The McGovern–Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole program) helps support education, child development, and food 
security for some of the world’s poorest children. It provides for donations of U.S. agricultural products, as well as financial and technical assistance, for school feeding 
and maternal and child nutrition projects in low-income, food-deficit countries that are committed to universal education.
The McGovern-Dole program was originally authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. The legislation called for the use of $100 million in 
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds to launch the program in fiscal year 2003, with future funding coming from Congressional appropriators. The program was 
reauthorized in the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. That legislation provides for the use of $84 million in CCC funds and allows for annual Congressional 
appropriations, which has been approximately $100 million annually in recent years. The program is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign 
Agricultural Service and is named in honor of Ambassador and former Senator George McGovern and former Senator Robert Dole for their tireless efforts to encourage a 
global commitment to school feeding and child nutrition.
Baseline survey for the USDA mcGovern-dole
school feeding project in Cambodia
1. Introduction..........................................................................................1
 The World Food Programme in Cambodia, 2011 - 2016
 USDA/WFP Partnership
 Focus on Monitoring and Evaluction
2. Methodology........................................................................................2
3. Socioeconomic Characteristics......................................................3
 Household Demographics
 Education Attainment and Literacy of Household Heads
 Water and Sanitation
 Livelhoods
 Household Income and Expenditure
4. Improved Literacy of School Age Children...............................5
 Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
 Improved Attentiveness
 Improved Attendance
5. Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices......................8
 Increased Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices
 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Preparation and Storage
 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
 Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation
 Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions
 Increased Access to Requisite Food Preparation and Storage Tools 
 and Equipement
6. Food Security and Nutrition.........................................................12
 Household Food Consumption Score
 Daily Average Dietary Diversity
 Household Hunger Scale
 Coping Strategies
7. USDA MGD/WFP Project Achievements.................................15
8. Monitoring and Evaluation of USDA MGD Programme: 
 Next Steps............................................................................................15
9. Annexes for USDA MGD Baseline Survey...............................15
Table of Contents
The World Food Programme in Cambodia, 2011 - 2016
In support of national efforts to address food insecurity, poverty and 
malnutrition, the World Food Programme (WFP) instituted its first five 
year Country Programme (CP) in July 2011. The CP, which continues 
WFP’s focus on education, nutrition and rural development, seeks 
to strengthen food and cash-based social safety nets in Cambodia 
and craft sustainable and scalable implementation models that 
can eventually be managed efficiently by the Royal Government of 
Cambodia. Long-term handover strategies are increasingly important 
at this stage given Cambodia’s impending transition from low 
income to lower middle income status and the joint commitment to 
the establishment of a school feeding programme for children from 
poor households. 
The education component of the CP, which consists of a school 
meals programme and food or cash-based scholarships, constitutes 
75 percent of all WFP programming in the country. The School Meals 
Programme (SMP), initially launched in 1999, provides daily, on-site, 
hot and nutritious breakfasts to primary school students. Schools are 
selected for inclusion in the programme according to poverty levels 
and education performance (enrollment rates, dropout rates, etc). 
School meals are comprised of rice, canned fish, vitamin A-fortified 
vegetable oil, yellow split peas and iodized salt which help to alleviate 
short-term hunger and improve concentration. The objective of the 
SMP is to create incentives for children from poor families to enroll, 
regularly attend and complete their primary education. Currently, 
the SMP is implemented in 12 provinces which comprise of 1,377 
primary schools and reach nearly 400,000 beneficiaries, equaling 20 
percent of all primary school children in Cambodia. 
The food and cash based scholarship programme (also referred to 
as Take Home Rations- THR) has been implemented in Cambodia 
since 2004. The target group for this intervention are poor and 
disadvantaged, primary school students in grades four to six. The 
programme is focused in these grades in particular as they have 
the highest dropout rates (with children leaving school to work). 
To ensure that poor and disadvantaged children are adequately 
introduction
Page 2
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
• Capacity development on food safety through training of school 
administrators and teachers;
• Strengthening monitoring and evaluation.
Focus on Monitoring and Evaluation
To ensure that USDA McGovern Dole funding is having maximum 
impact, WFP is establishing an innovative M&E system that will not 
only enable more efficient outcome monitoring but also provide 
more responsive programme monitoring to address problems in 
implementation real-time3
. To ensure that outcomes and impacts 
are monitored effectively, baseline, mid-line and end-line surveys 
are planned. The following report summarizes the findings from 
baseline survey, conducted in 2014.
A quasi-experimental approach was selected as the preferred design 
for the baseline, mid and endline surveys; employing a control 
group to measure how key outcomes change in the absence of 
intervention. 
While USDA McGovern-Dole monies support WFP’s School Feeding 
Programme in the provinces of Siem Reap, Battambang and Kampong 
Thom, the baseline survey was only conducted in Siem Reap and 
Battambang. Kampong Thom province was excluded as only SMP 
and scholarships are currently being implemented with USDA 
support. Inclusion of Kampong Thom would have thus complicated 
the sampling procedures and analysis, resulting in additional costs 
with little added value. This same approach will be utilized for the 
mid and endline surveys.
Within Battambang and Siem Reap, 118 (of 531 possible) intervention 
schools were selected, using random, probability proportional to size 
sampling. A further 25 control schools (10 in Battambang and 15 in 
Siem Reap) were selected via a propensity score matching approach4
. 
Amongst the selected intervention schools, 60 were receiving SMP 
and scholarships while 58 were only recipients of scholarships. A 
detailed list of selected schools can be found in Annexes 4 and 5.
Within each intervention school, a number of households were 
selected for inclusion using a random sampling approach. In schools 
with SMP and scholarships, 15 households with children in grades 1-3 
3 WFP is working with InSTEDD, a company focused on providing innovative technical solutions 
for the development sector, to design a real time information sharing, monitoring and evaluation 
platform. This system will provide direct and instantaneous links between field monitors and pro￾gramme managers, ensuring that problems can be identified and addressed immediately.
4 The Propensity Score Matching Approach is a statistical method that allows control clusters to be 
identified based on the same characteristics used to identify intervention clusters. It is intended to 
ensure that control clusters have very similar characteristics to the intervention clusters. 
methodology
A Baseline Survey?
WFP has been engaged in School Feeding Programmes throughout Cambodia for approximately 15 years. As such, in many of the schools 
currently supported by USDA McGovern Dole funding, WFP is simply extending an existing/ ongoing School Feeding Programme (some of 
which was supported by USDA previously as well). 
With such a long history of programme implementation, it is reasonable to ask---Can this survey really be considered a baseline? Can 
we expect to see (and quantify) improvements in the education or food security situation at this point in programme’s history? Or are 
the major accomplishments of WFP’s school feeding programme already ‘factored in’ to the observable improvements in the education 
sector? 
These are difficult questions to answer. On one hand, there have been significant improvements in key educational indicators over the 
past decade, in which WFP’s programmes have played a substantial role. On the other hand, there is still a subset of the population that 
continues to not receive the benefits of a full primary education, either due to the need to find work or for other reasons such as illness or 
poor health. Thus, WFP’s school feeding programme is increasingly aimed at consolidating gains made to this point as well as continuing to 
targeting those children likely to fall through the cracks. With 13% of children still not completing primary school, however, it is clear that 
there is still a need for WFP programming and an opportunity for WFP to demonstrate impact. 
targeted for inclusion in the programme, WFP prioritizes students 
from IDPoor1
 1 households or children from households that may not 
have IDPoor cards but whose profile fit WFP criteria2
. Scholarships 
are conditional on the student achieving an 80% attendance rate. 
Currently, scholarships are implemented in over 4,000 primary 
schools in 15 provinces (equal to 60% of primary schools in 
Cambodia), reaching 90,000 beneficiaries.
USDA/WFP Partnership
The Government of the United States of America (US), through 
the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole (MGD) 
Programme, has been a trusted partner of 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 most recent agreement, signed in 2013, provides US $ 20 
million for an extension of school meals and/or food scholarships in 
three provinces (Battambang, Siem Reap, and Kampong Thom) for 
another three years. The goal of current USDA MGD programming 
is to improve the literacy of school age children and increase use 
of improved health and dietary practices, while simultaneously 
providing a safety net to vulnerable and at risk households and 
children. The Results Frameworks (RFs) for the MGD programme are 
shown in Annexes 1 and 2. Overall, 863 primary schools are targeted 
per year with 153,402 primary school students receiving onsite 
breakfasts and 12,221 students in grades 4-6 receiving scholarships 
(with priority to girls, when gender gaps exist).
Alongside the provision of school meals or scholarships, USDA funded 
programmes also focus on the following programme activities, 
including;
• Provision of school equipment and supplies(hygiene, sanitation, 
cooking equipment and literacy-related materials);
• Establishing school gardens and developing partnerships with 
farmers groups to supply food to schools;
• Building and rehabilitating school facilities (including latrines, 
store rooms, kitchens, wells and water stations);
• Awareness raising on hygiene, sanitation and nutrition;
1 The IDPoor system, officially referred to as the Identification of Poor Households Programme, is a 
standardized procedure, developed by the Ministry of Planning (MoP), to identify and classify poor 
households throughout the country. The IDPoor classification process occurs annually, on a rolling 
geographic basis, with the whole country covered every three years. IDPoor status is widely used, by 
both the government and the international community, as a key criteria for targeting assistance.
2 Given levels of work migration in Cambodia, certain poor households are not present (and thus 
not captured) in the rotating IDPoor classification rounds. WFP takes this into account by assessing 
poverty levels of households within their project areas to ensure that poor households and children 
(who happen not to have IDPoor cards) are not overlooked but rather given the opportunity to 
benefit from the scholarship programme. 
Page 3
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
Table 1: Background Characteristic of Head of Household
Source: USDA household survey 2014
Table 1 also shows the sex of head of household as well as marital 
status. The percent of female headed households was much higher 
amongst the intervention group (23.5%) than the control (17.0%), 
again a result of WFP targeting criteria. More than three quarters of 
household heads were married, though the proportion of widows 
was slightly higher amongst the intervention group. 
Educational Attainment and Literacy of Household 
Heads
As recognized by the USDA MGD programme, educational 
attainment is an important indicator of household well-being and 
often has significant effects on the extent to which households 
are able to maintain productive livelihoods and better manage 
difficulties. Overall, baseline findings show that a substantial 
percent of household heads have never attended school and, as a 
result, remain functionally illiterate (Table 2). Overall, this is true 
of one quarter of households from control schools and more than 
one-third of households from the intervention schools. This reflects 
the difficulties that Cambodia has had in terms of recovering its 
educational sector in the post Khmer Rouge years as the educated 
classes suffered disproportionally under Khmer Rouge rule. 
Targeting criteria of beneficiaries—how should this affect baseline results?
To better understand the findings presented below, it is important to note that variation amongst the intervention groups is to be expected 
given the differing targeting criteria used for beneficiary selection in the SMP and scholarships programmes. The SMP is implemented in 
selected schools with underlying poverty issues, poor enrollment, high drop-out rates, etc. The scholarships programme, by contrast, is 
implemented in a larger number of schools, but is more finely targeted to children from IDPoor 1 households or children from households 
that fit IDPoor 1 criteria, but lack the actual status (due largely to work-related migration during IDPoor classification periods).
As children are selected for scholarships based on IDPoor selection criteria, these children and their households are expected to be amongst 
the most vulnerable, in terms of both the indicators used to define IDPoor status1
 as well as other key outcomes. Amongst the cohorts 
receiving scholarships, the children and households in the combined SMP and scholarships category are likely to be the most vulnerable 
as these are very poor children from particularly poor areas. The households of children receiving only the SMP are likely to have a similar 
profile to the households in the control group (given that controls were matched) but remain on average better off than the scholarships 
and SMP + Scholarships cohorts.
