Decentralized Evaluation
Endline Evaluation of United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for 
Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia
2013-2016
Evaluation Report
November 2017
Commissioned by WFP Cambodia Country Office 
Evaluation Manager: Martin Fisher (The KonTerraGroup)
Agreement Number: FFE-442-2013/035-00
Prepared by
Sophia Dunn, Team Leader, The KonTerra Group 
Jean-Pierre Silvéréano-Vélis, Evaluator
Sovith Sin, Evaluator 
Covadonga Canteli, Statistician 
Ferdous Jahan, Evaluator
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making
Acknowledgements
This evaluation report was developed through wide consultation with programme partners and 
stakeholders of the USDA McGovern Dole Programme. The Evaluation Team would like to 
acknowledge the input from the WFP Cambodia Team, the WFP Bangkok Regional Bureau, 
the Royal Government of Cambodia including the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport at 
national, provincial and district levels, other partner ministries, and other stakeholders for 
their contribution towards the evaluation.
Special thanks to the World Food Programme in Cambodia for their time and contributions, 
especially the Education Unit and Kannitha Kong and Bun Thang. Our thanks are also due to 
Jonathan Rivers and Yav Long who served as focal points from inception through the fieldwork 
and reporting phases. The Evaluation Team also extends special thanks to the Head of WFP 
Sub-Office in Siem Reap, Um Nisith, and the WFP Field Office team for Battambang. Siem 
Reap and Kampong Thom.
The KonTerra Evaluation Team would also like to thank Indochina Research Limited team 
especially Mike Coquilla, Chandara Gnim, Pisei Im and the enumeration team for their 
dedication to the survey.
Special thanks are also due to Len Leng and Ravuth Chang for translation during the qualitative 
field mission.
Finally, the team gratefully acknowledges the community participants in the evaluation 
process – households, teachers, cooks, parents and school children.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not necessarily 
reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this 
report rests solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement 
by WFP of the opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the expression of 
any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or constitutional status of any 
country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of frontiers.
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It 
was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this 
publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or 
the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Table of Contents
1 Introduction...............................................................................................1
1.1 Overview of the evaluation subject....................................................... 2
1.2 Context................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Evaluation methodology and limitations ..............................................7
2 Evaluation Findings.................................................................................. 11
2.1 Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate is the programme? .............. 11
2.1.1 Appropriateness to needs.......................................................................................11
2.1.2 Alignment with national policies and strategies................................................... 13
2.1.3 Alignment with WFP corporate strategies, policies & normative guidance......... 14
2.1.4 Alignment with other development partners ....................................................... 16
2.2 Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the programme?.........18
2.2.1 Results Framework 1: Improved literacy of school aged children........................ 18
2.2.2 Overall achievement of Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school-age 
children.............................................................................................................................30
2.2.3 Results Framework 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices..................32
2.2.4 Overall achievement of Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and dietary 
practices............................................................................................................................ 37
2.3 Evaluation Question 3: How & why has the programme achieved its 
results?....................................................................................................... 40
2.3.1 Internal factors ......................................................................................................40
2.3.2 External factors .....................................................................................................42
2.4 Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the programme?.............. 43
3 Conclusions and Recommendations .........................................................47
3.1 Overall Assessment/Conclusions ........................................................47
3.2 Recommendations............................................................................. 49
4 Bibliography.............................................................................................52
List of Tables
Table 1: Number of schools receiving each type ofFFE intervention..................................................... 3
Table 2: Number of schools receiving infrastructure support ................................................................ 3
Table 3: Key events in Cambodia (2013-2016)........................................................................................ 7
Table 4: Summary of sample size for the 2013-2016 endlinequantitative surveys ...............................9
Table 5: FFE sites visited during qualitative field mission.................................................................... 10
Table 6: Summary of key results - EvaluationQuestion 1......................................................................17
Table 7: Percentage of surveyed students consuming dailyschool meals ............................................ 19
Table 8: Overall totals of direct and indirect beneficiariesreached (2013-2016) ................................20
Table 9: School infrastructure by type of intervention..........................................................................20
Table 10: School gardens by type of intervention.................................................................................. 21
Table 11: Provision of THR .....................................................................................................................22
Table 12: Provision of separate latrines for girls and boys ....................................................................22
Table 13: Provision of separate latrines for girls and boys by typeof intervention..............................22
Table 14: Absence due to illness .............................................................................................................22
Table 15: Benefits of primary education ................................................................................................23
Table 16: Participation in PTAs ..............................................................................................................23
Table 17: Average annual total contributions receivedfrom parents ...................................................23
Table 18: Student enrolment..................................................................................................................24
Table 19: Student enrolment by intervention type ................................................................................24
Table 20: Student attendance ................................................................................................................24
