and learning materials. The five-year programme (2017-2021) aims to improve the reading skills of children in kindergarten and Grades 1-3. The programme was developed based on rigorous, evidence- 17 based approaches that are feasible and practical in Cambodia, with the intention that it will eventually be taken to national scale. 79. Within the ACRC framework, the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) is responsible for coordinating and harmonizing approaches by the numerous NGOs intervening in the EGR arena including Save the Children, Room to Read, World Vision and the USDA FFE partners - World Education and KAPE. By providing embedded technical assistance to the MoEYS and building the capacity of key MoEYS technical department staff, USAID aims to: • Enable the MoEYS to effectively manage evidence-based EGR programmes at the national, provincial, district, and school levels; • Achieve stronger partnerships and a more coherent collective approach to support early grade reading objectives in Cambodia; and • Ensure that the early grade reading and writing programs that are endorsed and implemented in kindergarten and Grades 1-3 are feasible, practical, and scalable.40 80. In parallel, Cambodia has been granted a third Global Partnership for Education (GPE3) grant that will specifically focus on continuous professional development of early grade teachers to improve teacher qualifications and make their teaching more effective. The programme targets 30 districts in 5 northern provinces with high Grade 1 repetition rates and student dropout. The US$14.4 million grant will be managed by UNESCO. 81. Following discussions between MoEYS, UNESCO, and USAID to harmonize interventions covering an overall EGR learning package, it was agreed that USAID would be in charge of the Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) aspect while UNESCO and partners would oversee the Early Grade Mathematics Assessment (EGMA) component. 82. As the implementing partner responsible or the FFE programme’s literacy component, World Education developed a close collaboration with the USAID‐funded ACRC project. Through presentations and ongoing participation in workshops and meetings, World Education staff have shared the training approach and curricula used under the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme, for inclusion into the new national ACRC package.41 World Education then helped support the MoEYS to develop official, MoEYS‐endorsed EGR resources, including curriculum documents, teaching and learning materials, modules and materials to support in‐service training for teachers of Grades 1-3 (as implemented through the FFE programme). 83. The Grade 1 EGR package is currently being completed and will be piloted during SY 2018/19 in Kampong Thom Province with all pre-school and Grade 1 teachers. In early April 2018, World Education also successfully responded to RTI’s Request for Proposals to support the implementation of this pilot in Kampong Thom, reaching 480 primary schools. 84. With the training of teachers and school directors on the new ACRC package scheduled to start in September 2018 in Kampong Thom, the beginning of the synchronization between McGovern-Dole FFE Programme and ACRC is imminent.42 85. Overall, the review team noted that considerable work had been done since baseline in the literacy arena by World Education and KAPE, and that the third year of the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE Programme (SY 2018/19) should see a strategic synchronization of USAID and USDA assistance in the teaching of literacy at early grades in Cambodian primary schools. 40 https://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/education 41 World Education (2018) Year 2 Quarter 3 Progress Report to WFP Cambodia. 42 Ibid. 18 6.2.2.2 SO2: Increased use of health and dietary practices 86. The second SO of the programme is the “increased use of health and dietary practices” to provide a healthy school environment. The activities include construction of latrines, clean water sources and handwashing facilities, establishing school gardens, and training teachers and other school personnel in child health and nutrition, food stock management, food storage and sound food hygiene practice. 87. WFP provided financial support and technical advice to the School Health Department of the MoEYS last programming phase for the formulation of guidelines for Health Education on Hygiene, Sanitation and Food Safety for the School Meal Programme. These were adopted in April 2014 and the guidelines form the basis of the hygiene, sanitation and food safety training that WFP, PLAN and World Vision provide in schools. 88. All these activities contribute to a healthy school environment with a view to ensuring children have the necessary facilities in school to keep them in school for the duration of classes each day. All these activities are ongoing from the previous programme phases. In Battambang, the MoEYS is responsible for the implementation of these activities, while in Siem Reap and Kampong Thom, the cooperating partners are responsible: Plan International and World Vision, respectively. 89. Plan International (Siem Reap): During SY 2017/18, Plan International supported the provision of school meals and THR in 404 primary schools43 in 11 districts of Siem Reap Province. In close cooperation with PDoEYS trainer’s team as well as DoEYS officials, Plan International also conducted training on school gardens for schools in each of the 11 target districts. Kitchens and eating shelters have been upgraded in 13 schools to improve food management and provide dining areas for children to sit while eating their meal. Furthermore, additional school targets and construction sites were identified after the Plan International’s water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) team conducted an in-depth school assessment in mid of February 2018. 90. World Vision (Kampong Thom): World Vision has supported the implementation of the FFE Programme in 7 districts within Kampong Thom Province, covering 220 primary schools including 56 SMP only and 164 SMP+THR schools in 52 communes. Following a request from communities, local authorities and school, two primary schools dropped-out of the programme (both school meals and THR) due to the lack of cooks.44 91. Table 6 shows selected output results related to SO2 combining the outputs of WFP, MoEYS, Plan International, and World Vision. Provision of water sources (114%) are already above target and the provision of sanitary facilities (latrines) is almost complete (99%), while construction of classrooms is still ongoing (48.7%). The two activities added from April 2018: kitchen construction and providing stoves are ongoing with less than 5 percent of each completed to date. Training for teachers on child health and nutrition is also ongoing and on track to reach the programme target by the end of 2019. Overall, the MTR found that this component of work is on track to reach the programme targets by 2019, with cooperating partners increasingly focusing on capacity building/mentoring and coaching of MoEYS to implement and monitor the programme. 43 317 SMP+THR, 14 Hybrid HGSF, 9 HGSF full, 3 HGSF-lunch, and 61 THR alone 44 World Vision International-Cambodia quarterly progress report (01 January – 31 March 2018). 19 Table 6: SO2 - Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices: Output results Indicators Overall target Baseline MTR % Target Achieved Increased knowledge of nutrition Number of individuals trained in children health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 3,600 0 2,370 65.8% Increased access to clean water and sanitation Number of schools using an improved water source 500 433 568 113.6% Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 590 574 583 99% Improved school infrastructure Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classroom and latrines, storeroom, kitchen, FES) rehabilitated/ constructed as a result of USDA assistance 866 0 422 48.7% Number of kitchens built or rehabilitated 70 0 3 4.2% Number of energy-saving stove built 70 0 2 2.9% 92. Implementing partners and government representatives also reported that in addition to the above output indicators, some behavioral changes had occurred. These included good eating habits, and regular hand washing. 6.2.2.3 Programme outputs re: Improved access to food (school feeding) 93. As per the FFE Programme’s Theory of Change (Annex 7), improving access to food through school feeding helps encourage children’s enrolment and attendance in schools, and ensures that children receive a meal before class so that they can concentrate on their studies. This improvement in cognitive ability in turn contributes to the children’s ability to learn, with a specific interest for the USDA programme, on children learning to read. 94. Table 7 shows selected output results related to access to food (school feeding). The programme has so far provided 14,887,000 school meals, to 150,570 school children, of which 48.4 percent were female. These numbers include meals provided only during SY 2017/18 as the SY2016/17 meals were included in the previous grant (2013-2016). The programme has also provided 143,890 THRs to 15,004 school children, of which 54.8 percent were female. The number of THR provided is 45.2 percent of the overall programme target. Table 7: Other output results: Access to food (school feeding) Indicators Overall target Baseline MTR % Target Achieved 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 38,945,000 0 14,887,000 38% Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance). 189,000 0 150,570 Female 79.7% 72,910 (48.4%) Male 77,660 (51.6%) Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in 281,500 0 185,500 65.9% 20 productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance Female 93,100 (50.2%) Male 92,400 (49.8%) Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance 318,000 0 143,890 45.2% Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance 22,500 0 15,004 Female 66.7% 8,215 (54.8%) Male 6,789 (42.5%) 95. From baseline (September 2017) to March 2018, WFP has received 997 MT of food from USDA to be used for THR, SMP and hybrid modalities. The MTR found that the food was of high quality and that WFP delivered the food to schools in a timely manner. 96. WFP has put a complaints/feedback mechanism in place: an automated telephone answering service where people leave voice message and their phone number and are then called back by WFP personnel to discuss the issue. Since 2016 the system has received eight calls regarding implementation issues, most of which were related to the cook being absent and/or the school not providing meals. Seven of the complaints have been investigated and found to be true, while the eighth is still under investigation. More information on cook’s absenteeism can be found ahead in the section on community engagement. 97. Additional output results for both SO1 and SO2 can be found ahead under the other review themes, and the updated programme PMP from the MTR can be found in Annex 8. Conclusions regarding programme results 98. Overall, the review team felt the that the programme is being implemented effectively at school level, and the monitoring data indicates that the programme is on track to meet the planned targets by endline (2019). 6.3. National ownership readiness MTR Q4: What steps have WFP and USDA taken to build the capacity of the government to transition towards a national school feeding model by 2021? 99. At the endline evaluation of the previous phase, the review team felt that the timeline for transitioning a school meals programme to national ownership by 2021 was overly ambitious. There was not yet a clear transition strategy, school feeding policy or budget line and the government had not yet officially stated which model/s of school meals programming they preferred. At the time, the MoEYS was in the process of conducting a feasibility study,45 with support from WFP/USDA to explore their capacity to continue the school feeding program after 2021. The endline evaluation (2013-2016) therefore included three specific recommendations related to national ownership readiness: • That WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia review the HGSF feasibility study research findings as priority. This review should result in decisions that will guide the short/medium term development of a national school feeding approach. 45 Ham Kunthea, Kang Sophanna, Chhe Bunthang “The Feasibility of the Implementation of School Feeding Programs in Primary schools by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport”, Department of Policy, MoEYS 2017. 21 • That the 2015 Roadmap should be reviewed with a 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. • That the WFP CO should work closely with Government counterparts at central and local levels to ensure that school feeding is appropriately reflected in the next government budget cycle (2018/2019). This may include the development of formal school meal contribution plans with annual contribution targets. 100. The review team recognizes that in the year since the endline/baseline, the MoEYS has made progress in clarifying their preferred model/s of school meal programme. It was already apparent that the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE model was not the government’s preferred school feeding model because of the use of imported food. The MoEYS feasibility study established HGSF as the most promising model for national programme implementation. In March 2018, the feasibility study was followed by an Interagency Social Protection Assessment (ISPA) to provide systematic information on the social protection benefits of the HGSF programme, with a focus on the intersecting benefits of food security, nutrition and social protection.46 The ISPA found that the HGSF model provides benefits in all those sectors. As a result, the ISPA recommended that public funding be used for the programme, as well as specific sectoral support from several other ministries. 101. At national level, MoEYS counterparts are now clear, that along with cash scholarship, the government is looking to pilot the implementation of HGSF. It is also well known that that WFP ‘s financial support to implementation will end at some point and that the MoEYS will be responsible for continuing implementation. The MTR found that there is now increased demonstration of government commitment to the school meals programme including the incorporation of school feeding as part of the process of achieving SDG4 and increasing recognition that school meals plays a role in promoting good educational outcomes. ‘In Cambodia, … which has a relatively high school attendance rate of about 95% but a significant number of pupils who repeat years and break off their schooling, particularly in the poorer sections of the population, school feeding promotes success at school and leads to a reduction in the number of pupils breaking off their schooling, as well as an increase in the number of children who go on to further schooling.’47 102. Since 2011, under Country Programme 200202, WFP has been supporting the MoEYS to transition from food scholarships (THR) to cash scholarships in line with the National Social Protection Strategy. The government’s cash scholarship is currently being implemented in Grades 4-6 (as per the THR model) with plans to expand to Grades 1-12. Scholarship beneficiaries are targeted on the basis of household poverty, and primary school scholarship recipients receive USD60 per year.48 This money enables households to send their children to school and encourages them to stay in school in order to receive ongoing support. From SY 2018/19, the MoEYS plans to extend the scholarship scheme to Grades 1-3. In the long run, the MoEYS is planning to cover the whole basic education cycle (Grades 1-12) to encourage school attendance and completion, especially for children from poor households. 6.3.1. Transitioning to a cash scholarship model 46 Report on a pilot application of the ISPA-FSN tool for the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Cambodia, EU/GIZ/World Bank/WFP/FAO, 2018. 47 Bliss, F. (2017) Home-Grown School Feeding as a “Good Practice” for Poverty Alleviation and Nutrition Security in Cambodia. Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), University of Duisburg-Essen (AVE-Studie 4/2017, Wege aus extremer Armut, Vulnerabilität und Ernährungsunsicherheit – Ways out of extreme poverty, vulnerability and food insecurity). 48 At primary school level, the amount of the scholarship is 60 USD per student/per year. At low secondary level 80 USD per student/per year. 22 103. To support the transition to national ownership, WFP and the MoEYS signed a national transition agreement in March 2018.49 The transition plan is brief but sets out the key activities for 2018 including the following: • WFP will continue to reduce THR implementation until SY 2019/20, during which time the MoEYS will increase their cash scholarships. • Harmonize the primary school scholarships in line with the already existing government scholarships so that the programme will be implemented from grades 1- 12. • Identify suitable models of school meals programme to pilot. • Set up information system for monitoring, evaluating and reporting the school meals programme. 104. While a transition agreement is an appropriate starting point, the review team notes that specific targets, benchmarks and responsibilities for each of the above are not yet in place. The addition of the same would make it easier to monitor the progress of the transition. The MTR found that WFP has already reduced its THR beneficiaries from 15,000 in 2016/17 to 8,400 in 2017/18. This will reduce to zero in SY 2018/19. 105. Aside from the transition plan, WFP and the MoEYS are currently developing the National Scholarship Policy. Furthermore, in 2018 a national scholarship budget line was released for USD 5.8 million to cover 96,500 primary school students with the USD 60 annual scholarship. This budget line is now expected to be ongoing. 