1. Indicators used to define IDPoor status include: dependency ratio, school attendance, housing condition, land tenure, acreage of rice produced, fishing assets, reliance on daily wage labour 
work, livestock ownership, fisheries production, borrowing of rice, percent of household that does not work, ownership of non-productive assets, means of transport, exposure to crisis or shocks, 
receipt of remittances
Who were the respondents in the household survey? 
Respondents were largely female and most were the mothers of 
the primary school children benefiting from USDA MGD support. 
Overall, females comprised 86% of the respondents while 78% 
were mothers/ fathers. Notably, 18% of respondents were 
grandmothers/ grandfathers or aunts/ uncles, which is illustrative 
of the fact that many parents leave their children with relatives 
while they migrate to Thailand or to major urban centres in 
Cambodia looking for work.
were selected for inclusion in the SMP cohort, while five households 
with children in grade 4 were selected for the SMP and scholarship 
programme cohort. A further 10 households with children in grade 
4 were selected for the scholarship programme cohort. Amongst 
control schools, 20 households with children in grades 1-4 were 
randomly selected. 
It’s important to note that the numbers of selected households per 
school was lower than intended in certain cases, as the number of 
children benefitting from the scholarship programme was fewer 
than the required 10 in certain schools. Thus, the actual number 
of households interviewed is 2,077 households as opposed to the 
2,280 required by the sampling design.
Alongside household surveys, school assessments and teacher 
interviews were conducted. School assessments included basic 
information on the composition and performance of the school 
(number of children enrolled, attending, availability of advanced 
teaching materials, literacy testing success rates, etc) as well as 
specific information on the school’s infrastructure (latrines, water 
sources, kitchens, school gardens, etc). The primary respondent 
in the case of the school assessment was the school’s principal or 
chief administrator. In the case of teacher interviews, a total of 425 
teachers, for grades 1-4, were interviewed in each selected school, 
an average of three teachers per school. 
Data analysis was conducted using STATA software. Overall 
households and school level estimates for the intervention schools 
were weighted to reflect the proportion of the population benefiting 
from each programme. 
More detailed information on the survey methodology, including 
specifics on the survey tools and the process of data collection and 
supervision, can be referenced in Annex 3. 
Household Demographics
Demographic characteristics of households are presented in Table 
1. The average household size in the intervention and control group 
was 5.5 persons, while the dependency ratio was just over 1 (1.1 
for intervention group and 1.2 for control). Both household size 
and dependency ratios were higher than national averages (4.7 
household members; 0.67 dependency ratio), as WFP targets the 
poorest who tend to have larger families with fewer productive 
households members (NIS 2009). 
Socioeconomic Characteristics
Page 4
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
occupation of each household member5
. Figure 1 summarizes the 
findings, with livelihoods disaggregated by main and supporting 
livelihoods. Generally speaking, agriculture/ livestock was most 
commonly reported as the main livelihood. Notably, however, there 
was less reliance on agriculture/ livestock amongst households in the 
control cohort, with reliance on skilled and salaried work and small 
business more prominent. Also, amongst the poorest cohort, (those 
receiving food scholarships) pluralities relied on unskilled work, 
rather than agriculture/livestock, reflecting the fact that many of the 
very poor do not have access to land or productive assets. Trends in 
supporting livelihoods largely reflected the main livelihoods.
5 Livelihoods were classified into the following categories; 1) agriculture/ livestock 2) unskilled 
workers 3) skilled workers 4) wage/ salary workers and 5) small and medium enterprise/ business￾men. 
Figure 1: Main Livelihood, Income and Expenditure of Households
Source: USDA household survey 2014
Table 2: Education and Literacy of Household Heads (percent)
Source: USDA household survey 2014
Water and Sanitation
Respondents were asked to provide information on water and 
sanitation facilities. Again, findings largely reflect the relative 
poverty of WFP beneficiaries vis-a-vis households in the control 
cohort. Overall, 41% of households from the intervention cohort had 
access to improved water sources (hand pump, bought water, rain 
water, taped water and closed ring well), while an astounding 71% 
reported no toilet facilities. By contrast, 66% of households in the 
control cohort reported access to improved drinking water sources 
while only 45% reported no toilet facilities (which is a much lower￾but still concerning- figure). Details regarding access to various 
drinking water sources and toilet facilities are shown in Table 3.
Livelihoods
In order to better understand the socioeconomic context at baseline, 
respondents were asked to provide information on the current 
Table 3: Sources of Drinking Water and Toilet Facilities (Percent)
Note: unimproved sources included pond/river/canal, open ring well/open spring & 
hand dug well (no ring)
Source: USDA household survey 2014
Page 5
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
More consistent teacher attendance
To measure improvements in teacher attendance, WFP examined 
overall teacher attendance rates as well as the percent of teachers 
who were present at school for at least 90% of the scheduled school 
days. Findings at baseline indicated that teacher attendance, while 
not quite achieving the target set for this project (at least 90% 
present for 90% of school days), is still quite good. Average teacher 
attendance was almost 85% for at least 90% of scheduled school 
days. This again suggests a problem of quality of schooling rather 
than a lack of commitment on the teacher’s part. Detailed findings 
are shown in Figure 3.
Better Access to School Supplies and Materials
To measure access to school supplies and materials, WFP regularly 
monitors the following indicators which measure progress in terms 
of programme implementation:
• Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials 
• Number of learning material packages provided to target 
schools
• Number of stationery packages provided to target schools
• Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from the provision 
of school supplies
As the baseline survey was conducted immediately after the start 
of the project, progress on each front was minimal, with no schools 
having received these packages. Of course, this does not mean 
that schools do not have access to school supplies or stationaries, 
this simply indicates that no schools have received the improved 
packages to be delivered over the course of the USDA MGD project.
Improved literacy instructional material
To measure improvements in literacy instruction materials, the 
baseline survey assessed the percent of teachers who used the 
approved, national literacy curriculum as a part of their instructional 
materials as well as the number of classrooms (according to teachers/ 
school administrators) which had literacy materials sufficient for 
effective instruction. On average, baseline findings showed that just 
60% of teachers in targeted schools utilized the national literacy 
curriculum in their teachings while approximately 2,969 (or 86% 
of) classrooms reported sufficient literacy materials for effective 
instruction (Figure 4). This suggests an interesting disconnect 
between teachers/ schools administrators and national policy 
makers, as to what is and what is not effective literacy instructional 
materials. With just 57% of grade 6 students reading at grade level, 
Household Income and Expenditure
Alongside livelihoods, respondents were also asked to provide 
information on household income and expenditures. The various 
income streams identified were classified as farm, off-farm or 
remittances/ social transfers, with total incomes calculated by 
summing these. Overall, the bulk of household income was from off￾farm sources, accounting for approximately 60% of all earnings. Farm 
income and remittances, by contrast, both accounted for roughly 
one-fifth of earnings. Household combined incomes totalled 5-6 
USD per day across cohorts, though households amongst the control 
group earned 1.40 USD more per day (on average) or 23% more than 
households benefiting from USDA MGD support.
Food and non-food expenditures (both in cash and credit) were also 
assessed, with regular, small expenses collected over the past 30 
days and more significant, less common expenses collected over the 
past 6 months. On average, between one-third and one-half of all 
expenditures were on food, varying only slightly amongst cohorts. Not 
surprisingly, the poorest cohort, those receiving food scholarships, 
reported the highest share of food expenditure, with 43% of all 
expenditures reportedly on food. Calculated per day, households 
spent as much (or slightly more) than they earned. Amongst the 
households from the intervention cohorts, total expenditures 
were 5.40 USD per day versus incomes of 5.20 USD. Likewise, 
amongst control households, expenditures totalled 6.70 USD while 
incomes were just 6.40 USD. Spending more than is earned is not a 
surprising finding given the debt loads that households in Cambodia 
experience. Figure 1 provides further details on household incomes 
and expenditures. 
A primary objective of USDA McGovern-Dole funded projects 
is to improve literacy amongst school age children. To assess 
improvements in literacy, the baseline survey examined a proxy for 
literacy, namely whether children in grade 6 are reading at their 
grade level by the time they graduate primary school. In addition, the 
baseline survey assessed a series of indicators that are the building 
blocks to better literacy, including quality of literacy instruction, 
improved attentiveness while in school and improved attendance.
In terms of literacy, baseline information suggests that considerable 
progress is required if USDA MGD Programme targets are to be 
achieved. Overall, just over half (57%) read at their grade level at 
the time of graduation from primary school (Figure 2). This falls 
considerably short of the 80% target established for the USDA 
MGD project and, taken together with the findings below, suggests 
that the quality of schooling in Cambodia is still one of the most 
significant challenges.
Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
To assess quality of literacy instruction, the baseline survey planned 
to examine the percentage of teachers who demonstrate improved 
literacy instruction as identified by supervisors. As it was difficult 
to define improved literacy instruction in a uniform way, however, 
enumerators and respondents had difficulty interpreting and 
answering the question. For the mid and endline surveys, WFP will 
work to better define this indicator for future use. The indicators 
for the various components under this objective, however, were 
collected and they are presented below.
Figure 2: Percent of student who, by the end of grade 6, demonstrate 
reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by 
national standards
improved literacy of school age children
Page 6
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
percent (57%) of teachers had recognized teacher certification 
credentials. The number of teachers, educators or teaching assistants 
who received intensive coaching or mentoring was negligible and just 
36% of teachers reported the use of new, quality teaching techniques 
and materials. Findings and USDA MGD targets are shown in Figure 
5.
Increased skills and knowledge of administrators
To assess increases in the skills and knowledge of teachers, the 
baseline survey examined the following indicators;
• Number of teachers/ educators/ teaching assistants trained or 
certified
• Number of administrators in target schools with recognized 
education certification credentials
• Percent of administrators in target schools who demonstrated 
use of new and quality teaching techniques or tools
Training and certification of school administrators and other officials 
appears to be a very significant challenge as well, with training and 
certification levels much lower than those seen amongst teachers. 
Overall, 10% of school administrators and other officials reported 
training or certification, while 12% of school administrators reported 
recognized education certification credentials (Figure 6). Not 
surprisingly, this translates to poor performance as well, with only 
17% of school administrators reporting use of new, quality teaching 
methods. 
however, utilization of the national literacy curriculum appears 
to be a more useful proxy of literacy levels, suggesting a need to 
better train teachers and school administrators on what constitutes 
effective instructional materials. This will need to be a central focus 
of the USDA MGD programme if the targets on both fronts (85% for 
teachers using national literacy curriculum and 100% of schools with 
sufficient literacy instruction materials) are to be met.
Increased skills and knowledge of teachers
To assess increases in the skills and knowledge of teachers, the 
baseline survey examined the following indicators;
• Number of teachers/ educators/ teaching assistants trained or 
certified
• Number of teachers / educators / teaching assistants who 
successfully completed in service or received intensive 
coaching or mentoring
• Number of teachers in target schools with recognized teacher 
certification credentials
• Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrated use of 
new and quality teaching techniques or tools
Baseline findings suggest that training, certification and mentoring 
of teachers or teaching assistants remains a big challenge and this 
unfortunately is reflected in the quality of instruction students 
receive. Overall, just over half (51%) of teachers, educators and 
teaching assistants were trained or certified while a slightly higher 
Figure 3 Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach 
school at least 90% of scheduled school days per year (2012-2013)
Figure 5: Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use 
of new and quality teaching techniques or tools
Figure 4: Percent of teachers using the national literacy curriculum 
and the related instructional materials
Figure 6: Percent of school administrators in targeted schools who 
demonstrate use of new techniques or tools
Page 7
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
• Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for take-home 
rations provided to students (boys/girls)
• Number of students (boys/girls), cooks and storekeepers 
benefitting from school meals (breakfast) 
• Number of daily school meals (breakfast) provided to students 
(boys/girls)
• Percent of students in target school consuming daily meals at 
schools
• Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals, 
students (boys/girls), storekeepers and cooks 
Again, as this is a baseline survey, programme implementation was 
negligible.
To measure child hunger, children were asked whether they were 
“hungry” or “very hungry”7
 during school days. On average, 26.5% 
of children reported they were hungry during the school day which 
is lower than the hunger levels seen amongst control schools but 
far exceeds the USDA MGD targets of 10% (Figure 8). As the school 
meals programme commences it is expected that the percentage of 
children reporting hunger will drop significantly, but to achieve the 
target programmes must function efficiently. 
Notably, teachers indicated that hunger is seasonal with peaks in 
February and March, which interestingly fall outside of the traditional 
hunger gap (August-October).
Improved Attendance
The student attendance rate in the 2012-13 school year was not 
available as adequate attendance records are not kept at some 
schools. Therefore, it was only possible to estimate attendance rates 
via the actual head count of students present in classrooms on the 
day the schools were visited. The baseline survey also explored the 
percent of children that attended classes at least 80% of the time, as 
this is a common indicator that WFP uses for determining eligibility 
for food scholarships.
Overall, findings suggest fairly strong attendance, with estimated 
rates hovering quite near USDA MGD project targets. On average, 
85% and 88% of children were present on the day intervention and 
control schools were visited, respectively, versus USDA MGD targets 
of 90%. Findings on the percentage of students who regularly 
attended school (>=80% of the time) was 78.2% whereas WFP’s 
target is 80% (Figures 9 and 10). 
To ensure that targets are met, WFP will continue to focus heavily 
on improving attendance, both by encouraging attendance directly 
and by improving the various indicators that impact attendance, 
including;
• Increased economic and cultural incentives
• Reduce health related absences
• Improving school infrastructure
• Increasing overall enrolment
• Increasing community understanding of the benefits of 
education 
The specifics of these indicators at baseline are described below.
Increased Economic and Cultural Incentives
To assess increased economic and cultural incentives for education, 
the baseline survey examined the number of schools providing 
separate latrine facilities and the number of children at target 
schools that regularly receive school meals and/or food scholarships. 
7 “Very hungry“ equates to feeling constantly hungry while “Hungry“ also includes children who 
were only hungry at certaint time during the day.
Improved Attentiveness
To measure improved attentiveness, the baseline survey measured 
perceived or reported attentiveness through the eyes of both the 
student and the teacher, while also assessing indicators that impact 
attentiveness, including short term child hunger amongst others. 
To assess attentiveness directly, teachers were requested to indicate 
the percent of students that they perceived as inattentive on a 
regular basis6
. Students were likewise then requested to indicate 
how attentive they perceive themselves as being. Findings were 
quite consistent with teachers indicating that only 13% of students 
were inattentive on a regular basis while 88% of students reported 
being attentive (Figure 7). Findings suggest that attentiveness is 
nearing USDA MGD targets at baseline (of 10% for inattentiveness 
and 90% for attentiveness), though continued focus on this aspect 
during the project is required to ensure further progress.
Reduced short term hunger
To assess short term hunger, the baseline survey reports not only 
on child hunger but also on various programme implementation 
measures, including;
• Number of take home rations provided to students (boys/girls)
• Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from a take home 
ration 
6 Inattentiveness is defined as daily or sometimes inattentive 
Figure 7: Percent of students in target schools identified as 
attentive by their teachers
Figure 8: Percent of students in target schools who indicate that 
they are “hungry” or “very hungry” during the school day
Page 8
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
constructed 
• Number of kitchens at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed 
• Number of energy-saving stoves at target schools rehabilitated 
or constructed 
• Number of storerooms at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed 
• Number of school gardens at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed 
• Number of drilled wells/water stations at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed 
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed latrines
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed kitchens
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed energy-saving stoves
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed storerooms
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed school gardens
• Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or 
constructed drilled wells/water stations
As the baseline survey was conducted immediately after the start of 
the project, progress on each front was minimal, with no infrastructure 
projects completed (either construction or rehabilitation) nor were 
children benefiting from these projects at the time of survey. Of 
course, this does not mean that no schools have access to this 
infrastructure, but no new infrastructure had been added by the 
time of the baseline survey.
Increased school enrollment 
To assess school enrollment, the baseline survey examined the 
numbers of children enrolled as well as the percentage increase in 
students enrolled in school. Overall, 94% of targeted children were 
enrolled at time of baseline, representing a 2.4% increase in student 
enrollment since 2012-2013 school year (Figures 13 and 14). While 
overall enrollment is quite high, the percentage increase was only 
half of the targeted value of 5%. To achieve targets in the future, 
it will be necessary to ensure that communities are aware of the 
benefits of education. 
Increased community understanding of the benefits of education
To measure progress in terms of better community understanding on 
the benefits of education, the baseline survey monitors the number 
of parents in target communities who are members of Parent Teacher 
Associations (PTAs) as well as the percentage of parents that can 
name at least three benefits of primary education. Progress on this 
front is mixed, with 84% of parents members of PTAs but only 18% 
able to name three benefits of primary education (Figures 15 and 
16). As the USDA MGD target stands at 85%, it is clear that targets 
will not be achieved without a clear focus on community awareness 
raising activities on the benefits of primary education. 
To assess the use of health and dietary practices, the baseline survey 
examined the following indicators (acting as proxies for this strategic 
objective):
• Percent of schools with soap and water at handwashing 
stations commonly used by students
• Number/ percent of schools using improved sanitation 
Overall, progress on the provision of separate latrine facilities for 
boys and girls was far below USDA MGD targets. Overall, only 63% 
of schools reported separate facilities versus USDA MGD targets of 
100%. While still only a baseline finding, this must be a primary focus 
area of WFP moving forward if targets are to be achieved. 
As the programme was only just up and running when the baseline 
was conducted, the number of children receiving school meals and/
or food scholarships was negligible. As the programme rolls out, it 
is expected that there will be significant progress in meeting this 
objective. Findings and USDA MGD targets are shown in Figure 11.
Reduced health related absences
The reduction in health related absence from schools is another 
key area on which to focus. WFP has set the ambitious target that 
children should miss 5 days or fewer per year due to illness. Baseline 
findings, however, show that illness related absences are much 
higher than this, with children reportedly missing approximately 17 
days per year due to illness (Figure 12). While health is related to a 
wide variety of factors (many of which the USDA MGD project has 
little control over), it is clear that this target will not be achieved 
without a sustained focus on the project components that relate to 
improved health and nutrition. 
Improved School Infrastructure
To assess improvements in school infrastructure, WFP is monitoring 
the following programme implementation measures:
• Number of latrines at target schools rehabilitated or 
Figure 9: Estimated student attendance rate
Figure 10: Percent of students regularly (80%) attending USDA 
supported classrooms/schools
Increased use of health and dietary practice
Page 9
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
Figure 11: The percent of schools providing separate latrine 
facilities
Figure 13: Percentage of targeted children enrolled
Figure 15: Percentage of parents who are members of PTAs
Figure 12: Average number of school days missed by students due 
to illness
Figure 14: Percentage increase in students (girls, boys) enrolled in 
school
Figure 16: Percent of parents in target communities who can name 
at least three benefits of primary education 
Page 10
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
facilities (latrines)
• Percent of households in target schools that store food off the 
ground
• Percent of schools in target communities that clean cooking and 
eating equipment, consistent with accepted standards
While findings suggest that significant inroads have already been 
made in terms of health and dietary messaging to WFP’s targeted 
populations and schools, all indicators at baseline fall short of USDA 
MGD objectives (Figures 17, 18, 19 and 20). Overall, 93% of targeted 
schools report improved sanitation facilities, falling just shy of the 
100% USDA MGD objective. Likewise, 86% and 83% of schools report 
proper storage techniques (storing food off the ground) and use of 
clean cooking and eating utensils, respectively, again falling short of 
the 100% objective for food storage and the 90% objective for use of 
clean utensils. 
The area where the least progress was observed is the availability 
of soap and water at handwashing stations. Amongst the targeted 
schools, only 64% reported properly equipped handwashing stations 
at baseline, falling well short of the 85% required by USDA MGD 
programme. Notably, control schools fared considerably worse than 
target schools however, with only 44% reporting soap and water at 
handwashing stations. Again, this likely reflects the sustained focus 
on these issues in targeted communities in previous years. 
To better assess progress in health and dietary practices, WFP also 
examined a series of more specific indicators, looking at the following 
issues in more depth; 
• Increased knowledge of health and hygiene practices
• Increased knowledge of safe food preparation and storage
• Increased knowledge of nutrition
• Increased access to clean water and sanitation
• Increased access to preventative health interventions
• Increased access to requisite food preparation and storage tools 
and equipment
Findings are shown by indicator below. 
Increased Knowledge of Health and Hygiene Practices
To assess health and hygiene knowledge, the baseline survey explored 
parents’ understanding of proper health and hygiene practices as well 
as their knowledge on where to find accurate information on health. 
Overall, findings indicate that parents are quite knowledgeable on 
where to access health information (with 94% reporting at least one 
local source of accurate health information---exceeding USDA MGD 
targets) but this does not necessarily translate into more first-hand 
knowledge on proper health and hygiene, as only 56% at baseline 
were able to identify three important health and hygiene practices 
(Figures 21 and 22).
Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Preparation and 
Storage
Safe food preparation and storage is assessed by examining what 
percent of cooks and storekeepers at target schools achieved a 
Figure 17: Percent of schools with soap and water at handwashing 
stations commonly used by students
Figure 19: Percent of schools that store food off the ground
Figure 18: Percent of schools using improved sanitation facilities
Figure 20: Percent of schools in target communities that clean 
cooking and eating equipment
Page 11
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
Overall, 88% and 92% of parents in the intervention and control 
cohorts, respectively, were able to identify at least one local source 
of information for proper diets and nutrition, exceeding at baseline 
the USDA MGD targets. Figure 23 details the findings for parents 
within the various intervention groups.
Increased Access to Clean Water and Sanitation
To measure access to clear water and sanitation, the baseline survey 
examined:
• The ratio of latrines (boys/girls) to students at target schools
• The percentage of schools with year round access to safe and 
clear water source
• The number of target schools that have latrines of sufficient 
quality that are in good repair
Looking at baseline results for all three indicators, it is clear that 
this is an area that needs a sustained focus over the project period. 
Overall, the ratio of students to latrines was 1: 131, with the ratio 
of boys to latrines at 1:138 and the ratio of girls to latrine at 1:127. 
USDA MGD targets by contrast are 1:50 for both boys and girls. 
Findings amongst control schools were equally far from USDA 
targets (Figure 24). Access to clean water (year round) and quality 
latrines was slightly better, with 67% and 78% of schools reporting 
access respectively. USDA MGD targets for both indicators is 100% 
of schools.
passing grade on a safe food preparation and storage test. At the 
time of the baseline survey, this test was under development and 
training could not be provided to enumerators in time to ensure its 
inclusion in this round. It will be conducted in ensuing rounds. The 
test itself is shown in Annex 6. It should be noted, however, that WFP 
has been conducting safe food preparation and storage training for 
more than a decade, and it should be assumed that even without 
the test, a good number of schools will have some knowledge of 
these issues.
Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
To assess progress on improvements in nutrition knowledge, the 
baseline survey examined:
• The percentage of students and parents who can identify at least 
one local source of information on proper diets and nutrition .
• The percentage of cooks and storekeepers that have a passing 
grade on good nutrition and dietary practices
As mentioned in the previous section, the test for cooks and 
storekeepers was under development at the time of the survey 
and thus was not available for use. Therefore, it was only possible 
to assess baseline values on nutrition knowledge via students and 
parents abilities to identify a local source of quality nutrition and 
diet information.