106. Overall, the review team found that the transition to the scholarship modality is on track to be fully nationally owned by the end of the USDA funding and merged into the national scholarship programme managed by the Scholarship Office of the Primary Education Department of the MoEYS. 6.3.2.Transitioning to the HGSF model 107. The 2015 School Feeding Roadmap50 clearly states the government’s intention to move away from an externally supported school meals programme and transition to full responsibility for a comprehensive, nationally-owned approach to school feeding. The Roadmap outlines the activities required to achieve transition by 2021. The review team note that as of 2018 the MoEYS and WFP have completed the majority of the “short-term” (2015-2016) Roadmap activities, with two exceptions: there is no stand-alone school meals policy, and while there is a scholarship budget, there is no MoEYS budget line for school meals. 108. In June 2018, WFP and the MoEYS hosted a national workshop with the intention of reviewing the 2015 Roadmap and drafting an action plan for school meals for the period 2019-2023. The workshop included government representatives from national, provincial and district level, WFP representatives from several countries, cooperating partners, and other development actors. During the workshop, the results of the MoEYS feasibility study on HGSF were presented and the MoEYS confirmed that HGSF was their preferred model for providing school meals. 109. The HGSF model is currently implemented by WFP as part of the school meals activities in the Country Programme in non-USDA supported areas. As of 2017, HGSF is implemented in four provinces: Kampong Thom, Siem Reap, Oddar Meanchey and Preah Vihear. During SY 2017/18, the HGSF model was implemented in 205 primary schools in these four provinces and benefits 40,960 primary school students of which 20,104 (49%) were girls. 49 Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) Strategic plan for the implementation of the school feeding programme. 50 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. 23 110. At the National Stakeholder Workshop, the process for transition planning for school meals was started and workshop participants recommended that either a school feeding or school nutrition policy be developed. The discussion centred on ensuring that the policy included minimum standards for HGSF operation with costing options, roles and responsibilities of line departments, procurement and budget procedures, monitoring and evaluation processes, and minimum standards of infrastructure for school meal programme and community participation. 111. The workshop also included some preliminary work on identifying the key steps to achieving the benchmarks set out in the 2015 Roadmap. In addition, a preliminary HGSF costing exercise was done, led by WFP, that determined that implementation of HGSF in 205 schools would cost USD 2 million per year. This is around 0.25 percent of the MoEYS’ total annual budget (USD 816 million). The awareness of the (low) cost of implementation resulted in a call from the MEF for the MoEYS to prepare a proposal to pilot the HGSF. This has since been developed51 and submitted to the Prime Minister’s Office for approval. If successfully funded, the MoEYS will implement a pilot HGSF project in a total of 205 schools in five provinces,52 including one of the current USDA supported provinces (Siem Reap) for a period of three years (SY 2018/19 – SY 2020/21). 112. Aside from the new MoEYS HGSF proposal, the eventual scale of a nationally-owned school meals programme (as opposed to the cash scholarship component) remains unclear. To date, no decision has been made about whether the MoEYS intends to take over all the USDA supported schools (in three provinces), or all the schools where WFP is currently implementing school feeding through the Country Programme (in nine provinces), or indeed establish school meals programmes in other locations. MTR Q5: What has been the role of WFP and USDA in mobilizing national interests to transition towards a national school feeding model and the reasonable likelihood of success by 2021? 113. The current interest from the government in transitioning to a nationally-owned school feeding programme is due in large part to the ongoing support from USDA and the strong partnership between WFP and the MoEYS. Most of the other donors to the school feeding programme under the Country Programme only provide support to food items, so it is only the support from USDA that has enabled the majority of the capacity building work to take place, including the recent feasibility study on HGSF, and the National Stakeholder Workshop. 6.3.3.Support to national policies, frameworks and coordination 114. Much of this area of work has already been described above in Section 5.1 and this is a major role for WFP in the process of transitioning to national ownership. As indicated above, WFP has provided considerable policy/strategy development support to the MoEYS and with several other government ministries and coordination bodies to harmonize the school feeding related policy environment. 115. The main policy that remains undeveloped is a stand-alone school feeding policy (school meals). Although the development of such a policy is included as one of the activities planned for the medium-term phase (2017-2020) of the 2015 Roadmap, MTR interviews with key stakeholders indicate that there is ongoing debate and uncertainty about whether it will eventuate. This is mainly because school feeding is already included within the School Health Policy and because a National Scholarship Policy is currently in development. Since the review team were in Cambodia, a committee has been formed to 51 MoEYS, Project/Program Concept Paper, Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF). 52 The five target provinces are: Banteay Meanchey, Siem Reap, Kampong Cham, Prey Veng and Kampong Speu. 24 develop a comprehensive policy that is expected to cover a range of topics including school feeding (SMP, HGSMP and THR). At present the policy is also expected to include Early Childhood Education, the first 1000 days of life (conception to age two years), parent education, health education, hygiene and food safety, and micronutrients. The development of the policy will be included in the endline evaluation. 116. In addition, because the eventual scale of a nationally-owned school meals programme (as opposed to the cash scholarship component) remains unclear it is uncertain if an additional policy is required. While this is still ambiguous, the inclusion of school feeding in the School Health Policy and the National Social Protection Policy Framework will have to suffice. 117. The school feeding related policy environment is growing and WFP’s policy and strategic direction work in collaboration with multiple ministries is critical, as school feeding relates not just to the education sector, but to others including food security, nutrition and social protection. The endline evaluation, the recent National Stakeholder Workshop and the ISPA all recognized that future delivery of the school meals programme will require inter￾ministerial support, not just implementation by MoEYS alone. The leadership of institutions such as CARD and the National Social Protection Council (NSPC) will therefore be critical to addressing cross sectoral coordination.53 6.3.4.Support to national school meals programme design 118. WFP has been supported by USDA since 2001. In recent years, to support the transition to a nationally-owned programme, WFP have implemented several different school meal models to demonstrate to the MoEYS what is possible. WFP is currently implementing/piloting four HGSF models, two of which are supported by USDA. • School meal breakfast (USDA supported): All commodities are externally sourced. Rice and vegetable oil are provided by USDA and other commodities are supported by other donors. • Hybrid breakfast: Rice and vegetable oil is provided by USDA and complementary foods (vegetables, fruits and protein foods) are supplied locally. • HGSF breakfast: All commodities are purchased and supplied locally (including rice, vegetable oil, iodized salt, fresh vegetables, animal protein–fish, meat, egg). • HGSF lunch: The MoEYS with support from WFP is currently piloting full-day schooling in four schools in Angkor Thom District of Siem Reap Province. In those schools, a lunch is provided for students in school instead of breakfast using the same locally procured items as per the HGSF breakfast. 119. USDA support has also enabled WFP to demonstrate to the MoEYS what results are possible if a full package of interventions is implemented: school meals, THR/scholarships, improvements to school infrastructure, and teacher/school personnel training. If not all aspects of the programme are delivered, the results will vary. The endline evaluation will assess whether the USDA package has been not just a tool for encouraging enrollment and attendance in class, but also a platform for contributing to student learning outcomes, in this case, improved literacy. 120. USDA support for the transition to a HGSF model by using a hybrid model has also enabled schools to transition slowly with minimal disruption to the programme. The review team found that USDA supported schools that have already the opportunity to implement a hybrid model should be able to smoothly transition to the government’s HGSF model. 53 CARD is currently mandated to coordinate the Technical Working Group (TWG) on Social Protection and Food Security and Nutrition, and to chair the Food Security and Nutrition Forum. The NSPC was established under MEF to implement and monitor the NSPPF 2016- 2025. Under the NSPPF 2016-2025, CARD remains a key stakeholder and active participant in the committees directing social assistance aspects of social protection. 25 6.3.5.Support to programme monitoring and reporting 121. In line with the 2015 Roadmap and with the March 2018 transition agreement, WFP has been progressively transferring the programme’s monitoring requirements to the MoEYS. Plan International and World Vision are now taking more of a coaching/mentoring role when it comes to programme monitoring, allowing district level MoEYS personnel to take on more of the monitoring requirements. In schools, school meal programme monitoring is still largely paper based although some districts have started a digitization process and use tablets for the collection of some data. 122. At national level, WFP is still largely responsible for programme monitoring with plans for the MoEYS to take over scholarship monitoring from October 2018. With USDA support, in 2015 in cooperation with the Cambodia’s National Committee for Disaster Management WFP developed a new monitoring system: Platforms for Real-time Information SysteMs (PRISM).54 123. PRISM is a hub of information on Cambodia, using an interactive online map to pool data from several government ministries. During 2016, WFP trained 87 people in the use of tablets and the Resource Map tool (a component of PRISM) for digital and mobile data collection, with all information reported on a provincial decision support system. PRISM is also the main system for collecting information on the government scholarship programme and school standards. Information can be gathered relating to school performance, covering hundreds of schools. PRISM has now been expanded to include more education information including monitoring school enrolments, scholarship, resources and teacher-student ratios. 124. This system is currently being transferred to the MoEYS Scholarship Office, with ongoing collaboration to ensure PRISM is appropriate for MoEYS use. The transfer of knowledge to MoEYS includes providing training to staff and supplying equipment (screens) in the three USDA provinces. PRISM is currently being customized for monitoring the national scholarship programme and tested in some schools in Phnom Penh with a view to future roll-out. Cooperating partners highlighted the need for continued capacity building for MoEYS staff regarding data management. The recent ISPA also identified that there is a risk is that after the HGSF is adopted by the government, that PRISM may not be utilized due to lack of technical capacity.55 125. Despite the advances in monitoring technology, the current coverage of the USDA programme means that it is difficult to monitor all the schools without full time personnel. The number of MoEYS personnel tasked with programme monitoring will therefore need to be considered during transition planning. 126. Overall, despite the significant progress made in the last year, the review team still believes that the 2021 transition date is unrealistic as activities are currently 2-3 years behind the original schedule. The minutes from the National Stakeholder Workshop also indicate that discussions focused on a revised schedule to 2023.56 The review team feels that more detailed transition planning is still required to establish the necessary steps to accomplish each of the above, timing the activities, responsibilities and other items. Further transition planning is already planned for later in 2018 and once that takes place and the specific steps and benchmarks are identified, a clearer timeframe for the transition should be developed. MTR Q6: Is the programme sustainable based on the eight sustainability areas? 1) Strategy for sustainability 54 https://innovation.wfp.org/project/prism 55 Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) Report on a pilot application for the ISPA-FSN tool for the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Cambodia. Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessment for Food Security and Nutrition. 56 As per National Stakeholder Workshop minutes (English version). 26 127. It is clear that the USDA FFE model of school meals is not sustainable per se as the government prefers the HGSF model that uses local production and supply. However, the work supported by USDA over several phases of programming should result in the government implementing a school feeding programme that includes cash scholarships to encourage enrolment and retention, and a school meals component that will help children focus on their studies. This is in line with the 2015 Roadmap and the transition planning that commenced during the National Stakeholder Workshop earlier this year. Furthermore, the literacy work implemented with World Education and KAPE will soon be integrated into the national curriculum, ensuring that teachers in Cambodia have adequate skills to teach EGR. 128. Overall therefore, the key elements of the FFE programme: a scholarship to encourage enrolment, provision of a school meal, and integration of literacy into the national curriculum, are likely to be sustained by the MoEYS. 2) Sound policy alignment 129. As previously stated in the programme management approach section, WFP has worked hard in recent years with USDA funding, to support the Royal Government of Cambodia’s policy direction, especially in areas such as food security, nutrition, school health and social protection. Participants of the June 2018 National Stakeholder Workshop recommended that CARD and MoEYS provide input to the Ministry of Planning (MoP) to integrate School Meals Programme into the upcoming draft of NSDP 2019-2023, and MoEYS to integrate SMP into the ESP 2019-2023 and the Annual Operation Plan 2019. USDA support has therefore resulted in the incorporation of school feeding into the overall governance of Cambodia, which will contribute to the sustainability of the programme. 3) Stable funding and budgeting 130. In 2011, WFP and the Royal Government of Cambodia signed a Memorandum of Understanding “covering the Government’s new five-year contribution to the Country Programme of 2,000MT of rice per year and a portion of associated costs”.57 This rice could be used anywhere within the WFP Country Programme; for either/both school feeding and livelihood support activities. This in-kind support to the programme has been ongoing since then but ends this year. Instead, the MoEYS is now looking for funds to expand the cash scholarships to early primary (Grades 1-3) and eventually to Grade 1-12. The current cash scholarship is now fully government funded for Grades 4-6. 131. Although all the MTR interviews with MoEYS high-level officials confirmed the government’s interest to have a nationally-owned school meals programme, the MoEYS faces ongoing budgetary constraints. The primary constraint is that 80 percent of the current annual budget is dedicated to staff salaries, with only 20 percent for programme implementation. Furthermore, the MoEYS’s primary priority is to improve teachers’ salaries to help them recruit and retain better qualified teachers. Allocating funds to teachers therefore constrains the school feeding budget and inhibits the national scale-up as outlined in the 2015 Roadmap. As a result, the present prospects for the future school meal component are limited to the recent MoEYS proposal to pilot HGSF in 205 primary schools.58 At the time of the MTR the proposal has not yet been funded. 132. WFP is currently seeking support from other donors for the future school feeding programme. The recent ISPA noted that moving forward on HGSF “requires the commitment of public funds to the HGSF programme and explicit sectoral support. The 57 WFP (2011) Standard Programme Report. 