Figure 21: Percent of parents who can identify at least one local 
source of information on good health practices
Figure 23: Percent of parents who can identify at least one local 
source of information on nutrition and diet
Figure 22: Percent of parents who can name at least three 
important health/ hygiene practices
Figure 24: Average ratio of latrines to students 
Page 12
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
Increased Access to Preventative Health Interventions
To examine access to preventative health measures, the baseline 
survey assessed the following:
• Percentage of children dewormed within the past 6 months
• The number of target schools with at least one month supply of 
soap (hand and dish soap)
• Number of students receiving daily school meals with 
micronutrient fortified commodities
In total, more than 80% of children have been dewormed in the past 
six months, while 70% of schools maintained stocks of soap. This 
demonstrates significant progress to date, but most of this success 
derives from programming in years past. The number of children 
receiving micronutrient fortified foods remains minimal, though this 
continues to be a priority for WFP. A major fortified rice trial has 
been completed and another may soon begin. Government buy-in 
and lack of private sector engagement continue to be the major 
obstacles to nationwide rice fortification. 
Increased Access to Requisite Food Preparation and 
Storage tools and Equipment
To assess this, the baseline survey examines the number of target 
schools with improved food preparation and storage equipment. At 
baseline, no schools indicated such improved equipment. This will 
be a focus of moving forward. 
As improvements in the overall food security and nutrition situation 
is central to WFP work, a section on key food security and nutrition 
indicators was included in the baseline survey. This allows WFP to 
not only track the key indicators in USDA MGD Programmes but to 
link improvements in these indicators to improvements in the overall 
well-being of beneficiaries. 
A short look at the past and present in terms of food and nutrition 
security is included below, in order to put the findings of the baseline 
survey into perspective.
Household Food Consumption Score
To assess the quality of household diets, the baseline survey 
collected the Food Consumption Score (FCS). The FCS is a composite 
measure of dietary diversity, food frequency, and relative nutritional 
importance of different food groups. The FCS is calculated using 
the frequency of consumption of different food groups consumed 
by a household during the 7 days before the survey. For detail of 
guidance for the indicator, please see the WFP Comprehensive Food 
Security and Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines8
.
Baseline findings indicate that dietary adequacy, at household level, 
is not a pressing problem at this time. On average, only 2-4% of 
households reported inadequate diets, depending on the cohort 
8 United Nations World Food Programme (WFP). January 2009. Comprehensive Food Security & 
Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines. Rome, Italy.
Food security situation in Cambodia: An overview
Sustained economic growth in recent years has led to significant reductions in poverty, with poverty rates more than halving (from 48% to 
18.8%) and per capita income nearly tripling since 2007. Economic gains have translated to substantial improvements in the quality of life 
for most Cambodians, the benefits of which have impacted multiple facets of life, including food security.
Food availability and access has improved considerably
Cambodia has been a self-sufficient, rice surplus country since 1995. The steady focus on the agricultural sector in recent years, however, 
has produced further dividends. Rice yields and overall production has increased, with paddy and rice surpluses doubling since 2006. In 
2013, rice surpluses were estimated at just under 3.1 million MTs, with 21 of 24 provinces able to produce enough rice to cover needs. 
Building on these improvement the Royal Government of Cambodia aims to increase production even further, with goals of exporting 1 
million MTs of milled rice as early as 2015. 
As poverty has declined and food availability has improved, household food access has also improved. Economic gains have led to increased 
employment opportunities and higher wages, with average daily wage labour rates increasing from approximately 10,000 Riel/ day in 2009 
to more than 16,000 Riel/ day in 2014. With wages increasing, household Terms of Trade (ToT) has improved accordingly, with households 
now able to afford sufficient food while utilizing a larger percent of their income to invest in greater productivity or cover other household 
expenses. 
More disposable income appears to be translating to better diets as well. According to Cambodia Socio-Economic Survey (CSES) data, 
dietary diversity increased from 2004 to 2009 with households reducing their caloric intake of carbohydrates and increasing intake of fats 
and animal proteins. Greater diversification placed the average Cambodian diet within WHO’s recommended norms for first time and led 
to declines in the percentage undernourished (from 37% in 2004 to 33% in 2009). Dietary improvements were most pronounced among 
the poorest quintile of the population, with the percent undernourished declining from 80% to 59% and the number of Kcal/ person/ day 
consumed increasing by 13.4% (an increase 5 to 10 fold higher than any other quintile). 
Despite improvements, significant challenges remain
While millions have been lifted out of poverty, close to one-fifth of the population remains in poverty and another three million Cambodians 
remain vulnerable, hovering precariously close to the poverty line. The World Bank estimates that a loss of just 0.30 USD/ day would push 
these vulnerable populations back into poverty, roughly doubling the current poverty rate. 
For the remaining poor and vulnerable, food security remains a challenge. Poor households often do not have access to the quantity or 
quality of food needed to meet nutritional requirements. Data from the CSES indicates that the poorest quintile of the population consumes 
only 1,690 Kcal/person/day, which is below the Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement (MDER) of 1,770 kcal/person/ day. Inadequate or 
borderline food consumption persists in the second and third quintiles as average consumption falls only just above the MDER but below 
the average per capita energy intake (2100 kcals/ person/ day) recommended by the World Health Organization. 
Significant dietary inadequacy coupled with challenges to the health and education system have resulted in persistently high levels of 
malnutrition. According to the most recent data, 40% of children are stunted while 11% are wasted. Micronutrient deficiencies are also 
quite pronounced with 55% of pre-school children reportedly anemic. 
Food security and nutrition
Page 13
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
examined (Figure 25). Households in the control cohort reported the 
best diets (1.2% inadequate) while households receiving scholarships 
reported the worst (4% inadequate)
Daily Average Dietary Diversity
To assess the quality of children’s diets, the baseline survey also 
included the Individual Dietary Diversity Score (IDDS). The IDDS is a 
qualitative measure of food consumption that reflects an individual’s 
access to a variety of foods, serving as a proxy for macro and 
micronutrient adequacy. The IDDS is an internationally-recognized 
indicator and its usefulness has been validated for several key age 
groups, including amongst children (FANTA, 2006). For more detail 
as to how to measure and analyze dietary diversity scores, please 
see the FAO Guidelines for measuring household and individual 
dietary diversity9
.
Findings from the baseline survey indicated that, in contrast to 
household level dietary adequacy, individual dietary diversity for 
children remains a significant challenge. Overall, 12% and 27% of 
the children in the intervention and control cohorts, respectively, 
reported inadequate dietary diversity (Figure 25). The significant 
difference in findings between those receiving school meals and 
those not (11-14% dietary inadequacy for the SMP cohorts verus 
27-31% among children in other cohorts), however, suggested that 
school meals may be a particularly protective intervention. Greater 
dietary diversity among school age children can lower the burden 
of micronutrient deficiencies, while improving overall concentration 
and cognition. 
Household Hunger Scale
To assess household food stress, the baseline survey also collected 
the Household Hunger Scale (HHS). The HHS measures and attempts 
to quantify perceptions of hunger within a household. The HHS has 
been specifically developed and validated for cross-cultural use so 
that the status of different population groups can be described in 
a meaningful and comparable way. For detail of guidance for the 
creation of the indicator, please see the Household Hunger Scale: 
Indicator Definition and Measurement Guide10.
Baseline results indicated that hunger, by and large, is not a 
commonly perceived threat to households within WFP’s target 
population. Fewer than 2% of households in any intervention cohort 
reported hunger and almost no household amongst the control 
groups reported hunger.
Coping Strategies
To assess whether food shortages are significant enough to change 
household behaviors, the baseline survey also examined coping 
strategies. To cover the multiple dimensions of coping behaviors, 
indicators of both consumption and livelihood coping were included. 
These are discussed below.
The Coping Strategies Index (CSI) is an important indicator of 
household food security status, as it measures modifications to 
household eating patterns in times of food shortage. The reduced 
CSI has been used in this survey; it is a sub-set of the context-specific 
CSI, with the specific set of behaviors included in the index all found 
to be relevant across cultures. For more detail on the reduced CSI 
tool, please see the CSI Field Method Manual11. 9 Gina Kennedy, Terri Ballard, MarieClaude Dop. 2011. Guidelines for measuring household and 
individual dietary diversity. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Rome, 
Italy.
10 Ballard Terri, Coates Jennifer, Swindale Anne, Deitchler Megan. Household Hunger Scale: Indica￾tor Definition and Measurement Guide. Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance 
II Project, FHI 360.
11 Daniel Maxwell, Richard Caldwell. January 2008. The Coping Strategies Index Field Methods 
Manual. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE).
Table 4: Reduced Coping Strategies Index
Source: USDA household survey 2014
The mean reduced CSI for households in the control and intervention 
cohorts were 1.0 and 2.6, respectively. While the score itself is 
difficult to interpret, comparison of the mean CSI scores shows more 
widespread reliance on consumption-related coping mechanisms 
amongst households in the intervention rather than control cohorts. 
Overall, amongst the interventions cohorts, more than one-third 
of households reported changing consumption behaviors in the 
preceding week versus only one-fifth in the control cohort.
Looked at by specific coping behaviors, the most common coping 
strategy utilized was eating less-preferred and less-expensive foods, 
followed by reducing the quantity of food consumed by adults (so 
young children can eat) and borrowing/ relying on food from friends 
and relatives. Reductions in both the size and number of meals were 
the least common coping mechanisms utilized.
Notably, more than one third of households in the intervention and 
control cohorts reported eating less preferred/less expensive foods, 
while 25% and 18% reported reductions in the quantities of food 
adults consumed (so young children can eat), respectively (Figure 
25). 
To look beyond food stress-related changes in eating patterns, 
the baseline survey also included a module on livelihood coping 
mechanisms. It is important to assess livelihood coping behaviors, as 
this often reflects the longer-term coping capacity of households as 
well as their capacity for future productivity. The indicator is derived 
from a series of questions regarding the household’s experience 
with livelihood stress and asset depletion during the 30 days prior 
to the survey. All strategies are classified into three broad groups, 
including stress, crisis and emergency strategies. For further detail 
of the module, please look at the Technical guidance for WFP’s 
Consolidated Approach for Reporting Indicators of Food Security 
(CARI).
Table 5: Livelihood Coping Strategies Categories 
Households in the intervention cohorts reporting utilizing livelihood 
coping mechanisms more often than those in the control cohort (27% 
reporting versus 22%--Figure 25), with almost all of the reported 
coping mechanisms classified as stress or crisis strategies rather than 
emergency. Crisis coping strategies were most often reported (by 
10-15% of households) amongst the cohort of households receiving 
Page 14
USDA Baseline Survey
June 2014
Figure 25: Food Consumption, Household Hunger Scale, Individual Dietary Diversity, Consumption Coping Strategies and Livelihood Coping Strategies
Source: USDA household survey 2014
Page 15
USDA Baseline Survey June 2014
food scholarships, which likely reflects their underlying vulnerability 
and poverty levels which are selection criteria for inclusion in such 
programmes.
Using the various information collected as a part of the USDA MGD 
evaluation (both baselines and follow ups), WFP is able to track 
progress in terms of project implementation as well as outcomes 
by creating and plotting composite/ index variables which track 
achievements across a host of indicators. The composite variables 
would include;
• Progress on educational programme implementation
• Progress on educational outcomes 
• Progress on health and dietary practices programme 
implementation
• Progress on health and dietary practices outcomes
Composite variables are calculated by summing the actual completion 
percentages for all key USDA MGD indicators and then comparing 
this rate to the achievement thresholds12. It is then possible to plot 
actual process or outcome achievements in relation to each other to 
better understand the holistic effectiveness of WFP programming. 
Progress to date on implementation and outcomes are shown in 
Figures 26 and 27. As this is only the baseline survey, it is expected 
that both process and outcome achievements would be low. In 
terms of project implementation, this was indeed the case. Only 
one-third to one-quarter of the health and dietary interventions 
were implemented at the time of baseline assessment versus less 
than 20% of the educational interventions. The situation was slightly 
better with project outcomes. Here, close to 70% of both education 
and dietary and health outcomes had already been achieved as of the 
baseline survey. This was true across programmes, likely reflecting 
the fact that similar programming has been ongoing in these schools 
for a decade or more.
Figure 26: Progress in to date in programme implementation by 
Results Framework (Baseline 2014)
12 See Annex 7 for the detailed calculations underlying this.
Figure 27: Progress in to date in achieving programme outcomes by 
Results Framework (Baseline 2014)
In the coming midline and endline surveys, it will be possible via 
this analysis to track WFP’s accomplishments over the course of the 
project, with the goal being to achieve at least 100% of all process 
and outcome targets for the USDA MGD Result Frameworks. 
WFP will have a real-time information sharing, monitoring and 
evaluation platform operational for the 2014-2015 school year, this 
will involve the rollout of mobile data collection devices for routine 
monitoring as well as evaluation activities. WFP will also shortly 
be rolling out a phone-based standardized complaint mechanism 
system for beneficiaries. This system will allow beneficiaries to 
report problems observed, free of charge and depending on severity 
connect them immediately to WFP management.
To maintain comparability in seasonality, WFP will proceed with the 
midline and endline surveys in March 2015 and 2016, respectively.
Annex 1: Results Framework: Strategic Objective 1- Improve 
 Literacy of School Age Children
Annex 2: Results Framework: Strategic Objective 2- Increase Use of
 Health and Dietary Practices
Annex 3: USDA Baseline Survey Methodology
Annex 4: Selected Intervention Schools
Annex 5: Selected Control Schools
Annex 6: Sample test on safe food storage and preparation
Annex 7: Detailed Tables of Findings
USDA MGD/ WFP Project Achievements
Monitoring and Evaluation of USDA MGD 
Programme: Next Steps
Annexes for USDA MGD Baseline Survey
Annex 1: Results Framework: Strategic Objective 1 Improve Literacy of School Age Children 
Result Title & Description 
(if custom) Performance Indicator Performance Indicator Target Baseline #
Results Framework 1
MGD 1 Improved Literacy of School￾Age Children Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions 315,168 individuals 0
MGD 1 Improved Literacy of School￾Age Children Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 262,449 individuals 0
MGD SO1 Improved Literacy of 
School-Age Children
Percent of student (girls/boys) who, by the end of grade 6 demonstrate reading 
comprehension equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards at USDA 
supported schools
80 percent of students
Boys: 80 percent
Girls: 80 percent
56.5%
MGD 1.1 Improved Quality of Literacy 
Instruction
Percent of teachers who demonstrate improved literacy instruction as identified by 
supervisors 80 percent of teachers (No baseline value)
MGD 1.1 Improved Quality of Literacy 
Instruction
Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching 
techniques or tools 80 percent of teachers 36.0%
MGD 1.1.1 More Consistent Teacher 
Attendance
Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90% of scheduled 
school days per year 90 percent of teachers 84.8%
MGD 1.1.1 More Consistent Teacher 
Attendance Average teacher attendance rates (for each school and aggregated) 90 percent 94.4%
MGD 1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and Materials
Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials (learning material packages and 
stationery packages) 863 schools 0
MGD 1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and Materials Number of learning material packages provided to target schools 2,589 learning material 
packages 0
MGD 1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and Materials Number of stationery packages provided to target schools 2,589 stationary packages 0
MGD 1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and Materials Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from the provision of school supplies
172,600 students
Boys: 88,026
Girls: 84,574
0
MGD 1.1.3 Improved Literacy 
Instructional Materials
Number of classrooms in target schools with literacy instructional materials sufficient for 
effective instruction 3,452 classrooms 2969
MGD 1.1.3 Improved Literacy 
Instructional Materials
Percent of teachers using the national literacy curriculum and the related instructional 
materials 85 percent of teachers 59.8%
MGD 1.1.4 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of Teachers Number of teachers / educators / teaching assistants trained or certified. 5,178 teachers / educators / 
teaching assistants 664
MGD 1.1.4 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of Teachers
Number of teachers / educators / teaching assistants who successfully completed in service 
or received intensive coaching or mentoring 
5,178 teachers / educators / 
teaching assistants tbd
MGD 1.1.4 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of Teachers Number of teachers in target schools with recognized teacher certification credentials 3,452 1976
MGD 1.1.5 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of School Administrators Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified 3,452 school administrators 129
MGD 1.1.5 Increased Skills and
Knowledge of School Administrators
Number of school administrators and officials in target schools with recognized education 
certification credentials 1,726 school administrators 224
MGD 1.1.5 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of School Administrators
Percent of school administrators in targeted schools who demonstrate use of new 
techniques or tools 
85 percent of school 
administrators 16.9%
MGD 1.2 Improved Student 
Attentiveness Percent of students in target schools identified as inattentive by their teachers 10 percent of students 13.2%
MGD 1.2 Improved Student 
Attentiveness
Percent of students in target schools who indicate they are attentive or very attentive 
during class 90 percent of students 82.7%
MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short-term 
Hunger
Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are "hungry" or "very hungry" 
during the school day. 10 percent of students 33.8%
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding) Number of take home rations provided to students (boys/girls)
329,967 take home rations
Boys: 148,485 take home 
rations
Girls: 181,482 take home 
rations
0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding) Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from a take home ration 
20,368 students
Boys: 9,166
Girls: 11,203 
0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding)
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for take-home rations provided to students 
(boys/girls)
TOTAL:
Rice: 3,300 tons
Boys: 1,485
Girls:1,815
0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding)
Number of students (boys/girls), cooks and storekeepers benefitting from school meals 
(breakfast) 
204,536 students
Boys: 104,313
Girls: 100,223
0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding) Number of daily school meals (breakfast) provided to students (boys/girls)
57,449,049 daily school meals 
(breakfast)
Boys: 29,299,015 daily school 
meals (breakfast)
Girls: 28,150,034 daily school 
meals (breakfast)
0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding) Persent of students in target school consuming daily meals at schools 95% 0
MGD 1.2.1.1 Increased Access to Food 
(School Feeding)
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals provided to students (boys/girls), 
storekeepers and cooks
TOTAL:
Rice: 7,186 tons
YSP: 849 tons
Oil: 283 tons
Students (boys): 
Rice: 3,319 tones
YSP: 433 tones
Oil: 144 tones
Students (girls):
Rice: 3,189 tones
YSP: 416 tones
Oil: 139 tones 
Storekeepers: 
Rice: 243 tons (12% Female)
Cooks: 
Rice: 435 tons (70% Female)
0
MGD 1.3 Improved Student 
Attendance
Percent of students (girls/boys) regularly (80%) attending USDA supported 
classrssoms/schools 80 percent of students 78.2%
MGD 1.3.1 Increased Economic and 
Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased 
Disincentives)
Number of target schools that have separate latrines for boys and girls 863 schools 543
MGD 1.3.1 Increased Economic and 
Cultural Incentives (Or Decreased 
Disincentives)
Number of students (bopys/girls) at target schools who regularly receive take home food 
rations
12,221 students
Boys: 5,499
Girls: 6,722 
0
MGD 1.3.2 Reduced Health Related 
Absences
Average number of school days missed by students due to illness (for each school and in 
aggregate) 5 days 16-20 days
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of latrines at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 210 latrines 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of kitchens at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 90 kitchens 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of energy-saving stoves at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 450 energy-saving stoves 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of storerooms at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 90 storerooms 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of school gardens at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 600 school gardens 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of drilled wells/water stations at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 120 drilled wells/water stations 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed latrines 63,000 students 0
Infrastructure
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed kitchens 27,000 students 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed energy-saving stoves 135,000 students 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed storerooms 27,000 students 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed school gardens 429,204 students 0
MGD 1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed drilled wells/water 
stations 36,000 students 0
MGD 1.3.4 Increased Student 
Enrollment Number of students (boys/girls) enrolled in school
258,900 students
Boys: 132,040
Girls: 126,860
boys 125229
girls 118781
MGD 1.3.4 Increased Student 
Enrollment Percentage increase in students (girls, boys) enrolled in school 5/5 percent
Total: 2.4%
Boys: 2.2%
Girls: 3.0%
MGD 1.3.5 Increased Community 
Understanding of Benefits of 
Education
Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education 85 percent of parents 17.6%
MGD 1.3.5 Increased Community 
Understanding of Benefits of 
Education
Number of parents in target communities who are members of PTAs (or similar school based 
community group) 4,315 parents 3,615
MGD 1.4.1 Increased Capacity of 
Government Institutions
Standard operating procedures and tools for management and oversight of school feeding 
programes by relevant government offices are operational
2 standard operating 
procedures and tools 0
MGD 1.4.2 Improved Policy or 
Regulatory Framework / 
FTF 2
Number of educational policies, regulations and/or administrative procedures in each of the 
following stages of development: 
Stage 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis (review of 
existing policy/regulation/administrative procedure and/or proposal of new 
policy/regulations/administrative procedures
Stage 5: 1 (National 
scholarship policy for primary 
schools)
Stage 5: 1 (National school 
feeding policy)
Stage 1: 1 (National 
scholarship policy for 
primary schools)
None 1 (National school 
feeding policy)
MGD 1.4.2 Improved Policy or 
Regulatory Framework
Government has a fully developed national primary education strategy/strategic plan that 
includes a policy framework
1 national primary education 
strategy/strategic plan 1
MGD 1.4.2 Improved Policy or 
Regulatory Framework National school feeding policy is operational 1 national school feeding 
policy at stage 1 none
MGD 1.4.3 Increased Government 
Support Establishment of a national school feeding unit within the government 1 national school feeding unit none
MGD 1.4.4 Increased Engagement of 
Local and Community Groups
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations or similar school governance structures contributing 
to their school 863 groups 467
MGD 1.4.4 Increased Engagement of 
Local and Community Groups /
FTF 1
Number of public-private partnerships formed (e.g., farmer associations) 1 none
Annex 2: Results Framework: Strategic Objective 2- Increase Use of Health and Dietary Practices 
Result Title & Description 
(if custom) Performance Indicator Performance Indicator 
Target Baseline #
Results Framework 2
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions 467,324 individuals 0
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions 415,619 individuals 0
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices
Percent of schools with soap and water at a hand washing station commonly used by 
students 85 percent of schools 63.5%
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices Number of schools using the available (improved) sanitation facility (latrine) 863 schools 801
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices Percent of schools in target communities that store food off the ground 100 percent of schools 86.4%
MGD 2: Increased use of Health and Dietary 
Practices
Percent of schools in target communities that clean cooking and eating equipment, 
consistent with accepted standards, prior to use 90 percent of schools 82.5%
MGD 2.1 Improved Knowledge of Health and 
Hygiene Practices
Percent of parents in target communities who can idenitfy at least three important 
health/hygiene practices 85 percent of parents 56.0%
MGD 2.1 Improved Knowledge of Health and 
Hygiene Practices
Percent of students (and parents) in target communities who can idenitfy at least one 
local source of information on good health practices (e.g., health center)
85 percent of students
85 percent of parents 93.7%
MGD 2.2 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food 
Prep and Storage Practices
Percent of cooks/storekeepers at target schools who achieve a passing score on a test 
on safe food preparation and storage
85 percent of 
cooks/storekeepers 0
MGD 2.3 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition Percent of cooks/storekeepers at target schools who achieve a passing score on a test 
on good nutrition and dietary practices
85 percent of 
cooks/storekeepers
0
MGD 2.3 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition Percent of students (and parents) in target communities who can identify at least one 
local source of information on nutrition and diet (e.g., health center)
85 percent of students
85 percent of parents 87.9%
MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and 
Sanitation Number of target schools with year around access to a clean and safe water source 863 schools 580
MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and 
Sanitation Average ratio of latrines (boys/girls) to students at target schools 1 latrine per 50 students
Total: 131
boys:1:138
girls: 1:127
MGD 2.4 Increased Access to Clean Water and 
Sanitation Number of target schools that have latrines of sufficient quality (in good repair) 863 schools 673
MGD 2.5 Increased Access to Preventative 
Health Interventions
Number of target schools that have at least one month supply of soap (hand and dish 
soap) 863 schools 603
MGD 2.5 Increased Access to Preventative 
Health Interventions
Number of students (boys/girls) receiving daily school meals with micronutrient 
fortified commodities (rice, oil, salt) 
204,536 students
Boys: 104,313
Girls: 100,223
0
MGD 2.6 Increased Access to Requisite Food 
Prep and Storage Tools and Equipment Number of target schools with improved food preparation and storage equipment 600 schools 0
MGD 2.7.1 Increased Capacity of Government 
Institutions
Number of government staff in the Ministry of Education Youth and Sports to monitor 
the safety of food in SFP 5 staff 0
MGD 2.7.2 Improved Policy or Regulatory 
Framework
Governnment water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) standards for primary schools 
are established and implemented 1 WASH standard 0
MGD 2.7.3 Increased Government Support Number of national and sub-national government staff working on school-based 
health and nutrition programmes 5 0
Annex 3: USDA Baseline Survey Methodology 
1. Impact evaluation design for McGovern-Dole programme 
Impact evaluation studies generally encounter three interrelated challenges: (1) establishing predicted outcomes in the absence of intervention (viable 
counterfactual outcomes or recalled information), i.e. what would have happened to participants had they not participated in the project; (2) attributing the 
impact to the treatment or intervention; (3) dealing with unprecedented lag times (if the number of observed years is quite large). Other issues that may confound 
impact evaluation studies include programme placement, selection bias, and policies affecting various measures. The most common sources of bias are 
programme placement where the locations or target populations are not randomly selected, and self-selection bias where households choose to participate or are 
purposively selected based on set criteria (Alston and Pardey 2001; Salter and Martin 2001 cited in Davis et al. 2010). The following are the main methods used to 
remedy these problems/challenges: 
 Randomisation/experimental approach: a well-defined set of people is randomly selected for treatment and control groups. 