58 Out of a total 7,189 primary schools in Cambodia in SY 2017-2018 27 cross sectoral nature of the school nutrition programmes provide a challenge for the commitment of public funds and responsibilities”.59 133. Table 8 shows the public and private sector investments to implement the school meals programme. To date, the programme has received USD 883,038 in additional (non-USDA) funding, which is 92.8 percent of the overall programme target. This includes US 395,160 from the Royal Government of Cambodia towards cash-scholarships, US 440,302 as cost￾sharing by NGO partners and US 47,575 as contributions from the community and local authorities. Table 8: Public and private sector investments Overall target Baseline MTR % Target Achieved Increased government support Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance $951,100 0 $883,038 92.8% 4) Quality programme design 134. WFP has made significant efforts to ensure the eventual nationally owned school feeding programme is based on quality programme design. For example, the government’s cash scholarship targeting criteria is based on the original USDA THR criteria, and the implementation of hybrid and HGSF models by WFP under the Country Programme provided the government with the opportunities to see the benefits of such a modality. 135. Going forward, the main issue regarding programme design will be to determine the specifics of the eventual nationally-owned school meal component: which areas, which schools, what is the timeframe, and ensuring standardization of implementation across the programme. 136. The review team found that outside of the central level MoEYS stakeholders, there is considerable uncertainty about what is being “handed over” to the MoEYS and when. Different stakeholders currently have very different understandings about the eventual coverage and nature of the future programme – ranging from a complete handover of the WFP supported school meals (including all activities), to an opinion that cash scholarships will be the only activity included in the future programme. 137. MTR field visits at school and district levels also indicated varying levels of understanding about if, when and how the USDA school meals programme will transition to the hybrid or HGSF models. In some districts where neither HGSF nor hybrid model were implemented, most school feeding implementers were unaware of HGSF modalities. This is important to consider given that of the five provinces targeted under the MoEYS’s recent HGSF proposal, only two have any experience of HGSF. One province (Siem Reap) is currently implementing SMP under USDA as well as HGSF under the Country Programme and schools in Banteay Meanchey are also currently implementing SMP under the Country Programme. The other three provinces: Prey Veng, Kampong Cham and Kampong Speu currently have no experience of the HGSF modality. Transitioning to HGSF will therefore require detailed programme guidelines, full-time district level school feeding personnel to support implementation, and ongoing technical backstopping from WFP. 5) Institutional arrangements 138. At the time of the baseline, the school feeding programme was already coordinated and supervised by the MoEYS and its line departments, school authorities, and local 59 Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) Report on a pilot application for the ISPA-FSN tool for the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Cambodia. Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessment for Food Security and Nutrition. 28 government with support from WFP as described earlier. According to the 2015 Roadmap a specific School Feeding Programme Unit (SFU) should be established to manage and implement the school meals programme (both school meals and scholarship programmes) and the existing SFTF integrated into this unit during the mid-term period (2017-2020). A SFU should be funded by the government and include sufficient full time staff to support national and sub-national programme implementation. The need for a SFU is still under discussion, and dependent on the scale of the future school meals component of the programme. 139. The review team note that the annual National Capacity Index (NCI) assessment for school feeding programme for 2018 did not yet take place but is planned for the end of this year. The findings of this exercise and the changes noted since the previous exercise (January 2017) will be important for determining what areas of government support WFP should prioritize. 6) Local production and sourcing 140. The review team agrees that a HGSF model has great potential for an agricultural country such as Cambodia. MTR interviews indicate that supporting ministries including MAFF, MoI, MEF, and the CARD are all supportive of the HGSF direction. Furthermore, communities where HGSF is implemented are keen to embrace the economic opportunity that HGSF could bring. Nevertheless, the review team note that there has not yet been any formal evaluation of the HGSF programme in Cambodia, so it is difficult to determine if it is feasible for it to be implemented at scale. Stakeholders raised concerns that some locations are often affected by drought or flood and that would impact the ability of local farmers and suppliers to provide adequate food for the programme. In addition, currently the HGSF model is implemented with suppliers from the same commune or district, rather than national or provincial level suppliers. This has the potential to limit food availability for the programme over the course of the year. 141. Participants in the June 2018 National Stakeholder Workshop also highlighted that there is still a need for the collection of evidence bases on benefit of such a programme in Cambodia. This includes the need for a comprehensive costing of the programme including all components – implementation, monitoring, staff requirements, and evaluation. This process has been started but needs more work. 7) Partnership and coordination 142. The relationship between WFP and the MoEYS is strong, having been built over many years. WFP also has ongoing relationships with several ministries as mentioned earlier and although they are not yet formal school feeding partners, many provide ongoing technical support to the programme. In addition, WFP relies on support from their implementing partners: World Education and the KAPE for the literacy component, and PLAN International and World Vision for the school meals and school scholarship implementation, and school environment improvement. 143. WFP meets quarterly with the implementing partners to update progress, discuss challenges, and propose solutions for improving the next quarter’s performance.60 Quarterly meetings of the PSFC are also held with the participation or representatives from the DSFCs and from WFP and the implementing partners. The specific meeting objectives include: (i) Update on progress/challenge related to the school meals programme, and community mobilization for supporting school meals and cook, (ii) review of existing school feeding committees’ structure at district and commune levels and (iii) update about on the progress of the Roadmap. 60 PLAN International Cambodia quarterly report (01 January – 31 March 2018) to WFP Cambodia. 29 144. The main limitation in cooperation noted by stakeholders during the MTR was that although all partners attend the quarterly partnership meetings and WFP, Plan and World Vision collaborate strongly to work on solutions to programme challenges, the work of World Education and KAPE is too specialized to enable the same relationship. Nevertheless, all three implementing partners work at sub-national levels and have strong relationships with the PDoEYS, DoEYS, and with the targeted schools. Cross￾collaborations should therefore be strengthened. 8) Strong community participation and ownership 145. During focus group meetings with parents and school committee members, the MTR team noted that community members were eager to participate in the school meals programme. Community participation in all locations appears to be high and this was positively reviewed in the 2013-2016 endline evaluation. Community engagement has been included as a whole theme of this MTR to help identify lessons in what works and what needs improvement. The detailed MTR findings on this theme can be found in the next section. Conclusions regarding national ownership readiness 146. The Royal Government of Cambodia has repeatedly shown its commitment to universal coverage of school feeding programs in public primary schools. However, the major challenge is how to meet the demand to provide healthy meals and support the local economy and agriculture, while keeping the school feeding program affordable. 147. Since baseline, WFP and partners have done considerable work in support of the transition to national ownership. It is now clear that the MoEYS will be implementing a school feeding programme with two components: cash scholarships and the HGSF model for school meals. The review team believe that transitioning current HGSF schools to government ownership will be smooth, while transitioning current SMP and hybrid schools to HGSFP will require considerable technical support. 148. The review notes that the scale and locations for the school meal implementation remain unclear and there has not yet been any government funding made available. The transition planning that is scheduled for later in 2018 should clarify some of the uncertainties and set out a clear exit strategy that outlines the roles and responsibilities of different actors. Those decisions will directly affect several areas including funding requirements, human resources requirements, and the timeline for transition. At this point, the scaling up of the HGSF by 2021 as outlined in the 2015 Roadmap remains overly ambitious. 6.4. Community engagement 149. According to the World Bank’s Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER),61 school feeding programs that respond to community needs tend to be the strongest and the ones most likely to make a successful transition from donor assistance. WFP has implemented school feeding in Cambodia since 1999 to help address a clear need – increased primary school enrolment and support to regular school attendance. 150. The implementation of the FFE programme uses an approach where schools are responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the programme, with support from district level MoEYS personnel and the implementing partners. The organizational structure puts the Head Teacher in charge of daily implementation while the Storekeeper (another teacher) is accountable for food management and providing cashier duties regarding purchase of spices or other items. The successful implementation of the programme at school level is therefore largely dependent on the skills of the people in these two positions and having a cook to prepare the meal. 61 http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm 30 6.4.1. Community support to school feeding implementation 151. All the schools visited by the review team, both at baseline and as part of the MTR, have a LSFC in place. The LSFC comprises representatives from local governance bodies (Commune councilors and/or village chiefs), teachers, parents, and other community members and has defined responsibilities and periodic meeting and training. Table 9 shows that all USDA supported schools have a LSFC or similar in place to support the school meals programme, and those LSFCs have been in place prior to this phase of programming. Table 9: Output results: Community engagement Baseline MTR Overall target % Target Achieved 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 590 585 590 99% 152. The LSFC of each school visited during the field missions all actively support the programme and are accountable for the implementation of the programme. The LSFCs meet regularly to discuss the programme, address issues and conduct community fundraising to support the programme. The LSFC is also involved in recruiting students for THR and the school cooks. 153. However, the review team note that there was confusion among stakeholders about whether the community “owns” the programme or not and therefore how involved they should be. According to SABER, to demonstrate community ownership, the community must be involved in several aspects of a programme which in this case, they are not:62 • The community was not part of developing the initial design of the programme (it has been implemented since 1999, and it is a standard USDA model), • The community do not participate in the ongoing monitoring of the programme, • They do not ensure that the storekeeper is managing the food appropriately, and 154. The review team determined that since the programme is intended to eventually be implemented by the government, and is currently implemented in MoEYS schools, by MoEYS personnel, it is appropriate that it be “owned” by the MoEYS. Furthermore, school feeding is now an acknowledged part of the national social protection/safety net system, so it is not appropriate that it is community owned. The programme is however, supported by numerous other stakeholders including local authorities and the community 155. The MTR found that level of community participation is high, with active participation of the teachers, not just the Head Teacher and the storekeeper, in each school. Actively engaged teachers improve the trust and cooperation between cooks, students, the LSFC and the community. 156. As well as the LSFC, each school has a School Support Committee (SSC) that is composed of local authorities, parents, teachers, and students that acts as a liaison between the school and community. The SSC are responsible for supporting and fundraising for school infrastructure and maintenance of the school grounds. The LSFC and the SSC sometimes work together, with the support from commune councils, to fundraise to support the construction or rehabilitation of school infrastructure. 62 System Assessment and Benchmarking for Education Results (SABER) for School Feeding is part of a larger exercise by the Education Department of the World Bank’s Human Development Network (HDNED), which aims to benchmark all of the education sub-systems. 31 157. In addition to the input from the LSFC and the SSC, the current USDA/McGovern-Dole programme relies on wider community participation in the form of providing firewood, vegetables, cooking utensils, salts, cooking ingredient, and clean water (if needed). Community members also help recruit the cooks from within their community. They are also sometimes invited to participate in social events organized at the schools. The ongoing relationship between the school and the community helps to strengthen community participation in the programme. Training for the LSFC and community members/parents in child health and nutrition and other topics, provided through USDA support or through other agencies have also contributed to building community confidence, improving social interactions, creating networks, and a better understanding of food security and nutrition. This also helps build social capital. 158. Transitioning to the HGSF (or hybrid model) brings additional opportunities for community engagement and participation, as the local farmers are tasked to provide all the necessary food items for the school meal. The purchase of vegetables, rice, fish, and meat from local communities then creates income opportunities for farming households. Under the HGSF model, the LSFC also have additional tasks as daily, weekly and monthly meal plans are required that are appropriate for the available seasonal produce. 159. Overall, the review team found that all the schools, with the support of the cooperating partners are implementing the programme well. In general, the review team also found that community members (particularly parents), are willing to participate where they can. However, the roles of the community in school level implementation is not well understood. For example, the community could be more empowered to hold the programs accountable and to ensure that their children are receiving nutritional school meals. Few community members knew that there is a complaints/feedback mechanism in place that they can access if they think the programme is not being implemented well. It is important therefore to have the various community participation roles clearly identified in formal documents, such as a school feeding policy, relevant decree, manual, or guidelines. 160. In addition to the in-kind support described above, schools often request financial support from parents/community. This is to support the construction or rehabilitation of community infrastructure or to support the payment of the cook’s payment (incentive). The maintenance and construction of community infrastructure are supported by the Commune Councils and sometimes supported by wealthier community members through ad-hoc donations. However, aside from the support from USDA/WFP and the implementing partners, there is limited support to school infrastructure. 161. In 2015-2016, WFP ended its payment of the incentives for cooks and handed the responsibility over to communities in an effort to move to a sustainable national model. Since then, this has been the greatest challenge for school level school meals implementation. Although financial contributions for the cook or for school maintenance are not mandatory from every household, the poverty in the community often results in lack of sufficient monies collected for the payment of the cook’s incentive. This is not surprising, given the provinces and districts targeted for the programme were intentionally among the poorest in the country. 6.4.1.1 The role of the Commune Councils 162. Each district consists of several communes, each with its own council. The Commune Council receives funding from the MoI for maintenance of roads and infrastructure projects within their locality. The budget is determined by the population numbers, and because infrastructure maintenance needs are high, supporting the school feeding programme is not usually a high priority. 163. Commune Council members participate in the school feeding programme as members of the SSC and/or the LSFC. For schools implementing the HGSF modality, the local 32 authorities (Commune Council and Village Chiefs) also help with the selection of farmers and suppliers. Local authorities are also critical for mobilizing community support for school maintenance and/or the payment of the cook’s incentive. 