 Reflexive/ longitudinal comparisons: no control group is needed, but baseline survey of participants is conducted before intervention. 
 Instrumental variables method: these are used to predict programme participation under a restrictive assumption that the variables have no impact on the 
outcomes given participation. 
 Quasi-experimental and non-experimental approaches: comparison or control group is constructed by matching; methods include propensity score 
matching and double-difference estimator (if baseline data is available) (Ravallion2001). 
The experimental approach is not applicable for the McGovern-Dole (MGD) impact evaluation because schools participating in the Food for Education (FFE) 
programme in the two provinces are not randomly selected. The instrument variables approach, by contrast, is applicable but very difficult to apply to as finding 
instrument variables (IV) is a difficult task in empirical analyses (Ali and Abdulai 2010). The two approaches suitable for the USDA MGD impact evaluation would 
then include; 1) reflexive/ longitudinal comparisons and 2) the quasi-experimental approach with difference in differences (DD) analysis. Of these two options, the 
quasi-experimental approach was selected as it was deemed a more robust design. This approach allows evaluators to control for unobservable factors 
influencing the intervention project by using a counterfactual control group and baseline data. 
2. Sampling Methods and Approach 
This baseline (and ensuing impact evaluations) is designed to capture impacts of the USDA MGD FFE program on selective indicators as indicated in the results 
framework. To assess impact, baseline and follow up information is collected among schools targeted for USDA MGD assistance and compared to the same 
information collected amongst a set of comparisons schools which were not selected for assistance. 
There are two types of sampling approaches, probability sampling and non-probability sampling. The most common types of probability sampling methods 
include: simple random sampling, stratified random sampling; systematic random sampling, cluster random sampling, and multi-stage random sampling. Non-
probability sampling methods include: purposive sampling and opportunity or accidental sampling. Probability sampling is typically used for quantitative research, 
while non-probability sampling is suited for qualitative research methods. In this respect, probability sampling was used to select the targeted schools to be 
examined in this evaluation. 
2.1 Sample size and selection of schools 
The evaluation for the USDA MGD programme uses a two-stage, probability proportional to size cluster sampling approach, with schools selected in the first stage 
of sampling and households selected thereafter (thus serving as the primary sampling units). The sample size was designed to provide accurate and precise results 
that minimize sampling error and provide estimates that are statistically representative of the various cohorts examined. Utilizing the most conservative approach, 
sample size was estimated based on a 95 percent confidence level, a power of 80 percent and an error term of 8%. This means there was at least an 80 percent 
chance of detecting changes and/or effects in the study samples (within the acceptable error) with a 95 percent confidence level. 
The USDA MGD school feeding programme coverage is large, covering 863 schools in three provinces: Kampong Thom, Siem Reap and Battambang. USDA MGD 
supports schools, providing the following programmes: School Meal Programmes (SMP) and Food Scholarships (Take Home Ration--THR) programmes. In most 
cases, SMP and food scholarship programmes are implemented jointly or schools only receive food scholarships. Thus, to ensure a consistent sampling frame 
across programmes, only schools containing SMP alongside food scholarships or schools receiving only food scholarship were selected for the impact evaluation1
. 
This resulted in a sampling frame composed of 531 schools, spanning five districts in Battambang and nine districts of Siem Reap province. According to the 
sample size requirements outlined above, it was necessary to randomly select (using PPS sampling) 118 of the possible 531 schools. In total, 60 schools with SMP 
and food scholarships were selected, alongside 58 schools with only food scholarships. 
Sample size calculations were provided by Bethlehem (2009) (http://www.applied-survey-methods.com/samplesize.html).
To select control schools with similar characteristics to the target schools, researchers used propensity score matching methods. The criteria for comparison 
schools included the following: 
1) Be located near or in the same district as the target schools, and have similar geographic conditions; 
2) Similar socioeconomic characteristics, infrastructure, and climate condition; and 
3) Are not currently receiving school feeding assistance from WFP and/or other agencies. 
Overall, in Siem Reap, 49 non-targeted schools were identified from lists provided by both the Ministry of Education and WFP. Of this 49, 25 were deemed suitable 
matches to target schools and 15 of these 25 were randomly selected for inclusion in the study. In Battambang, a similar exercise in WFP intervention districts 
revealed no suitable matches, thus researchers were forced to select schools that were located in adjacent districts which had not been targeted by WFP for 
intervention. In total, 15 schools were deemed as potential matches, with 10 randomly selected for inclusion. 
 
1
 USDA MGD supported schools in Kampong Thom did not meet this criteria, as only SMP programmes were ongoing, with food scholarships provided but through alternate funding sources (not 
USDA). Inclusion of these schools was possible, but would have significantly complicated the design of the evaluation.
A detailed list of the schools selected can be found in Annex 6. 
2.3 Selection of Household Respondents 
Within each selected school, lists of SMP and food scholarship beneficiaries were created, with only children in grades 1-4 eligible for selection2
. Using beneficiary 
lists, systematic random sampling was conducted by programme type to select children/ households for inclusion. Amongst the schools receiving SMP and food 
Scholarships, 15 children between grades 1 and 3 were selected for inclusion in the SMP cohort, while 5 children from grade 4 were selected for inclusion for 
inclusion in the SMP and THR cohort. In schools where only food scholarships were provided, 10 students were selected for inclusion in the food scholarship only 
cohort. 
In control schools, children in grades 1-4 were included in the sampling frame. In this case, 20 children were systematically sampled from this listing for inclusion 
in the control cohort. 
In total, the number of households included in intervention and control groups was intended to be 2,280, with 500 in the control cohort and 1,780 included in the 
various intervention cohorts (SMP=900; SMP+Scholarship=300; Scholarship=580). Due to significant variations in the number of children per school receiving 
scholarships, however, it was very difficult to find the number of scholarship beneficiaries required per school, leading to a reduction in sample size of slightly 
more than 25% in the food scholarship alone cohort (from 580 selected to 422). While this is a significant reduction, a sample size of more than 400 should be 
more than sufficient to capture changes in educational and health/ dietary outcomes. 
Table 2.1 provides greater detail on the planned and actual sample sizes in each intervention and control cohort. 
Table 2.1: School sample sizes for intervention and control groups 
Intervention group Control 
SMP+ THR THR Total group
Target schools
SRP 240 108 348 -
BB 30 153 183 -
Total 270 261 531
Schools sample 
SRP 53 24 77 15
BB 7 34 41 10
Total 60 58 118 25
Grand total 143
 
2
 Households with children in grades 5 and 6 were excluded as the children and the household would graduate from USDA MGD assistance prior to the end of the project period. 
Households sample
SRP 1060 192 1252 300
BB 140 272 412 200
Total 1200 464 1664 500
Grand total 2164
2.4 Selection of School Respondents 
Respondents for school surveys were primarily principles, administrators or teachers, who were aware of both school infrastructure and supplies as well as 
students’ record. Teachers from grades 1-4 were randomly selected, with an average of 3 teachers selected per intervention and control school. 
3. Survey tools 
While finding from the baseline survey are informed by numerous sources of information, two different structured survey instruments were used to collect 
additional data for the USDA MGD baseline survey; a household survey questionnaire and a school questionnaire. Household and school survey tools were 
adapted from the various tools used by WFP to assess the effectiveness of its Food For Education (FFE) programmes both in Cambodia and throughout the region. 
Tools were created in consultation with WFP’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) team to ensure that all necessary indicators were collected (see Annex 4 and 5 for 
detail). The household and school survey tools are elaborated on below. 
3.1 Household questionnaire 
The survey comprises nine sections as follow: 
Section A and B: Household characteristics
This section is comprised of questions on household demographics, including household size, education information, age, occupation and other general 
information of household members. Information about the people who used to live in the household is also captured (section B). 
Section C: Education 
This section collects information about education background of school aged children, perception of education and perception of the school feeding program as an
incentive to keep children in school. 
Section D: Food consumption score and dietary diversity 
This section explores the types of food consumed in the last 24 hours as well as the last 7 days. Consumption over the course of the past 7 days was asked at 
household level while consumption in the 24 hours was only assessed for primary school aged children. 
Section E: Food and small non-food expenditure
The expenditure section contains questions about expenditures on both food and non-food items. Common, often repeated expenditures were collected over the 
past 30 days while irregular expenditures were collected over the preceding 6 months. 
Section F: Household food security and coping strategies 
Various indicators of household food security status (household hunger score, consumption and livelihood coping) were collected in this section. The indicators 
are typically collected in WFP surveys and comprise a compendium of indicators that WFP uses to classify food security status. 
Section G: Anthropometry and health 
One primary school aged child was randomly selected per household for inclusion in the anthropometric module. The weight, height, and age of this child3
 was 
measured/ collected as was the child’s health condition over the past two weeks. 
Section H: Household incomes and assets
This section contains questions on the household’s main sources of income and household assets. 
Section I: Other effects of school feeding 
This section asks questions on other unanticipated effects of sending children to school as the results of school feeding program. These questions were asked to 
understand the full impacts of WFP programming, be they positive or negative. 
3.2 School questionnaire 
The school survey was adapted from a WFP school survey instrument with only slight modifications. It is comprised of six sections, including: 
1. General information, 
2. Improved quality of literacy instruction, 
3. Improved school infrastructure, 
4. Local organization and community groups, 
5. Improved student attentiveness, and 
6. Nutrition, health and dietary practices. 
The full survey tool was only used to gather information from control schools; while for the intervention group it was customized to gather only necessary data. 
Data collection was organized in this way, because WFP previously conducted school assessments in all their target schools. In addition, a short survey for primary 
 
3
This information was used to calculate BMI-for-age indicators. Notably, findings were not reported on in the baseline survey as there is a lack of clear standards by which it was 
possible to assess and contextualize findings. 
school teachers was also designed to gather necessary information to estimate short-term hunger reduction and improved student attentiveness (see Annex 5 for 
further detail). 