164. In some schools, the Commune Council has agreed to contribute all or some of the funding for the cook’s incentive. This is paid from the Commune Investment Fund which includes a software component for social service support. However, since there is no national, provincial, district or local budget line for either school feeding programme overall or specifically, for the payment of the cook, and there is no directive on whether communes are able to use their funds to support the school feeding programme, each Commune Council must make their own decision regarding supporting the programme. As a result, many Commune Councils elect not to contribute, leaving the schools heavily reliant on parent and teacher contributions to pay the cook. 6.4.1.2 Payment of the cook’s incentive 165. Currently, the cooks are community “volunteers”. They are often older women, looking after their grandchildren while the parents have migrated elsewhere in search of work. The payment rate for the cooks is not standardized with the incentive varying between USD 7.50-12.50 per month, with or without additional 10-15kg of rice. Interviews with cooks and with MoEYS personnel indicate that although these figures are agreed with the cooks at recruitment, in reality the cooks are not always paid the agreed rate because the schools are unable to raise the required funds. In addition, most cooks have an assistant who works with them, and in many cases, the assistant receives no payment at all. 166. This low rate of incentive and the inconsistent receipt of payment affects the livelihood of the cook and has resulted in absenteeism and high turnover of cooks, as well as schools electing not to participate in the programme because they were unable to recruit a cook. Given that the cook’s position is critical for the implementation of the programme, other more reliable solutions to paying the cooks need to be found. 167. The review team recognizes that WFP has supported the School Health Department of the MoEYS to organize cooking competitions for the school cooks, as a way of encouraging them and acknowledging their role in the programme. The cooking competitions also helped the cooks to learn the importance of kitchen hygiene as all the participants received trainings and guidelines on good hygiene practices and food safety prior to the competition. This encouragement is admirable but does little to address the key issue around low payment. 168. The issue of the community contributing to the cook’s incentive has been raised in other evaluations, including the previous endline evaluation, and in the recent Country Portfolio Evaluation (CPE).63 The CPE team found that the community contribution to cook’s incentives was an appropriate measure to help create ownership at community level. In contrast, this review team believe that the cook’s position is too critical for the implementation of the programme to rely on community support for payment. Furthermore, the value of the incentive is insufficient given the amount of work that the cook is required to perform i.e. arrive at school at 4am to prepare breakfast by 6.30am and then leave around 9am once they have completed cleaning up. That is at least 5 hours of full-time work, 6 days a week, or 30 hours per week. That is equivalent to 0.75 of a full working-week so their compensation should reflect the same. A transition to the HGSF model will increase the work for the cook, so rectifying this issue now is critical. 169. The review team notes that the recent MoEYS proposal for piloting the HGSF includes payment of the cook in each of the targeted schools, at a standardized rate of USD25 per 63 Ravesloot. B. et al (2018) Country Portfolio Evaluation. Cambodia: An Evaluation of WFP’’s Portfolio (2011-2017). Evaluation Report. WFP Office of Evaluation. TANGO International. 33 month, with funding proposed for two cooks per school. This rate is coherent with the government’s national rate of payment of volunteers. Although this rate is not yet reflective of the importance of the role, or the time the cook’s commit to the programme, it is a step forward. In locations not included in the HGSF proposal there is currently no alternative but to continue to mobilize the Commune Councils to support the cook’s incentive. 6.4.2.Lessons learned in relation to community engagement in school feeding MTR Q7: What are the lessons learned in relation to the involvement of parents and communities in the design and management of the programme at school level, the engagement of volunteer cooks school level etc.? Lesson 1: Community participation is not the same as community ownership 170. The FFE programme is not a community-owned programme. It is intended to eventually be part of the national government programme, implemented to produce educational outcomes, while providing a safety net for poor households. It is therefore appropriate that it be “owned” by the MoEYS as it is implemented in schools and managed by the MoEYS teachers and staff albeit supported by numerous other stakeholders including local authorities and the community. Lesson 2: Successful implementation of the school meal programme should not be dependent on community participation. Communities are willing to provide in-kind support within the limits of their capacity, but households are often unable to provide ongoing financial support due to their level of poverty and high levels of debt. 171. If the school meals programme is to be transitioned to national ownership it is important that the government bear the cost of implementing the programme to an appropriate standard, including the costs of critical programme components (staff, including the cook, food, food storage and appropriate food preparation and hygiene requirements). 172. In accordance with the WFP Revised School Feeding Policy, school feeding includes a safety net dimension “that helps increase children’s access to education and learning opportunities and strengthens their health and nutritious status”64. This has been confirmed by the government taking over the scholarship part of the programme as an integral part of the wider national social protection policy. Several stakeholders felt that it is paradoxical to provide support to households selected according to the ID Poor system on one side (food or cash scholarships), and then to expect their financial contribution to the school meals programme. Conclusions regarding community engagement 173. The school feeding programme provides opportunities for significant levels of community participation. Local communities clearly have confidence in programme implementation at school level and are willing to provide in-kind contributions if they can. However, financial contributions are more difficult due to the poverty of households in the targeted locations. Transitioning to a HGSF model will bring even more opportunities for community participation, as local famers and suppliers take on the responsibility of providing food for the programme. The challenges to community participation identified during the MTR and the major lessons identified above indicate that the MoEYS needs to take responsibility for the key areas of the programme implementation including the payment of the cook’s incentive. 6.5. Gender dimensions of the intervention 64 WFP Revised School Feeding Policy: Promoting innovation to achieve national ownership. WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C, 25 October 2013. 34 174. WFP is committed to gender equality and empowerment in Cambodia. In recent years WFP Cambodia has undertaken several pieces of gender-related work in order to better understand the gender context. This includes joining the programme partnership on gender mainstreaming with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the end of 2015, engaging in a Participatory Action Learning processes with IDS in February 2016,21 conducting a review of gender in Cambodia’s food security and nutrition policies,22 and a study into gender in household decision-making.23 The latter indicates that women are often the sole decision-makers in determining how food and cash transfers are utilized for their household. 175. Although the FFE programme does not have specific gender targets set within the PMP, while providing food scholarships to children WFP gives priority to girls for the provision of THR where the gender gap in enrolment in favour of boys is greater. This is to encourage girls to remain in school. WFP also encourages women at household level to take control of scholarships. Programme results (Section 5.2) show that WFP and partners collect gender disaggregated data on the access to food indicators and monitor the progress towards gender equity in access to school feeding. 176. School feeding presents an opportunity to promote women’s empowerment, since the majority of the cooks are female, and the programme involves many other female direct and indirect beneficiaries including parents, teachers, cooks and assistants. Despite this, the ISPA found that the HGSF presents no clear evidence of promoting of women’s economic empowerment. Addressing the issue of standardized and appropriate payment for the cooks would be a good starting point. WFP has examined the implications of the programme for gender equity and women’s empowerment and has plans to draft a tool for further HGSF assessment to ensure gender concepts are integrated into the programme.65 7. Overall conclusions 177. The review of programme results as part of this MTR indicate that all activities (school meals, food/cash scholarships, school environment improvement, and support to literacy teaching) are being effectively implemented, and that the programme should reach its overall programme targets by 2019 as planned. 178. On national ownership readiness, the beneficiaries of the USDA supported food scholarships (THR) have already been partially taken over by MoEYS and integrated within the national cash scholarship system. This process is on track to be fully completed at the end of USDA funding. For the school meals component, it is clear that the USDA model of school meals will not be implemented per se after USDA support ends, due the government’s preference to implement a HGSF model in an effort to support the local farmers and provide economic opportunities for agricultural communities. The government is committed to implement a school meal component and has developed a proposal to pilot the HGSF model, under government ownership in five provinces over the next three school years. The literacy component of the FFE Programme is actively implemented in USDA assisted schools and some non-USDA assisted schools. Although currently “disconnected” from the work of the other implementing partners, this work is set to be merged next SY into a larger USAID/MoEYS programme with larger national coverage. 179. Although significant achievements have been made since baseline regarding the transition to national ownership, overall, the progress as per the 2015 Roadmap has been slow, currently 2-3 years behind the original schedule. More detailed transition planning, including key decisions about the eventual scale and locations of the nationally owned programme are still pending. This informs the need for a stand-alone School Feeding 65 WFP (2017) World Food Programme Cambodia, Country Brief. 35 Policy, a School Feeding Unit, financial and human resources requirements, and the transition (or not) of existing school meals programmes. Detailed exit strategy development and the adjustment of the current HGSF guidelines are also still required. The recent National Stakeholder Workshop discussed a new potential transition timeline of 2023, but only after additional planning, will a realistic timeline be able to be identified. 180. When discussing transition planning, it will be important to specify what objectives and outcomes the government would like to achieve through the programme as this should help determine the required scale and locations of the programme. Once agreed, the government should ensure they are appropriately incorporated into a monitoring (and evaluation) plan. 8. Recommendations Recommendation 1: WFP should strengthen and monitor the connectedness of all activities implemented under the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE program with reference to both the rationale of the programme and USDA guidance. During quarterly meetings, WFP, MoEYS (at national and sub-national levels) and all implementing partners should ensure that all planned activities under the McGovern-Dole FFE programme are directly connected to the USDA McGovern-Dole project agreement and implemented in accordance with Results Frameworks 1 and 2. Recommendation 2: WFP and the MoEYS should ensure that detailed transition planning take place as soon as possible to enable the development of a realistic timeframe for transitioning to national ownership. This planning should include a discussion on the objectives and outcomes the MoEYS would like to achieve from the school feeding programme. It should also include a review of the 2015 Roadmap and the development of a clear exit strategy for WFP including timelines, responsibilities, benchmarks and monitoring plan. Recommendation 3: Ensure that the current school meals/ HGSF guidelines are revised and ready for use if/when the MoEYS HGSF proposal is funded. WFP, together with the MoEYS and implementing parents are in the process of revising the current SMP/HGSF guidelines in readiness for government-ownership. Given the possibility of imminent funding for the MoEYS’ HGSF proposal (SY 2018/19), this revision should be completed as priority so that MoEYS have a strong foundation for standardized implementation. The handbook/guidelines should then be made available to all stakeholders. In lieu of a School Feeding Policy, the guidelines should establish the principles to be adhered to in planning, implementing and managing school meals activities in Cambodia and should set out the roles and responsibilities of ministries, as well as those of national and international stakeholders. One of its main purposes should be to facilitate coordination among stakeholders during the transition to a nationally owned government programme. Recommendation 4: WFP together with the MoEYS and other ministries as appropriate should carry out a detailed costing exercise of HGSF to enable the MoEYS and MEF to accurately budget for national transition. The review team note that a preliminary costing of the HGSF programme was done during the National Stakeholder Workshop in June 2018. However, more work on programme 36 costing needs to be done including national, provincial and local budgets for the school meals component. This costing should include all the critical costs of implementing the programme, including paying the cooks’ incentive at a fair and standardized rate, and recognition that schools may need more than one cook. Community financial support should not be included but should be considered as additional support if/when available. Depending on decisions re future scale and location, the MoEYS may also need to consider the need for additional staff and whether additional full-time staff are required at sub￾national levels. This should include due consideration of the need for full-time school feeding support/training personnel at sub-national levels. Implementation of HGSFP means additional work for School Director and cooks and the novelty of the programme in some locations is likely to result in the need to provide day-to-day mentoring and coaching of the school personnel. Recommendation 5: WFP should continue to provide technical support and transfer of skills regarding PRISM and programme monitoring. Programme monitoring was not specifically noted in the minutes of the National Stakeholder Workshop, but it is a critical component of any programme. As part of the transition planning, it will be necessary to ensure that monitoring by MoEYS is specifically included in the exit/transition strategy, along with specific timelines, benchmarks and responsibilities. 37 9. Bibliography Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis. Bliss, F. (2017) Home-Grown School Feeding as a “Good Practice” for Poverty Alleviation and Nutrition Security in Cambodia. Institute for Development and Peace (INEF), University of Duisburg-Essen (AVE-Studie 4/2017, Wege aus extremer Armut, Vulnerabilität und Ernährungsunsicherheit – Ways out of extreme poverty, vulnerability and food insecurity). Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning Country Programme-Cambodia (2011-2018), Standard Project Report 2017 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 Dunn, S. et al (2017) Baseline Report for WFP Cambodia and the USDA/McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme 2017-2019. Heng, K. et al (2016) Research report. School Dropout in Cambodia: A case study of Phnom Penh and Kompong Speu. Korea International Cooperation Agency, Cambodia Country Office. Royal University of Phnom Penh, Faculty of Education http://saber.worldbank.org/index.cfm http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/cambodia/overview https://innovation.wfp.org/project/prism https://www.fas.usda.gov/programs/mcgovern-dole-food-education-program https://www.usaid.gov/cambodia/education Kunthea, H., Kang, S. & Bunthang, C (2017) The Feasibility of the Implementation of School Feeding Programs in Primary schools by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport”, Department of Policy, MoEYS. Ministry of Planning. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia MoEYS (2018) Program Concept Paper (3 years/ USD 6 million). 15 June 2018 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. PLAN International (2018) Cambodia quarterly report (01 January – 31 March 2018) to WFP Cambodia. Project/Program Concept Paper – Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) (5 years/16.5 M USD) – Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, Cambodia – KOICA (Korea International Cooperation Agency) / Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport / WFP. Ravesloot. B. et al (2018) Country Portfolio Evaluation. Cambodia: An Evaluation of WFP’’s Portfolio (2011-2017). Evaluation Report. WFP Office of Evaluation. TANGO International. Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan (2014-2018) Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. 38 Royal Government of Cambodia (2015). A Crump Series Report: Migration and left-behind households in rural areas in Cambodia: Structure and socio-economic conditions. Ministry of Planning. December 2015. Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) Public Education Statistics & Indicators 2016 – 2017. Department of Education Management Information System, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) Report on a pilot application for the ISPA-FSN tool for the Home-Grown School Feeding Programme in Cambodia. Inter-Agency Social Protection Assessment for Food Security and Nutrition. EU/GIZ/World Bank/WFP/FAO Royal Government of Cambodia (2018) Strategic plan for the implementation of the school feeding programme. UNDP (2018) Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update. Briefing note for countries on the 2018 Statistical Update: Cambodia. UNESCO/UNICEF (2012) Asia/Pacific: End of Decade Notes on Education for All – EFA Goal #5 Gender Equity. Bangkok: UNESCO and UNICEF. WFP (2011) Standard Programme Report. WFP (2013) Revised School Feeding Policy: Promoting innovation to achieve national ownership. WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C, 25 October 2013. WFP (2017) World Food Programme Cambodia, Country Brief. WFP Cambodia (2018) National Stakeholder Workshop minutes (English version). World Bank. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ World Education (2018) Year 2 Quarter 3 Progress Report to WFP Cambodia. World Vision International (2018) Cambodia quarterly progress report (01 January – 31 March 2018). 39 10. Annexes Annex 1: Terms of reference MID-TERM REVIEW of USDA McGovern Dole Grants FFE-442-2016/015-00 for WFP School Feeding in Cambodia covering school years 2016-17 and 2017-18 WFP Cambodia Country Office INTRODUCTION This Term of Reference (TOR) are for the Mid-term review of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme supported school feeding activities in Cambodia in FY 2017-201966. This mid-term review is being commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (WFP Cambodia CO) and will cover the period October 2016 to August 2018, spanning across two school years: Oct 2016-Aug 2017 and Oct 2017-Aug 2018. This TOR was prepared by WFP-Cambodia CO 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 review team and helps guide them throughout the review process; and secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed review. The review process within WFP will be managed by a review manager (WFP - RM) appointed by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) who will be the main focal point for day to day contact during the review period. An outside firm will be contracted to carry out the actual review and will appoint their own review manager. This review 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 can adjust the project’s course as necessary to ensure effective programme management and design. It will specifically look into few case studies such as national ownership readiness, programme approach/strategy, and community engagement etc. Reasons for the Review The reasons for the review being commissioned are presented below. Rationale and use The WFP Cambodia CO is commissioning a mid-term review for the FY 2016-2018 McGovern-Dole 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 exercise is important in identifying any weaknesses in programme implementation to date and to ensure that these are addressed moving forward, 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. Following the baseline of the McGovern-Dole School Feeding programme FY 2016-2018, the Cambodia CO is keen to assess progress to date and to help design and tailor the McGovern-Dole School Feeding programme FY 2016-2018 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 review will be to assess the partnerships with the government and other key stakeholders, such as the local communities and NGOs. This mid-term review will also fulfil a requirement of USDA that McGovern-Dole funded projects critically and objectively review the progress of the FY 2016-2018 school feeding programme. The SY 2017/2018 mid￾term review will be an opportunity to determine whether recommendations made during the baseline were integrated into programme implementation and if so, whether these recommendations were successful in strengthening the programme. Objectives Review in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning: Accountability – The review will assess and report on the output related performance and results of all McGovern-Dole funded activities, during the school years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Learning – The review 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 mid-term review is to assess project implementation, relevance of interventions, provide an early signal of the effectiveness of interventions, document lessons learned, assess sustainability efforts to date, and discuss and recommend mid-course correction if necessary. 66 The 2013-2016 USDA McGovern-Dole was for USD 19,224,753 and the 2017-2019 USDA McGovern-Dole is for USD 15,212,822. 40 Stakeholders and Users Stakeholders A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the review and some of these will be asked to play a role in the review process. Table 1 below provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the review team as part of the Inception phase. Users The primary users of this review will be those who will be using it as a basis for making decisions related to programme implementation and/or design, partnerships, scaling up of activities or interventions. This includes the internal stakeholders within WFP entities and key external stakeholders (Table 1). 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 review process as appropriate, with participation and consultation with women, men, boys and girls from different groups. Table 1: Stakeholders in the review and uses of the review outcomes Example stakeholders Interest in the review and uses of review report to this stakeholder INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Country Office (CO) Cambodia The Cambodia CO is the primary stakeholder of this review. It has an interest in learning from experience to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account internally and often externally for performance. Regional Bureau (RB) in Bangkok RB management has an interest in the operational performance and learning from review findings to apply this learning to other initiatives, and/or country offices. RB is expected to use the review findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, oversight, and to extract lessons for sharing across the region. WFP HQ WFP has an interest in the lessons that emerge from reviews, particularly as they relate to WFP strategies, policies, thematic areas, or delivery modality with wider relevance to WFP programming. WFP Performance Management and Monitoring Division (RMPM) RMPM has a stake in ensuring that reviews contribute useful learning across WFP projects and programmes. Other WFP regional bureaus and COs 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. EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS Beneficiaries WFP is committed to being accountable to beneficiaries. As such, the level of participation in the review of women, men, boys and girls from different groups will be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. Government stakeholders The key Government stakeholder is the Ministry of Education Youth and Sport (MoEYS). MoEYS might use review findings for decision making related to programme implementation and/or design, country strategy and partnerships. Other key government partners including Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) might also use this review findings for their learning. Implementing partners: World Vision, Plan International and World Education Implementing partners such as World Vision, Plan International and World Education might use review findings for decision making related to programme implementation and/or design, country strategy and partnerships. USDA USDA will use review findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks, and critical assumptions. 41 SUBECT OF THE REVIEW Context The current economic growth has allowed Cambodia to attain lower-middle-income country (LMIC) status, with GDP per capita reaching USD 1,15967. Over the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a significantly reduced poverty rate, from 50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 201468. 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 recognized that human capital development and economic sustainability lag behind, 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 index69. 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 provinces70, 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 work71. Despite economic growth and current development in urban areas, rural development lags behind. Rural communities, which make up 79 percent of the population, account or most of the country's poor72. 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 rate73. 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 survey74 showed that 13 percent of households acquired additional debts as a result of the 2015/2016 El Nino event, increasing the overall percentage of indebted households to 50 percent. While the poor are often disproportionally affected 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 diversity75. 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 particular 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. Subject of the review School feeding is a major component of the ongoing WFP Cambodia’s Country Programme, and currently implementing in 11 provinces76 out of the Cambodia’s 25 provinces. The programme provides multiple food assistance modalities including school meals (SMP), and food/cash take home rations (THR) or scholarships. 67 WB. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 68 MoP. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia 69 Human Development Report,2015, UNDP 70 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning 71CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009 72Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey, 2013 73WB Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013 74 Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, May 2016, WFP. 75 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning 76 Kampong Speu, Prey Veng, Kampong Chhnang, Pursat, Battambang, Banteay Meanchey, Oddar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng 42 A Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) model is being piloted under the SMP, utilize locally procured commodities. A daily school meal (breakfast) is provided to all pre-and primary children attending morning classes, aimed to encourage student’s enrolment, attendance and completion of their primary education, and also to reduce short-term hunger and improve their concentration in the classroom. Food/cash scholarship or take-home ration is provided to the poor children in grade 4 to 6, aimed to further facilitate their progression in grades 4 to 6 and provide more equitable access to the Government’s scholarship programme for the poor in grade 7 to 9. The Government of the United States of America, through the USDA McGovern-Dole Program, 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. The FY 2016-2018 McGovern-Dole funded operation is a continuance of the 2013-2016 McGovern-Dole Program; implemented by WFP in partnership with World Education, KAPE, PLAN International, World Vision and Government ministries; covering the same provinces in Kampong Thom, Siem Reap and Battambang; and continuing the programme in the same schools. The approach and transfer, under these grants, is the same with some schools receiving the SMP, some schools receiving the THR Programme and other schools receiving both programmes, depending on the detailed targeting criteria within WFP, which will also be available for the review team during inception phase if needed. WFP anticipates a full handover of THR schools and a gradual handover of SMP schools to Government in the years after the end of the FY 2016-2018 grant, hence, the current grant is focussing strongly on the Government’s programme management and accelerate of handing over of these programme responsibilities to the Government. Additionally, the FY 2016-2018 grant is also focused on partnership to achieve maximum impact, with a particularly strong focus on literacy improvements, especially among the early grade students whereas the previous round funding focussed on literacy of grade 6 students. 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 McGovern-Dole commodities and capacity building funds to increase the readiness of MoEYS, preparing them for adopting the SMP and absorbing the THR beneficiaries into the national cash scholarship programme. WFP’s FY2017-19 (SY 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019) McGovern-Dole Programme of US$15 million reach 859 schools with the SMP and THR in three of 25 provinces, while also supporting complementary activities focused on improving literacy as well as health and dietary practices. Resources are being used to provide 145,000 pre-school and primary school children with school meals and 15,000 children from the poorest households with THRs. Like previous cycle grant, the FY 2016-2018 McGovern Dole funded operation also requires undertaking a baseline survey, mid-term review and final evaluation. The baseline survey was conducted in 2017, mid-term review and final evaluation will be conducted in 2018 and 2019 respectively. The review process within WFP will be managed by a review manager (WFP-RM) appointed by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) who will be the main focal point for day to day contact during the review period with technical support and oversight from regional bureau (see paragraph 60). An outside firm will be contracted to carry out the actual review and will appoint their own review manager. REVIEW APPROACH Scope The mid-term review will cover the WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme FFE-442-2016/015-00, including all activities and processes related to their formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting relevant to answer the review questions. This review, commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, will cover two school feeding years77 of implementation of the McGovern-Dole funded operation for FY 2016- 2018. The CO deemed this a worthy exercise in order to assess and identify midcourse correction if needed, given the need to ensure that the programme is functioning effectively in preparation for impending handover in 2021. The review will be focused on the implementation of the programme with the review findings targeted at adjustments or programme management decisions that will help improve implementation. The review will assess progress from the beginning of the project period (referencing baseline results) and will provide an early signal of the effectiveness of interventions; document lessons learned; assess sustainability efforts to date; and discuss and recommend mid-course corrections. As such, the mid-term review is focused on interim or anticipated output results, partnerships, implementation arrangements and systems, and any 77 Pls note, in school year 2016-17 the current grant ran in parallel with a former USDA McGovern-Dole grant for the same programme. Under the current grant, literacy activities were introduced since the start of the school year 2016-17; THRs were distributed from August 2017; meals were provided from November 2017; and infrastructure, WASH, training and capacity development activities were implemented from November 2017. 43 factors affecting the output results achieved at the mid-point, national ownership readiness, programme and information management approach, and community engagement. Review Questions The mid-term review will be primarily for accountability and learning purposes. It will also assess the progress of the indicators in the project agreement and Performance Monitoring Plan, and the recommendations of the baseline survey. While the key questions can be modified closer to time, the preliminary emphasis for the review would include an examination of: The strategy of the program Is the programme sustainable based on the eight sustainability areas: 1) strategy for sustainability; 2) sound policy alignment; 3) stable funding and budgeting; 4) quality programme design; 5) institutional arrangements; 6) local production and sourcing; 7) partnership and coordination; 8) strong community participation and ownership? The preliminary results of the program What is the progress of programme implementation? What are lessons learned and recommendations for mid-course corrections? What progress has been made towards intended outputs level deliverables78 (in so far as these can be assessed at the mid-term point as demonstrated by available monitoring data)? e.g. Did assistance reach the intended beneficiaries in the intended quantity and quality as planned? Particular attention will be given to gender disaggregation and analysis. If relevant, what were the internal or external factors that resulted in programme targets not being met (including delays)? National ownership readiness Is it expected that government will be able to allocate its budget and has capacity to coordinate and manage the programme? What have been the role of WFP and USDA in mobilizing national interests to transition towards a national school feeding model and the reasonable likelihood of success by 2021? What steps have WFP and USDA taken to build the capacity of the government to transition towards a national school feeding model by 2021? What are the key challenges/gaps that need to be addressed for a successful transition by 2021? (From the government perspective is it relevant, will sufficient budget be allocated, will it be prioritised etc) Programme management approaches How is the school meal programme aligning to the existing/emerging national governance and administration framework? How is the school meal programme leveraging the efforts made to strengthen capacity at the sub-national level? If relevant, what adjustments would be required to better align in the future e.g. comment on the roles and responsibilities at sub-national levels, consider the D&D impact on the division of labour, the potential role of the commune budgets and PB accounts in financial management, accountabilities, transparency and capacities. Community engagement What are the lessons learned in relation to the involvement of parents and communities in the design and management of the programme at school level, the engagement of volunteer cooks at schools etc? If relevant, what are the adjustments required in the short term and for the transition by 2021? Data Availability The following are the main sources of information available to the review team. The sources provide both quantitative and qualitative information, however the list below is not exhaustive and additional information can be provided based on need and availability. • Cambodia Country Portfolio Evaluation Reports, 2011-2017 • Baseline report for WFP Cambodia and the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2017-2019, including survey tools. • Endline evaluation report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. 