4. Survey Data Collection 
4.1 Selection of Interviewers 
CDRI has a long established record in conducting quality household and enterprise surveys in Cambodia. It therefore has a pool of around 100 highly experienced 
and qualified enumerators to call upon. These enumerators are largely government officials residing at various Ministries (of Planning, Women’s Affairs and Rural 
Development) and/ or provincial department officials. Other enumerators are selected from high school teachers and undergraduates. 
In total, thirty enumerators were employed to carry out the USDA MGD baseline survey. They were formed into six groups, each comprising five enumerators with 
two team leaders/supervisors. Team leaders arranged fieldwork logistics, supervised data collection and sample selection, and undertook data quality and 
consistency control. 
4.2 Training of Interviewers 
The training of enumerators for field data collection took place over four days, from the 27th of February to the 2nd of March 2014, with 3 days designated for 
training on the questionnaire and one day for field testing. 
On day 1 of the training, enumerators were briefed on the USDA MGD program and the objectives of the baseline survey. After the enumerators reviewed the 
questionnaire, the CDRI team explained the various sections in the afternoon. On day 2, the enumerators pre-tested the questionnaire in a school that has a 
school feeding program, but not USDA MGD assistance. The pre-test emulated real interview situations in that an enumerator administered the entire survey 
questionnaire, while a second enumerator noted any problems for discussion later. After the first interview, enumerators changed roles. On days 3 and 4, trainers 
further worked to clarify the problematic areas of the questionnaire and enumerators were allowed further practice interviewing one another. 
4.3 Data collection and Supervision 
Data collection was conducted by 6 enumeration teams, each comprised of 5 members. Two teams were dispatched to Battambang province, while four teams 
were assigned to Siem Reap. Each enumerator interviewed a maximum of four households/ schools a day, taking 21 days to complete household and school 
surveys. 
During field data collection, supervisors from CDRI research team were present in the field with enumerators for the whole data collection period, facilitating field 
logistics, spot checking of household and school interviews and checking completed survey questionnaires to control for data quality and inconsistencies. All 
mistakes found were explained and corrected with each team to avoid similar errors happening in future interviews. As part of the training, enumerators and team 
leaders learned how to crosscheck data quality and consistency of data recording from one section to another. Therefore, interviewers were able to check the 
data they had recorded before handing the completed survey parts to team leaders/field supervisors, ensuring maximum quality control. 
4.4 Data Entry and Data Cleaning 
Completed survey questionnaires were transferred to CDRI office for data entry and cleaning. Three research assistants with working knowledge of CS-Pro and 
STATA handled data entry under the guidance of senior researchers. Double data entry was completed in the designated database template CS-PRO, while data 
cleaning was finally executed using STATA. Typing errors were corrected by double entry, while some inconsistencies were checked by reviewing survey 
questionnaires or calling respondent households to double-check responses. Data cleaning was a long process and despite thorough checking during data entry, 
some errors likely remain. Therefore, data cleaning continued during data processing and analysis and considered final once data analysis had been completed. 
5. Data Analysis 
USDA MGD baseline data was conducted in STATA with indicators calculated per in USDA MGD guidance as well as the results frameworks. Other food security 
indicators were calculated using guidance from WFP and other standard indicators guidance documents. 
6. Limitations 
The major limitations included: 
1) Defining the control group: if the control is not appropriately selected, the impact (causal effects) of FFE cannot be assessed; only the trend can be 
estimated. Non-targeted schools by WFP in the same geographic areas in SRP and BB provinces are few, and therefore, selection of control schools for 
these provinces was challenging. While statistical procedures (ie propensity score matching) were used to select control schools from available non-target 
schools, the saturation of WFP programme coverage in certain districts made it impossible to find suitable controls. This forced researchers to find control 
schools in adjacent districts which were likely not to share similar characteristics to the intervention district, as they were not selected for inclusion in the 
programme at the beginning. 
2) Reductions in sample size will require that differences between baseline and follow up surveys be larger to statistically see differences. 
3) The final challenge may be the ability to detect impacts given all targeted schools have already been recipients of school feeding in years past. Therefore, 
changes in outcome indicators may be small and hence difficult to detect statistically. 
Annex 4: Selected Intervention Schools 
No. School ID School Name Province WFP Status SMP+THR THR SMP Total
Target Schools
1 2040104003 Dach Proat BB THR 0 7 0 7
2 2040111007 Svay Chrum BB THR 0 7 0 7
3 2040206017 Hun Sen Khnach Romeas BB THR 0 8 0 8
4 2040301019 Lovea BB THR 0 8 0 8
5 2040309023 Boeung Samrong BB THR 0 6 0 6
6 2040407031 Dangkor Pen BB THR 0 8 0 8
7 2040509047 Boeung Sangker Lech BB THR 0 4 0 4
8 2040602011 Ta Hen BB THR 0 8 0 8
9 2040609013 Ta Hen( Kdol leu) BB THR 0 7 0 7
10 2040801069 Damnaksuth BB THR 0 5 0 5
11 2040803066 Samnang Preah Srey BB THR 0 7 0 7
12 2090101001 Chul Seima BB THR 0 8 0 8
13 2090201002 Chul Kiri BB THR 0 6 0 6
14 2090203037 Svay Sar BB THR 0 6 0 6
15 2090207036 Boeung O Cheang BB THR 0 8 0 8
16 2090306012 Lumphat BB THR 0 6 0 6
17 2090401004 Hun Sen O Anluok BB THR 0 8 0 8
18 2090504035 Phoum Kandal BB THR 0 8 0 8
19 2090601007 Kamprang Chas BB THR 0 8 0 8
20 2090607030 Kampong Chamlang Krom BB THR 0 7 0 7
21 2090607038 Kampong Lei Krom BB THR 0 6 0 6
22 2100105021 Tuol Chrey BB THR 0 8 0 8
23 2100208007 Damnak Ksan BB THR 0 8 0 8
24 2100209008 O Da BB THR 0 8 0 8
25 2100210023 Damnak Beng BB THR 0 8 0 8
26 2100211013 Spean Tumneap BB THR 0 8 0 8
27 2100305015 Samaki BB THR 0 8 0 8
28 2100306018 O Ta Sok BB THR 0 6 0 6
29 2130106001 Boeung Chhnas BB SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
No. School ID School Name Province WFP Status SMP+THR THR SMP Total
30 2130307024 Prey Sinh BB SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
31 2130402007 Kouk Poun BB SMP+THR 3 0 16 19
32 2130404009 Tuol Mates BB SMP+THR 8 0 12 20
33 2130408025 Boeung Raing BB SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
34 2130411012 Samrong BB SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
35 2130601015 Kauk Trom BB SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
36 2140104004 Prek Ta Ven BB THR 0 8 0 8
37 2140105005 Prek Chik BB THR 0 7 0 7
38 2140303008 Chraing Khpuos BB THR 0 8 0 8
39 2140404012 Tuol Koki BB THR 0 8 0 8
40 2140404013 Prey Ampoan BB THR 0 8 0 8
41 2140504017 Russey Kraing BB THR 0 8 0 8
42 17030102002 Khnar SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
43 17030201025 Tuol Kruos SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
44 17030302024 Mebonn SRP THR 0 5 0 5
45 17030305007 Ta Koh SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
46 17030604012 Sras Kvav SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
47 17030604027 Ta Pen SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
48 17040107001 Anlung Samnar SRP THR 0 8 0 8
49 17040209006 Wat Kandal SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
50 17040510016 Khnar Thnung SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
51 17040516020 Kilometer Ta Chhim SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
52 17040603022 Trapaing Veng SRP THR 0 8 0 8
53 17040707030 Kbal Kduoch SRP SMP+THR 4 0 16 20
54 17040907071 Chup Tnot SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
55 17040910077 Sop Mong SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
56 17041001038 Chamreun Rath SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
57 17041002039 Phoum Boeung SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
58 17041003040 Spean Touch SRP SMP+THR 3 0 16 19
59 17041106046 Damrei Chhlang SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
60 17041107047 Kanseng SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
61 17041211052 Lovea SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
No. School ID School Name Province WFP Status SMP+THR THR SMP Total
62 17060403030 Lork Ta Ma SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
63 17060405011 Prasat Khnar SRP SMP+THR 6 0 14 20
64 17060603013 Damnak Kchas SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
65 17060717028 Sela Rumduol SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
66 17060806029 Prey Longeang SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
67 17060903019 Sranal SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
68 17061003023 Hun Sen Ta An SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
69 17061007025 Teuk Chum SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
70 17070207066 Prasat Char SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
71 17070209004 Peam SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
72 17070307006 Kdei Run SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
73 17070501011 Khnat SRP THR 0 8 0 8
74 17070507012 Wat Prasat SRP THR 0 8 0 8
75 17070803025 Trakiet SRP SMP+THR 8 0 12 20
76 17071006027 Ta Tork SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
77 17071010030 Chambak He SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
78 17071106032 Prasat SRP SMP+THR 4 0 14 18
79 17071109033 Pradak SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
80 17071507048 Akthipadei SRP THR 0 8 0 8
81 17090201005 Bakorng SRP THR 0 8 0 8
82 17090508019 Pongror SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
83 17090704025 Chea Sman SRP THR 0 8 0 8
84 17090807030 Wat Roluos SRP THR 0 5 0 5
85 17090901031 Kaun Sat SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
86 17090905034 Suong SRP THR 0 7 0 7
87 17100103005 Thlork Andaung SRP THR 0 8 0 8
88 17100302015 Mouk Neak SRP THR 0 7 0 7
89 17100308018 Nokor Krao SRP THR 0 8 0 8
90 17100402020 Wat Svay SRP THR 0 8 0 8
91 17100901029 Po Banteay Chey SRP THR 0 8 0 8
92 17100902030 Phnom Krom SRP THR 0 8 0 8
93 17101307051 Bangkoang SRP THR 0 8 0 8
No. School ID School Name Province WFP Status SMP+THR THR SMP Total
94 17110114045 Prasat Sanloang SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
95 17110203005 Samaki SRP THR 0 7 0 7
96 17110208008 Komrou Srok SRP THR 0 8 0 8
97 17110315044 Kauk Chan SRP THR 0 5 0 5
98 17110511023 Thnal Chek SRP THR 0 6 0 6
99 17110601024 Thlat SRP SMP+THR 6 0 0 6
100 17110604025 Kauk Sangker SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
101 17110702030 Trapaing Khnar Po SRP THR 0 7 0 7
102 17110803033 Kaul SRP THR 0 6 0 6
103 17110807052 Popel Kandal SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
104 17111001039 Boeung Ngot SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
105 17111002063 Punleuvichea Chup Sman SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
106 17111004041 Phkar Rumchek SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
107 17111005050 Champei SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
108 17111008042 Boeung Vean SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
109 17130107025 Sre Robang SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
110 17130201012 Kantuot SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
111 17130202005 Khnar Krao SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
112 17130305006 anlung thom SRP SMP+THR 4 0 15 19
113 17130501014 Ta Siem SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
114 17140103001 Prasat SRP THR 0 8 0 8
115 17140105017 Vean SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
116 17140309020 Khnar Phtaul SRP SMP+THR 6 0 14 20
117 17140311022 Trapaing Krasaing SRP SMP+THR 5 0 15 20
118 17140404015 Russey Tauch SRP SMP+THR 3 0 15 18
Total 276 422 879 1577
Annex 5: Selected Control Schools 
Control Schools
No. School ID School Name Province WFP Status SMP+THR THR SMP Total
1 2010201018 Kanteu 2 BB 20
2 2010416011 Svay Prakeap BB 20
3 2010504038 Thngor BB 20
4 2010602022 Kampeuv BB 20
5 2010704057 Chak Angkam BB 20
6 2010711058 Chirork BB 20
7 2010802031 Ta Kream BB 20
8 2010805034 Ta Ngen BB 20
9 2010806035 Prey Phdao BB 20
10 2010809043 Pheakdei BB 20
11 17070710053 Roka SRP 20
12 17070802024 Mouk Pen SRP 20
13 17090307038 Srei Vibol Ker SRP 20
14 17090308045 Meta Kakruna Popel SRP 20
15 17090706026 Kampong Thkov SRP 20
16 17090902042 Boeung Thom SRP 20
17 17100207007 Svay Dangkum SRP 20
18 17100209009 Hun Sen Kruos SRP 20
19 17100210010 Chea Sim Komar Angkor SRP 20
20 17100214014 Kesaram SRP 20
21 17100403021 Wat Damnak SRP 20
22 17100405022 Chunlung SRP 20
23 17100506041 Samaki Sahakum SRP 20
24 17101002034 Thnal SRP 20
25 17110401015 Wat Sdei SRP 20
Total 500
Grand Total 2077
Annex 6: Sample test on safe food storage and preparation 
TEST SCORING 
Name :
Gender : □ Male, □ Female
Title : □ Cook, □ Storekeeper
School name :
School Code :
Total score :
Safe Food Preparation and storage practices 
This test contains multiple choice questions, each worth 1 point. Circle the best response for each question. Make sure that your answer is clearly marked. This test is worth a total 
of 9 points. 