78 Outcome level achievements will be captured in the end line evaluation. 44 • Baseline report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. • Midline report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. • Project document (including Logical Framework in Annex) and Agreement with USDA • M&E Plan McGovern-Dole • Performance Monitoring Plan • Field level agreements (FLAs) between WFP and implementing partners (Plan International, World Education etc.) • List of partners including Government, NGOs, and UN agencies • School Assessment Study Report, 2015-2016 • Post-Distribution Monitoring Reports, January 2016 • WFP Semi-annual Programme reports • Annual Standard Project Reports, 2015, 2016, and 2017. • Regular monitoring data on process, outputs and outcomes • School Feeding Roadmap between WFP and MoEYS (signed in May 2015) • Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018 • Education Annual Operational Plan (AOP) AOPs for 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 • National Cash Scholarship Programme 2015 Anukret 34 Scholarship • MoEYS Cash Scholarship Manual • Education Statistics & Indicators 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017 (English version) Datasets for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16 • New National Reading Standards and Continuous Assessment System Tools; benchmarks for grades 1, 2 and 3. • National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018 • National Social Protection Policy Framework 2016-2025 • National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (NSFSN), 2014-2018 • Mid-term Strategic Review of the NSFSN, 2014-2018 (Progress inventory 2016, situation update 2017, & strategic directions towards 2030). • FFE-442-2016/015-00 project agreement and amendment documents METHODOLOGY The mid-term review is expected to use methodologies that ensure that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholder groups are consulted. An extensive desk/documentary research, followed by appropriate qualitative data collection methods will be proposed by the review team, in view of answering the proposed review questions above. In addition, the review team will ensure that the available quantitative output data is triangulated and verified to ensure that the programme is on track to achieve the intended output results by the end of the project; selected primary data collection may be required. During the inception phase, the service provider should provide a detailed methodology of how they intend to conduct the mid-term review. 79 Overall, the mid-term methodology should consider and include the following: • Partnership with local research firms is encouraged. 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 review team will review, verify, and elaborate if necessary, the results framework. Specifically, this will include government capacity assessments, previous evaluations of WFP-Cambodia’s School Feeding Program, as well as all monitoring data; • The adequacy of available CO monitoring data to inform the review needs to be reviewed and the methodology adjusted depending on the findings; • Include: a desk review, semi-structured interviews and focus groups (number and composition of focus group discussion will be proposed and discussed during inception phase) to ensure that a 79 Contrary to the mid-term review, the end-line evaluation, in order to capture and judge both outcome and output level achievements, will mirror the quantitative methods of the baseline and should adopt the survey tools used during the baseline survey so that baseline and end-line data can be compared. 45 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-three 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. • Apply a review matrix geared towards addressing the key questions considering the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints; • Consider whether the mode of implementation will generate a sufficient understanding of how the programme is addressing the needs of boys and girls. Ensuring quality Concerning the quality of data and information, the review team will systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data. The WFP Cambodia will also check quality of the draft report and provide feedback accordingly. The CO will designate a Review Manager who is not involved in the daily implementation of the school meals programme. An internal review committee (RC) will be chaired by the Country Director (CD) or his/her deputy. The RC will ensure due process in review management, providing advice the review focal point and clearing review products submitted to the Chair for approval. The CO will further consult a group of key stakeholders both external and internal to WFP (including regional bureau), Government and USDA, throughout the process to ensure quality. Performance Management and Monitoring Division (RMP) has developed a quality checklist for writing the review report and products. This checklist will be applied to ensure the quality of the review process and outputs. Organization of the Review Phases and Deliverables The review will take place in the following sequence, presenting deliverables according to the timeline below: Figure 1: Summary process map Timeline: The timeline of for the whole mid-term review is from March to October 2018, covering planning/preparation, inception, data collection, data analysis and report, and dissemination (see details in mid-term planning and deliverable timelines below). For the review team, the timing will start from May, with any primary data collection to begin no later than the first week of August. The specific timetable is shown in Table 3. Planning Preparation Inception (report) Fieldwork Reporting Review Report Dissemination and follow-up 46 Table 3: Mid-term planning timeline Activities Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Responsibility w1-w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 w1 w2 w3 w4 Planning/Preparation phase (TOR preparation & approval) WFP CO TOR advertisement and selection of Review team/ company WFP CO Inception Phase Desk review/ Consultations and submission of draft inception report Review team Revision and submission of the final inception report including data collection tools, analysis plan etc. USDA & stakeholder comments Review team Data collection phase (qualitative and quantitative as proposed by the review team) National election Review team Data Analysis and Reporting Phase Data entry, analysis, draft report and submit to WFP Review team Dissemination (report finalization, submission of final report, datasets & related documents) USDA & stakeholder comments Review team 47 Deliverable timelines: The main deliverables will be the following: Deliverable Due Date Description Inception Report (Draft and Final reports) Draft: 14 Jun 2018 Report should describe the following: Understanding of the project based on project documents and literature review Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan. Review questions and field procedures Quality assurance plan Communication protocol Timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and timing) Data collection tools Final: 16 Jul 2018 Final Data Collection Tools (for qualitative & quantitative) and analysis plan 16 Jul 2018 Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of data collection tools and analysis plan Draft mid-term review report 14 Sept 2018 The report should be submitted in English addressing all the review objectives and questions listed in the scope of work. PowerPoint Presentation 18 Sept 2018 Presentation should include an abbreviated list of evaluation findings that can be presented to relevant internal and external stakeholders Final review report 19 Oct 2018 Report should include the following sections: Acknowledgements List of Acronyms and abbreviations Table of Contents Executive Summary (no longer than two pages) Background (Programme description and purpose of mid-term) Methodology and Implementation Methodology Limitations (strengths and weaknesses) Results and Findings (in accordance with the objectives) Conclusions Lessons Learned and good practices Recommendations (for mid-course corrections) Annex: Table of key programme indicators from the PMP with updated values in comparison to baseline values (for the mid￾term evaluation) Annex: Scope of Work for the review Annex: Inception Report for the review Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), survey(s), interview protocol(s), focus group discussion protocol(s) as relevant Datasets and related documents 25 Oct 2018 Datasets and related documents should include the following a. Raw and clean datasets organized in SPSS with its analysis syntaxes; b. Interview transcript and focus group discussion notes etc. c. All materials above provided in electronic versions. Review Conduct The review team will conduct the mid-term review under the direction of its team leader and in close communication with the WFP review manager. The team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition. The review company will conduct and report on the mid-term review according to USDA and WFP standards: The reviewers must be free to draw their own conclusions free from organizational and political pressure. Reviewers must be financially and legally separate from the participant's organization; Reviewers must have personal and professional integrity. Reviewers 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. Reviewers 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 or reviewers must be sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender inequality. 48 Reviews sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body. Also, reviewers 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 review the role of Review Manager is distinguished from the role of the independent review team. As a result, the Review Manager cannot take the role of a Study and review team member. The main functions and tasks expected from the Review Manager, the independent Study and Review Teams, the WFP COs, the OMB and the USDA FAD are described below. Team composition and competencies The review 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 teams should be devised by the selected review company per the design of the review themselves. Teams are 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 review 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 McGovern-Dole work and with the USDA monitoring and evaluation (M&E) policy80. The team will be selected during a competitive bidding process in line with WFP’s regulations. 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. • Survey, sampling, and statistical skills 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 reviews or 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 review approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the review mission and representing the review team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, exit debriefing presentation and review report in line with WFP standard or format; 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). 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. 80 https://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/evalpol.pdf 49 • The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc. 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 a RM who will serve as the main contact person in the country office for the McGovern-Dole evaluation, serving as the focal point for compilation of secondary information for the evaluation as well as handling the logistics for the review team. The RM will review main quality assured deliverables and share these with the internal review committee (see below), to solicit comments and inputs and to consolidate and return these to the service provider through the Regional Bureau. The CO RM 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 review committee chaired by the CD/Deputy Country Director (DCD) will approve Terms of Reference, budget, review team, inception and review reports, which helps to maintain distance from influence by programme implementers. 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 mid-term review. The WFP CO McGovern-Dole Focal Point will facilitate site visits and meetings for the evaluation mission. Specifically, the CO McGovern￾Dole 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. Organise security briefings for the review 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 review findings and recommendations for follow-up action and participate in debriefings and teleconferences to discuss study and review findings. 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 review findings and project-level follow-up; • USDA FAD • Provide inputs and comment on draft mid-term review ToRs. • Participate in an introduction teleconference with the selected independent reviewer prior to review field work for the mid-term review. • Provide comment on and approve the mid-term review inception report. • Participate in discussions of findings and recommendations that suggest changes in the project strategy, results frameworks and critical assumptions. • Provide comment on and approve the mid-term review report Headquarters: Some HQ divisions might, as relevant, be asked to discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and to comment on the review TOR and report. The OEV/RMP/RBB: will provide technical oversight as required to ensure quality assurance standards are maintained, including advising, supporting the review process where appropriate, comment on the review design, ToR, inception and review report. Communication and budget Communication To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this review, the review team will 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 Review Manager will submit all final deliverables to the WFP CO for preapproval. Upon pre-approval of deliverables, the WFP CO will forward the deliverables to WFP’s Washington Office with the Bangkok Regional Bureau in copy. WFP’s Washington Office will transmit deliverables to the USDA FAD for comments and inputs. 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 review findings and recommendations. The service provider will deliver a review report. USDA comments on final draft report will be taken into consideration by the review team in addition to comments from external stakeholders in the review reference group. The review 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 CO. A management response will be provided, and the review report will be posted for the public. 50 Budget Funding Source: The mid-term review will be funded by the WFP Cambodia Country Office using the M&E budget allocation in the McGovern-Dole grant funds. Budget: The service provider will outline their budget in a financial proposal to WFP as part of their response to the Request for Proposals (RfP) (Annex 2: review schedule indicated number of days which help review team to estimate the budget). For the purpose of this review the company will: Include budget for international and domestic travel and for all relevant in-country data collection (both qualitative and quantitative) Hire and supervise any and all technical and administrative assistance required (including in-country). Mid-Term Review Themes & Preliminary Questions Methods/comments The preliminary results of the program 1 What progress has been made towards intended outputs level deliverables (in so far as these can be assessed at the mid-term point as demonstrated by available monitoring data)? e.g. Did assistance reach the intended beneficiaries in the intended quantity and quality as planned? Particular attention will be given to gender disaggregation and analysis. Review output data and qualitative findings to assess the likelihood of meeting targets. Quality and gender aspects to be assessed using qualitative methods including survey, KIIs, FGDs, and direct observation. National ownership readiness 2 Is the programme sustainable based on the eight sustainability areas: 1) strategy for sustainability; 2) sound policy alignment; 3) stable funding and budgeting; 4) quality programme design; 5) institutional arrangements; 6) local production and sourcing; 7) partnership and coordination; 8) strong community participation and ownership? Document review, KIIs, and FGDs. 3 What steps have WFP and USDA taken to build the capacity of the government to transition towards a national school feeding model by 2021? 4 What have been the role of WFP and USDA in mobilizing national interests to transition towards a national school feeding model and the reasonable likelihood of success by 2021? Programme management approaches 5 How is the school meal programme aligning to the existing/emerging national governance and administration framework? Document review, KIIs, and FGDs. 6 How is the school meal programme leveraging the efforts made to strengthen capacity at the sub-national level? Community engagement 7 What are the lessons learned in relation to the involvement of parents and communities in the design and management of the programme at school level, the engagement of volunteer cooks at schools etc? Document review, KIIs, FGDs, and direct observation. 51 Annex 2: MTR matrix The following matrix will be utilized by the team members to focus questioning with respect to the five key areas highlighted in the ToR. It may not be possible to identify answers to all these questions within the timeframe allowed, but wherever possible, answers will be sought, and findings expressed in the mid-term review report. Key Question 1: Is the programme sustainable based on the eight sustainability areas? Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Expected Evidence quality Has the agreed exit strategy (Roadmap) been implemented according to the foreseen timing, allocation of responsibilities on handover to the government and/or other agencies? Number of delivery models nationally owned Education NCI MoEYS policy and strategy documents MoEYS/WFP SF Roadmap Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs, Implementing partners Qualitative assessment Strong Is the McGovern-Dole FFE programme coherent with relevant stated national policies? Mention/integration of school feeding in national development strategy documents National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP), Education Strategic Plan (ESP) Desk review Qualitative assessment Strong Is school feeding included in the national planning process and funded through a national budget? Amount of national budget allocated to school feeding MoEYS budget Desk review Qualitative assessment Strong Is there a national school feeding programme managed by the government and/or local authorities, assorted with a specific implementation document and M&E system? Establishment of SF units and coordination committees at central and decentralized levels WFP CO and SFTF/MoEYS Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs, Implementing partners Qualitative assessment Medium Is there a steering committee coordinating the implementation of school feeding activities at national level? Existing Programme coordination system WFP CO, MoEYS and cooperating partners M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS and school feeding implementing partners Qualitative assessment Strong Does the McGovern-Dole FFE programme facilitate procurement modalities for school feeding more locally appropriate, including the possibility of linking Number of school feeding models involving small-scale farmer associations, community groups, or local business? WFP CO, MoEYS and cooperating partners M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS and Quantitative assessment Strong 52 procurement with agriculture‐related activities? school feeding implementing partners Is school feeding discussed in any national‐level coordination body (technical working group, task force or the like) that deals with education, school health and nutrition, agriculture, food security, nutrition, or other cross‐cutting issues? Number of joint initiatives developed with UN sister agencies and/or cooperating partners to implement an "Essential Package" in USDA assisted schools WFP CO, MoEYS and cooperating partners M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS and school feeding implementing partners Qualitative assessment Medium Are there school committees, involving parents, teachers, and local community in the implementation of the school feeding programme, that manage and monitor the school feeding programme and ensure appropriate utilization of the food in the school? Number and type of initiatives taken by PTAs and community at large to support school feeding activities WFP CO, MoEYS and cooperating partners M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS and school feeding implementing partners FGD with parents Qualitative assessment Strong Key Question 2: What are the preliminary results of the operation? Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Evidence quality What is the progress of programme implementation? Attendance rate Drop-out rate Promotion rate Results of EGR tests Difference between boys and girls rates WFP CO M&E data and reports MoEYS statistics (EMIS) Implementing partner surveys and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, and school feeding implementing partners FGD at school level Quantitative assessment Comparison with baseline Strong for some indicators where data is available. Some indicators cannot be assessed until endline. What are lessons learned and recommendations for mid-course corrections? Analysis produced by WFP CO WFP CO, MOEYS and other relevant ministries, cooperating partners M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, other relevant ministries, and school feeding implementing partners Qualitative assessment Medium 53 What progress has been made towards intended outputs level deliverables e.g. did assistance reach the intended beneficiaries in the intended quantity and quality as planned? No. of beneficiaries receiving food and non-food items vs. planned Tonnage of food distributed vs. plans Number of school gardens established vs. planned No. of teachers trained No. of cooks trained vs. planned No. of storekeepers trained vs. planned No. of school supplies & materials distributed vs. planned Number of schools assisted vs. planned WFP CO M&E data and reports SPR Desk review Quantitative assessment Comparison with baseline Strong What were the internal or external factors that resulted in programme targets not being met (including delays)? Analysis produced by WFP CO WFP CO M&E data and reports, VAM surveys Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, relevant ministries, and school feeding implementing partners Qualitative assessment Comparison with baseline Medium Key Question 3: National ownership readiness Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Evidence quality Is it expected that government will be able to allocate its budget and has capacity to coordinate and manage the programme? Budget data, budget revisions Planned vs. actual budget and expenditure HR data and organization chart in MoEYS at national and sub￾national levels WFP financial and operational information MoEYS data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs Quantitative review of budget data triangulated with qualitative information from multiple key informants Strong What have been the role of WFP and USDA in mobilizing national interests to transition towards a national school feeding model and the reasonable likelihood of success by 2021? Organization of meetings (workshops, Roadmap review sessions, etc.) on national school feeding issues WFP and MoEYS reports Desk review Qualitative assessment Medium 54 What steps have WFP and USDA taken to build the capacity of the government to transition towards a national school feeding model by 2021? Training of government staff Study visits in and outside the country Education NCI WFP and MoEYS reports Desk review Qualitative assessment Medium What are the key challenges/gap that need to be addressed for a successful transition by 2021? (From the government perspective is it relevant, will sufficient budget be allocated, will it be prioritized, etc.?) Preparation of guidance for school feeding implementation Organization of national school feeding meetings WFP/MoEYS joint research Inclusion of school feeding within national strategic documents Formulation of a national sustainable school feeding policy WFP, MoEYS and other relevant ministries reports and national strategic documents Education Strategic Plan (ESP), National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPF) Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs Qualitative assessment Medium Key Question 4: Programme management approaches Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Evidence quality How is the school meal programme aligning to the existing/emerging national governance and administration framework? Steps undertaken for transition of scholarships to government WFP CO, MoEYS M&E data and reports School feeding Roadmap Country Strategic Plan (CSP), when available Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO and MoEYS (scholarship office) Qualitative assessment Medium How is the school meal programme leveraging the efforts made to strengthen capacity at the sub-national level? Commitment of district governor's offices, commune authorities, and communities WFP and MoEYS reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs Qualitative assessment Medium If relevant, what adjustments would be required to better align in the future e.g. comment on the roles and responsibilities at sub-national levels, consider the D&D impact on the division of labour, the potential role of the commune budgets and PB accounts in Research on alternative school meals modalities WFP, MoEYS and other relevant ministries reports and national strategic documents Education Strategic Plan (ESP), National Social Protection Policy Framework (NSPF) Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs Qualitative assessment Medium 55 financial management, accountabilities, transparency and capacities? Key Question 5: Community engagement Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection Methods Data Analysis Methods Evidence quality What are the lessons learned in relation to the involvement of parents and communities in the design and management of the programme at school level, the engagement of volunteer cooks at school, etc.? Number and type of initiatives taken by PTAs and community at large to support school feeding activities WFP CO M&E data and reports SPRs WFP M&E reports FGD with parents and the community at large Qualitative assessment Medium If relevant, what are the adjustments required in the short term and for the transition by 2021? School Feeding Roadmap review, when available WFP M&E data and reports Desk review Meetings with key informants in WFP CO, MoEYS, PoEs, DoEs FGD with parents and the community at large Qualitative assessment Medium 56 Annex 3: Description of project activities The following gives additional details of each of the 15 project activities: 1. Capacity building: Local, regional, national level WFP works in close collaboration with the MoEYS to strengthen institutional capacities in the ministry, its subnational authorities and local communities to take full ownership of the school feeding programme in accordance with the roadmap signed between WFP and the MoEYS in May 2015. WFP assists the MoEYS with identifying the most appropriate school meals model and integrating school meals strategies into relevant national policies, development plans and associated legislation. WFP also assists the MoEYS in establishing strategies for the financing, organizational structure and management of the school meals programme. 2. Provide school meals WFP, in collaboration with the MoEYS, provides a daily hot breakfast to primary school children in Grades 1-6 WFP use the USDA donated fortified rice and vegetable oil in the meals and complement this with pulses, animal protein and condiments (salt) sourced from other donors. WFP partners also provide training, coaching and mentoring to school staff and cooks on minimum food handling and preparation standards, as per the MoEYS guidelines. WFP and its partners are responsible for monitoring the distribution of daily meals. 3. Provide take home rations WFP provides food scholarships/THRs of 10kg of rice and 0.91 kg of oil two times during the school year to vulnerable children in Grades 4-6 who are at risk of dropping out of school. The intention of the THR is to encourage vulnerable children, particularly girls, to continue to attend school. The distributions are managed by the local school feeding committees (LSFC), with oversight and monitoring by WFP and its partners along with district and provincial authorities. 4. Establish school gardens WFP’s partners purchase vegetable seeds and distributes them to schools with adequate capacity and prerequisite inputs for on-site gardening. WFP and the MoEYS use the produce derived from the gardens in school meal preparation. WFP, the MoEYS and other partners also use the school gardens as a basis for life skills training, and environmental, agricultural and nutritional awareness raising and skills development. WFP's partners provide technical support and oversight following Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) curriculum guidance. 5. Training: Commodity management WFP uses existing training materials, which are endorsed by the MoEYS, to train members of the LSFC in standard practices of supply management. WFP places focus on schools affected by staff turn-over or changes in the LSFC structure. WFP also provides on-the-job routine coaching and mentoring. 6. Training: Food preparation and storage practices WFP provides training to LSFCs on storing, handling and preparing food, management of cooking activities, and cleanliness and prevention of infestation, following a standard training guide developed by WFP and the MoEYS. WFP provides routine mentoring and coaching on the training subjects during periodic school monitoring visits. WFP also works with the MoEYS to introduce district and provincial level cooking competitions and share successful recipes and enhanced cooking practices. 7. Training: School administrators In collaboration with the MoEYS, WFP’s partner World Education provides training for school administrators and school principals focusing on literacy coaching. The training follows the minimum standards established by the MoEYS. WFP also includes the same content in other trainings under this project (e.g. food preparation and storage management training) when and where possible. 57 8. Training: Teachers WFP partners work with the MoEYS Teacher Training Department to train and mentor teachers, school administrators and provincial and district education authorities to ensure the effective use of new national benchmarks for Early Grade Reading (EGR) in Grades 1, 2 and 3. Partners conduct EGR assessments for assisted schools, provide four-day start-up trainings, and offer regular refresher sessions to Grades 1-3 teachers, school directors and librarians. Partners use phone calls and in-person visits to schools to provide ongoing monitoring and mentoring support to school staff. 9. Establish activities to promote literacy Following an annual assessment of school conditions and performance, WFP's partners provide all EGR target schools with reading materials and test kits to introduce new literacy education approaches in accordance with new national benchmarks. Partners also provide toolkits to the school libraries so that they may be used by children during the library break or borrowed by parents to use at home. The toolkits include guidance materials for teachers which outline the reading benchmarks for students in Grades 1-3 (to assist in determining their progress); reading materials (classroom learning); and games and books (break and home learning). In schools receiving the EGR support, partners also train school staff to carry out meetings to encourage parents and community members to take a more active role in schools and organize activities in the library that reinforce reading skills acquired in the classroom. 10. Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines WFP's partners build or rehabilitate latrines, ensuring that these are connected to a hand washing station, and provide guidance on their use. WFP also builds or rehabilitates latrines in schools where the latrine-to-student ratio is below the national standard of one latrine per 50 students and where it is satisfactorily shown that schools are willing to maintain the latrines. Where possible, WFP arranges separate latrines for boys and girls. WFP requires local communities to contribute building or rehabilitation materials. 11. Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and water stations/systems Following the WFP's annual school assessment, WFP and its sub-recipients construct and rehabilitate wells, rain water harvesting and water purification systems in schools that are most in need and in which the community and school management demonstrate greatest commitment to the maintenance of the systems. Through its sub-recipients, WPP also provides training for the appropriate use and maintenance of the wells, rain water harvesting and water purification systems. 12. Building/Rehabilitation: Kitchens 13. Provide energy efficient stoves 14. Training: Good health and nutrition practices WFP and partners work closely with the School Health Department of the MoEYS to provide materials and training on good health and nutritional practices to members of every LSFC. WFP trains the LSFC on nutrition and hygiene practices to facilitate discussion and awareness raising among students, their parents and the larger community. WFP also conducts cooking demonstrations in conjunction with trainings in commodity management, storage and food preparation for all cooks in participating schools. 15. Raising awareness on the importance of education In collaboration with the MoEYS and other partners, WFP works with LSFCs to provide key messages on the value of education to students, their parents and communities. WFP delivers messages at events such as take-home ration distributions and focus group discussions. WFP promotes the roles and responsibilities of parents in encouraging children to study at home during after school hours, parental participation in and contribution to their children's education, as well as hygiene and nutrition. 