1. When do you usually wash your hand for food preparation? 
before handling food and often during food preparation 
After using latrine 
After finish food preparation 
2. When do you clean your cutting board? 
After using them 
Prior to using them 
Prior and after using them 
3. When do you wash cooking equipment with soap (cooking pan, knife, plates, bucket or containers)? 
After using them 
Prior to using them 
Prior and after using them 
4. Where do you store cooking ingredients? 
Keep them in cleaned containers and away from harmful materials. 
Keep them in plastic bag and hang on the wall 
Keep them with other materials 
5. Are there measures in place to prevent food from contamination from pest, animal and poultry? 
___________________________________________________________________________ 
___________________________________________________________________________
6. What is the best period of time to leave cooked food before serving to students? 
Less than 2 hours, More than 2 hours, 15 mn only 
7. How do you store cooked food prior serving to students? 
Store cooked food in steel containers with cover at safe place 
Store cooked food in plastic containers without cover on the ground 
Store cooked food in plastic containers with cover off the ground 
8. What is the most important thing to check food before cooking? 
Expiry date and package 
Packaging with colorful 
 Source of food 
9. What is a good source of water to cook and clean food? 
Tube well water, treat water, and drilled and mixed wells 
Water from river 
Water from commune pond 
Nutrition and Dietary Practices 
This test contains multiple choice questions, each worth 1 point. Circle the best response for each question. Make sure that your answer is clearly marked. This test is worth a total 
of 7 points. 
1. Do you serve students with breakfast and vegetables regularly? Yes No
2. Is it good to have the same single type of food every day?” Yes No
3. Of the commodities cooked for breakfast, what commodities are fortified? 
 Rice with Vitamin A 
 Two (Vitamin A and Iodine) Yellow split pea with iodine 
Others Vegetable oil with vitamin A and salt with iodine 
4. How do you know if the salt is iodized? 
Mix cool cooked rice with lemon juice and iodine salt or test drop 
I don’t know how to test it
Others_____________________________________________ 
5. How do you keep iodized salt? 
Keep it in opened bag/container 
Keep it in closed bag/container 
Others 
6. When do you usually put iodized salt while cooking food? 
Put it during cooking time 
Put it in cooked food and cover cooking pot after cooking 
Others 
7. Of food below commodity and with the same weight, which one provides the highest energy? 
Rice and yellow split pea 
Vegetable oil 
Fresh or canned fish 
Answer sheet 
Safe Food Preparation and storage practices
1. before handling food and often during food preparation.
2. Prior and after using them
3. Prior and after using them
4. Keep them in cleaned containers and away from harmful 
materials
5. one score for any measures
6. 15mn or less than 2h
7. Store cooked food in steel containers with cover at safe 
place
8. Expiry date and package
9. Tube well water, treat water, and drilled and mixed 
wells
Nutrition and Dietary Practices
1. Yes
2. No
3. Others Vegetable oil with vitamin A and salt with iodine.
4. Mix cool cooked rice with lemon juice and iodine salt or 
test drop.
5. Keep it in closed bag/container
6. Put it in cooked food and cover cooking pot after 
cooking
7. Vegetable oil
Annex 6: Detailed Tables of Findings 
Educational Outcome Variables
Targets Baseline SMP SMP + 
Scholarship Scholarship Control
Percent of student (girls/boys) who, by the end of grade 6 demonstrate reading comprehension 
equivalent to their grade level as defined by national standards at USDA supported schools 80 56.5 52.4 52.4 61.0
Percent of teachers who demonstrate improved literacy instruction as identified by supervisors 80
Percent of teachers in target schools who demonstrate use of new and quality teaching techniques or 
tools 80 36 42.6 42.6 29.2 56.4
Percent of teachers in target schools who attend and teach school at least 90% of scheduled school 
days per year
90 84.8 82.1 82.1 87.6 78.5
Average teacher attendance rates (for each school and aggregated) 90 93.8 93.4 96.9 96.4
Percent of teachers using the national literacy curriculum and the related instructional materials 85 59.8 53.6 53.6 66.3 88.1
Percent of school administrators in targeted schools who demonstrate use of new techniques or tools 85 16.9 23.4 23.4 12.6 31.1
Percent of students in target schools identified as inattentive by their teachers 10 13.2 12.3 12.3 14.1 15.6
Percent of students in target schools who indicate they are attentive or very attentive during class 90 87
Percent of students in target schools who indicate that they are "hungry" or "very hungry" during the 
school day. 10 25.6 14.8 14.8 53.5 38.6
Percent of students (girls/boys) regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrssoms/schools 80 78.2 71.1 71.1 83.9 89.2
Average number of school days missed by students due to illness (for each school and in aggregate) 5 16.5 16.5 18.2 13.2 16.5
Percentage increase in students (girls, boys) enrolled in school 5 2.4 1.6 1.6 3.3
Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary education 85 17.6 17.1 19.6 26.5 22.8
Educational Process Indicators
Targets Baselines SMP Scholarship
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded 
interventions 315,168 0 0 0
Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions 262,449 0 0 0
Number of schools receiving school supplies and materials (learning 
material packages and stationery packages) 863 0 0 0
Number of learning material packages provided to target schools 2,589 0 0 0
Number of stationery packages provided to target schools 2,589 0 0 0
Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from the provision of school 
supplies 172,600 0 0 0
Number of classrooms in target schools with literacy instructional materials 
sufficient for effective instruction 3,452 2969 2969 2969
Number of teachers / educators / teaching assistants trained or certified. 5,178 664 664 664
Number of teachers / educators / teaching assistants who successfully 
completed in service or received intensive coaching or mentoring 5,178 0 0 0
Number of teachers in target schools with recognized teacher certification 
credentials 3,452 1976 1976 1976
Number of school administrators and officials trained or certified 3,452 129 129 129
Number of school administrators and officials in target schools with 
recognized education certification credentials 1,726 224 224 224
Number of take home rations provided to students (boys/girls) 329,967 0 0
Number of students (boys/girls) benefitting from a take home ration 20,368 0 0
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for take-home rations provided to 
students (boys/girls) 3,300 0 0
Number of students (boys/girls), cooks and storekeepers benefitting from 
school meals (breakfast) 204,536 0 0
Number of daily school meals (breakfast) provided to students (boys/girls) 57,449,049 0 0
Persent of students in target school consuming daily meals at schools 95 0 0
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals provided to 
students (boys/girls), storekeepers and cooks---Rice 7186 0 0
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals provided to 
students (boys/girls), storekeepers and cooks---YSP 849 0 0
Quantity of commodities (tons) provided for school meals provided to 
students (boys/girls), storekeepers and cooks---Oil 283 0 0
Number of target schools that have separate latrines for boys and girls 863 543 543 543
Number of students (bopys/girls) at target schools who regularly receive 
take home food rations 12,221 0 0
Number of latrines at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 210 0 0 0
Number of kitchens at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 90 0 0
Number of energy-saving stoves at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed 450 0 0
Number of storerooms at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 90 0 0
Number of school gardens at target schools rehabilitated or constructed 600 0 0
Number of drilled wells/water stations at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed 120 0 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
latrines 63,000 0 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
kitchens 27,000 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
energy-saving stoves 135,000 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
storerooms
27,000 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
school gardens 429,204 0 0
Number of students benefitting from the rehabilitated or constructed 
drilled wells/water stations 36,000 0 0 0
Number of students (boys/girls) enrolled in school 258,900 244010 244010 244010
Number of parents in target communities who are members of PTAs (or 
similar school based community group) 4,315 3,615 3615 3615
Standard operating procedures and tools for management and oversight of 
school feeding programes by relevant government offices are operational 2 0 0 0
Number of educational policies, regulations and/or administrative 
procedures in each of the following stages of development: 
Stage 1: Underwent the first stage of the policy reform process i.e. analysis 
(review of existing policy/regulation/administrative procedure and/or 
proposal of new policy/regulations/administrative procedures
2 0 0 0
Government has a fully developed national primary education 
strategy/strategic plan that includes a policy framework 1 1 1 1
National school feeding policy is operational 1 0 0 0
Establishment of a national school feeding unit within the government 1 0 0 0
Number of Parent-Teacher Associations or similar school governance 
structures contributing to their school 863 467 467 467
Number of public-private partnerships formed (e.g., farmer associations) 1 0 0 0
Health and Dietary Outcome Variables
Targets Baseline SMP SMP+Scholarship Scholarship Control
Percent of schools with soap and water at a 
hand washing station commonly used by 
students
85 65 63.7 63.7 63.2 44.0
Percent of schools in target communities that 
store food off the ground 100 86.4 86.4 86.4
Percent of parents in target communities who 
can idenitfy at least three important 
health/hygiene practices
85 56 56.1 46.4 60.2 58.6
Percent of students (and parents) in target 
communities who can idenitfy at least one 
local source of information on good health 
practices (e.g., health center)
85 93.7 93.7 91.3 94.8 96.0
Percent of students (and parents) in target 
communities who can identify at least one 
local source of information on nutrition and 
diet (e.g., health center)
85 87.2 87.8 87.0 89.3 92.2
Average ratio of latrines (boys/girls) to 
students at target schools 2 0.0076 0.0087 0.0087 0.0068 0.0078
% of children having received deworming 
medicine in the last 6 months 90%
Educational Process Indicators
Targets Baselines SMP Scholarship
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA￾funded interventions 467,324 0 0 0
Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from 
USDA-funded interventions 415,619 0 0 0
Number of schools using the available (improved) 
sanitation facility (latrine) 863 801 801 801
Percent of schools in target communities that clean 
cooking and eating equipment, consistent with accepted 
standards, prior to use
90 43.8 43.8
Percent of cooks/storekeepers at target schools who 
achieve a passing score on a test on safe food preparation 
and storage
85 0 0
Percent of cooks/storekeepers at target schools who 
achieve a passing score on a test on good nutrition and 
dietary practices
85 0 0
Number of target schools with year around access to a 
clean and safe water source 863 580 580 580
Number of target schools that have latrines of sufficient 
quality (in good repair) 863 673 673 673
Number of target schools that have at least one month 
supply of soap (hand and dish soap) 863 603 603 603
Number of students (boys/girls) receiving daily school 
meals with micronutrient fortified commodities (rice, oil, 
salt) 
204,536 0 0
Number of target schools with improved food preparation 
and storage equipment 600 0 0
Number of government staff in the Ministry of Education 
Youth and Sports to monitor the safety of food in SFP 5 0 0 0
Governnment water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) 
standards for primary schools are established and 
implemented
1 0 0 0
Number of national and sub-national government staff 
working on school-based health and nutrition programmes 5 0 0 0