58 Annex 4: Annex 5: Key informant interview guides • Interviews with Province and District Level Government Officials Prior school visits, in each province it will be necessary to request two meetings, one with the Province Education administration, the other with the District Education Office. Province Education Office The meeting at province level is likely to be more a courtesy visit than a substantial meeting. It can nevertheless be an opportunity for the review team to ask questions about: • The role of the province administration within the McGovern-Dole FFE process; • An appreciation about the partnership between the province administration and WFP regarding MDG FFE activities; • An appraisal of the programme outcomes; • An appraisal of national capacity to take over the programme by 2021 • Identify issues with the programme strategy • Collect evidence in support of all the above. District Education Office The head of district office staff, the district officer in charge of primary education, one district office staff in charge of school feeding activities (focal point) should participate in the meeting, which should be organized according to two sequences: • An introduction to the review team by district officers of the general educational context of the district, and challenges, with an emphasis on primary education. • Questions from the review team and discussion about the programme. The following questions are provided as a framework for the Q&A session: Question 1. What is the total primary school age population in the district (gender disaggregated)? 2. What is the total number of children enrolled at school in the district for the present school year (gender disaggregated)? 3. How many primary schools, private and public, are there in the district? 4. How many primary schools benefit from a school feeding programme? 5. According to you, is there a need for school feeding in this district? If yes, for what reasons? 6. According to you, what is the overall goal of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme? Is it targeted at education, health and nutrition, social/family support? 7. Is there a body/system at district level where partners (representative of diverse district offices, NGOs, WFP Field Office, other UN agencies, private sector, etc.) discuss education issues, school feeding included? 8. When did the McGovern-Dole FFE programme start in the district? Is it still ongoing? 9. What are/have been programme modalities? Can you provide operational details about programme implementation? 10. Have you been involved in the design of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme prior to its launching in the district? 11. Did you benefit from a specific SF training? How long was it, and given by whom? 12. What is your exact role/duty within the McGovern-Dole FFE process? 13. What is your role in the implementation of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme? Has your role changed in the last few years? 14. Are you in charge of reporting on SF activity? If yes, what are the topics covered by your reports, the rate of submission of reports, and to whom do you report? 15. Are you facing difficulties to complete your duty regarding SF? 16. Do you think you would need some refresher training? If yes, on what topics? 17. According to you, to what extent is the McGovern-Dole FFE programme successful? What is the major benefit for the children? 18. Can you provide objective evidences in support of your assessment? 59 19. What are the key roles (if any) of the local community in the McGovern-Dole FFE? What is the main reasons for engaging the community in programme implementation? 20. Is there a need for improvement in the programme strategy or implementation? What would you suggest? Annex 6: Focus group discussion guides Based on the Cambodia McGovern-Dole FFE Programme Baseline field visits • Interviews with teachers (including storekeeper) The meeting with parents will be followed by a separate meeting with the head teacher and teachers that will focus on the following main areas: • Role and responsibility of the head teacher and teachers in the day-to-day SF operation within the school; • Record keeping and reporting; • Qualitative and quantitative assessment (if data is available) of SF outcomes and impact. Question 1. Since when have you been head director/teacher in this school? 2. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school? 3. Who (which institution) presented the school feeding programme to you? 4. Have you been involved in the design of the SF activity? 5. Did you benefit from a SF training? How long was it, and given by whom? 6. What is your exact role/duty related to SF activity at the school? 7. When and by whom is the SMP/THR food delivered to the school or your home? How many time per school year? Have there been any problems with timeliness of delivery? 8. When and by whom is the HGSF food delivered to the school or your home? How many times per school year? Have there been any problems with timeliness of delivery? 9. Have you been provided with SF monitoring tools? If yes, by whom (which institution)? 10. Are you in charge of reporting on SF activity? If yes, what are the topics covered by your reports, the rate of submission of reports, and to whom do you report? 11. Are you facing difficulties to complete your duty regarding SF? 12. Do you think you would need some refresher training? If yes, on what topics? 13. According to you, to what extent is the SF programme successful? What is the major benefit for the children? 14. Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest? • Interviews with Parents The questionnaire below presents a set of questions that could be asked at school level during focus group discussions with representatives of the schoolchildren, PTA and individual parents. Based on the SABER approach81 and although covering a broader scope, these questions will serve the main purpose of assessing the community engagement and national ownership in schools where the McGovern-Dole FFE programme is implemented. To prevent bias, it will be made clear at the beginning that the head teacher and teachers do not attend the meeting with parents. The interview format will follow a standard introduction of the team and explanation of the review’s purpose. The team’s independence, neutrality and confidentially of responses will be noted, as well as the approximate time (40-50 minutes) of the meeting/interview. Question 1. When did school feeding activities start in this school? 2. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school? 3. Have you been consulted before the launching of the SF activity in the school? By whom? 4. Have you been involved in deciding which commodities are provided? 5. Is there a LSFC in the school? 6. Who participates in the LSFC? 7. How many women are members of the LSFC? 81 Systems Approach for Better Education Results 60 8. What kind of activities do LSFC members must conduct each day? Please describe a typical SF day. 9. When and by whom is the food delivered to the school? Is it always been done in a timely manner? 10. How does the transporter know the exact quantity of food he should deliver to the school? 11. Who does the unloading of the truck? 12. Are representatives of the LSFC present during truck unloading? 13. Who controls the quantity of food delivered and signs the waybill? 14. Where is the food stored? 15. Who is responsible for food storage? 16. Is there a book to keep record of food storage and daily distribution? Who is responsible for it? 17. Do parents contribute some additional food in-kind or cash resources for the food of the children? 18. What other contribution do parents make to the SF activity, if any? 19. Do you think the programme could be implemented without input from the community? Why/why not? 20. What are the key ways that the community contributes to the programme? 21. According to you, to what extent is the programme successful? What is the major benefit for the children and their family? 22. Can you comment on the overall management of the programme? What changes if any are needed? 23. Do you have any other comments about the implementation of the programme? Any other suggestions to improve the programme? • Interviews with cooks Question 1. How and why do you become a school cook? 2. When did you start working as a cook? How many hours per day are you working as a cook? 3. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school? 4. Do you have any benefit from this cooking? What kind of benefit have you been receiving so far? Beside cooking at school, what do you do? 5. Did you receive any training before becoming a cook? What kind of training? Did you apply your training skill during cooking school meals? 6. Have you been consulted or asked about the school meal cooking activity in the school? By whom? 7. Have you been involved in school gardening or home-grown gardening for nutrition supplies to school feeding? 8. Where do you get vegetable and other related cooking meal ingredient for school cooking? Who supplies them? 9. How many times a week do you cook for the students? In case you’re absent who will be your substitute? 10. Do you get any support for your labour work? What kind of support, e.g. rice, money, etc. 11. How much and how often do you receive this support? 12. Have there been times when this support has not been provided? (i.e. it’s been late, or periods without payment) 13. What do you think is fair compensation (money value) for your work as a cook? 14. When and by whom is the rice and other related product for school cooking delivered to the school? 15. How many times per school year has food been provided late? Do you face any rice shortage during the school year? 16. Where do you get firewood? Are there any representatives from schools, commune councils, parent of children, or school teacher support this firewood? 17. What do the parents of school children do to support school meals? 18. Are school and home gardening products used for cooking? 19. What other contributions do school management, LSF committee, School Support committee, commune councils, or parents make to the school cooking activity, if any? 61 20. According to you, to what extent is the programme successful? What is the major benefit for you and family? 21. Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest? • Interviews with school children Question 1. When did school feeding activities start in this school? 2. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school? Do you have any benefit from this school feeding? 3. Is there HGSF in this school? 4. Have you been consulted or asked before the SF, HGSF or THR activity in the school? By whom? 5. Have you been involved in school gardening or home gardening? Who provided training of school gardening and home-grown school feeding? 6. How many of you receive SF, THR, etc.? Age, grade, etc. 7. Do you know how children are selected to receive THR? What are the criteria that you know of? What do the children receiving THR get? 8. How many girl students are receiving of or involving in THR, HGSF, etc. at your school? 9. What kind of activities do you do in the school garden? Is there anything that has to be done every day? 10. Do you and your parent attend any training on home gardening? And who provide the training? 11. What contributions do your parents make to the school feeding activities, if any? 12. According to you, to what extent is the programme successful? What is the major benefit for you and family? 13. Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest? For THR beneficiaries only: 14. Do you know why were you selected to receive THR? Why were you selected? How long have you been receiving THR? 15. What do you receive for THR? How often? 16. What do your parents do with the food provided as THR? 17. Have there been any problems with timeliness of delivery for THR food? 18. Where do you receive the THR? Are there any representatives from school present during THR delivery? 62 Annex 7: Updated Performance Monitoring Plan (2017-2019) By result Indicator Target Baseline Mid-term % Achievement Improved literacy of school-aged children Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions 226,200 0 187,800 83.0% Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 241,300 0 191,600 79.4% 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 55% Overall: 38% Boys: 26% Girls 50% Not assessed until endline __ Increased Government support Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged as a result of USDA assistance $951,100 0 $883,038 92.8% 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 590 590 585 99% 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 School Health Policy at Stage 3 __ Number of educational policies, regulations or administrative procedures in the following stages of development as a result of USDA assistance 4 0 ESP 2019- 2023 at Stage 1 Three EGR standards developed __ Improved literacy instructional materials Number of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided as a result of USDA assistance 163,404 50082 154,540 94.6% 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. 1,540 0 1,371 89% Number of teachers/educators/teaching assistants trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 2,200 1,16783 1,900 86.4% 82 As per World Education baseline figures (July 2017). 500 National Standard reading books have been provided. Since then (2018) the indicator has been revised to include all the components of the learning package. Hence the much larger numbers at MTR. 83 As per World Education figures as at July 2017 63 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. 413 0 188 45.5% Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified as a result of USDA assistance 591 0 509 86.1% 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 38,945,000 0 14,887,000 38.2% Number of individuals receiving take-home rations as a result of USDA assistance 22,500 0 15,004 66.7% Number of school-age children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a result of USDA assistance). 189,000 0 150,570 79.7% Number of social assistance beneficiaries participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance 281,500 0 185,500 65.9% Number of take-home rations provided as a result of USDA assistance 318,000 0 143,890 45.2% Improved student attendance Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported schools 127,600 195,400 167,600 131.3% Increased knowledge of nutrition Number of individuals trained in children health and nutrition as a result of USDA assistance 3,600 0 2,370 65.8% Increased access to clean water and sanitation Number of schools using an improved water source 500 433 568 113.6% Number of schools with improved sanitary facilities 590 574 583 99% Improved school infrastructure Number of educational facilities (i.e. school buildings, classrooms, and latrines) rehabilitated/ constructed as a result of USDA assistance 866 0 422 48.7% Annex 8: Documents received from WFP CO 1 Cambodia Country Portfolio Evaluation Reports, 2011-2017 2 Baseline report for WFP Cambodia and the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2017-2019, including survey tools. 3 Endline evaluation report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. 4 Baseline report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. 5 Midline report of the USDA McGovern Dole Food for Education Programme, 2013-2016, including survey tools. 6 Project document (including Logical Framework in Annex) and Agreement with USDA 7 M&E Plan (Monitoring Plan) 8 Performance Monitoring Plan 9 Field level agreements (FLAs) between WFP and implementing partners (Plan International, World Education etc.) 10 List of partners including Government, NGOs, and UN agencies 11 School Assessment Study Report, 2015-2016 12 Post-Distribution Monitoring Reports, January 2016 13 WFP Semi-annual Programme reports 14 Annual Standard Project Reports, 2015, 2016, and 2017. 15 Regular monitoring data on process, outputs and outcomes (Per requested by the review team) 16 School Feeding Roadmap between WFP and MoEYS (signed in May 2015) 17 Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018 18 Education Annual Operational Plan (AOP) AOPs for 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017 19 National Cash Scholarship Programme 2015 Anukret 34 Scholarship 20 MoEYS Cash Scholarship Manual 21 Education Statistics & Indicators 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 2015/2016, 2016/2017 (English version) Datasets for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2015-16 22 New National Reading Standards and Continuous Assessment System Tools; benchmarks for grades 1, 2 and 3 23 National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018 24 National Social Protection Policy Framework 2016-2025 25 National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (NSFSN), 2014-2018 26 Mid-term Strategic Review of the NSFSN, 2014-2018 (Progress inventory 2016, situation update 2017, & strategic directions towards 2030). 27 FFE-442-2016/015-00 project agreement and amendment documents 28 KOICA proposal 29 All USDA attachments and Results Framework 30 QPR and Partner reports 31 Scholarship transition agreement 32 The Feasibility of the Implementation of School Feeding Programmes in Primary School 33 Cambodia WFP INEF School Feeding 29 June 2017 34 Stakeholder workshop report from MOEYS- 11-13_06_18_Final (1) 35 HGSF concept note - Aug 2018 36 Draft Concept Paper for NSFSN 2019 UN meeting 37 ISPA Report - 18 June 18-Final 38 Monitoring data of the 6 schools (and checklist tool) 39 Outputs in 6 schools from Nov 17_Jun 18 40 WFP Programmes Map 41 Summary: Veroice Complant_v002 42 Stakeholder workshop report from MOEYS-11-13 June 18- 06 Jul_English version 43 Output progress- Aug 2018 44 World Education Yr 2 Q3 report July 10 2018 FOR SUBMISSION-updated Aug 9 2018 SH 45 SMP Guidelines 2016 46 HGSF Guidelines September 2016 WFP Cambodia http://www1.wfp.org/countries/cambodia Phnom Penh, Cambodia - September 201 8 Report number