Table 21: Teacher attendance rate..........................................................................................................26
Table 22: Teacher attendance rate according to type of foodsupport provided ..................................26
Table 23: Provision of school supplies and materials............................................................................26
Table 24: Provision of learning package at endline by typeof intervention......................................... 27
Table 25: Literacy materials and curriculum supplyand utilization .................................................... 27
Table 26: Teacher training ..................................................................................................................... 27
Table 27: School administrators’ training..............................................................................................28
Table 28: Hunger and attentiveness of students ...................................................................................28
Table 29: Hunger and attentiveness of students, by intervention type ................................................29
Table 30: Operational procedures and tools for school feeding ...........................................................29
Table 31: Improved policy and regulatory framework for school feeding ............................................30
Table 32: Presence of a national schoolfeeding unit ............................................................................30
Table 33: Engagement of local and community groups inschool feeding............................................30
Table 34: Results of Grade 6 reading comprehension........................................................................... 31
Table 35: Grade 6 reading comprehension results byFFE intervention ..............................................32
Table 36: Planned vs. actual beneficiaries – StrategicObjective 2 .......................................................33
Table 37: Students’ and parents’ knowledge ofhealth/hygiene practices ............................................33
Table 38: Cooks’ and storekeepers’ knowledge on safe food preparation and storage ........................34
Table 39: Knowledge on good nutrition and dietary practices ............................................................. 35
Table 40: Improvement of school water andsanitation facilities......................................................... 35
Table 41: Increased access to preventive health interventions ............................................................. 35
Table 42: Provision of micronutrientfortified commodities ................................................................36
Table 43: Schools with improved food preparation andstorage equipment........................................36
Table 44: Results indicator - Improvement of Government capacity on health, hygiene and nutrition
........................................................................................................................................................37
Table 45: RF2 outcome indicators - USDAsupported schools ............................................................ 37
Table 46: Consumption coping strategies (percentage of households reporting using each strategy at 
least once a week)............................................................................................................................39
Table 47: Adequacy of household diets..................................................................................................39
Table 48: Household food consumption................................................................................................39
Table 49: National Capacity Index (NCI) ..............................................................................................44
List of Figures
Figure 1: Cambodia’s net primary school enrolment rate (2013-2016) ................................................ 11
Figure 2: Commodities provided by USDA ............................................................................................19
Figure 3: Number of students benefiting from school meals and take-home rations ......................... 20
Figure 4: Drop-out rates Grades 1-6, total (2013-2016) ....................................................................... 25
Figure 5: Primary school drop-out rates, by gender (2015-2016)........................................................ 25
List of Acronyms
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations 
BMI Body Mass Index
BTB Battambang Province
CARD Council for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment 
CO Country Office (WFP)
CP Country Programme
CPAP Country Programme Action Plan
DAC Development Assistance Committee (OECD) 
D&D Decentralization and deconcentration
DEQAS Decentralised Evaluation Quality Assurance System(WFP) 
DSFC District School Feeding Committee
EMIS Education Management and Information System(MoEYS) 
EQAD Education Quality Assurance Department (MoEYS)
ESP Education Strategic Plan
ESWG Education Sector Working Group 
ET Evaluation Team
FAO (United Nations) Food and AgricultureOrganization 
FIRD Foundation for Integration of Rural Development 
FFE Food for Education
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
FY Financial Year
g gram(s)
GDP Gross Domestic Product 
GII Gender Inequity Index
HDI Human Development Index 
HGSF Home-grown school feeding 
HH Household
HQ (WFP) Headquarters
IDS Institute for Development Studies 
IRL Indochina Research Limited
KAPE Kampuchean Action for PrimaryEducation 
KII Key Informant Interview
KTM Kampong Thom Province 
LMIC Lower-Middle Income Country
LSFC Local School Feeding Committee
MAFF Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry andFisheries 
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MERVAM Monitoring Evaluation Reporting Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping 
MoEYS Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport
MoH Ministry of Health
MoI Ministry of Interior
MRD Ministry of Rural Development 
mt metric tonne
MTE mid-term evaluation
NCI National Capacity Index
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
NLC National Literacy Curriculum
NSDP National Strategic Development Plan
NSFSN National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment 
OEV Office of Evaluation (WFP)
PCC Project Coordination Committee
PDAFF Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
PED Primary Education Department(MoEYS) 
POE Provincial Office of Education (MoEYS) 
PMP Performance Monitoring Plan
PRISM Platforms for Real-time Information SysteMs 
PSFC Provincial School Feeding Committee
PSM Propensity Score Matching
PTA Parents and Teachers Association 
RBB Regional Bureau in Bangkok (WFP) 
RF Results Framework
RS Rectangular Strategy
SABER Systems Approach for Better EducationResults 
SAPF Social Assistance Policy Framework
SDG Sustainable Development Goals 
SFTF School Feeding Taskforce
SMP School Meal Programme 
SO Strategic Objective
SRF Strategic Results Framework 
SRP Siem Reap Province
SSC School Support Committee 
SY School year
THR Take Home Ration
ToR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNDAF United Nations Development AssistanceFramework 
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization 
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment 
US$ United States dollar
USDA United States Department ofAgriculture 
WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene
WFP (United Nations) World Food Programme 
WHO (United Nations) World HealthOrganization 
YSP Yellow split peas
Map 1: Map of provinces of Cambodia
Source:https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Cambodia_provinces_en.svg/1224px-Cambodia_provinces_en.svg.png
Map 2: Map of WFP Cambodia’s Country Portfolio target areas 2013-2014
Source: WFP Cambodia MERVAM Unit
Map 3: Map of WFP Cambodia’s Country Portfolio target areas 2016-2017
Source: WFP Cambodia MERVAM Unit
i
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. This report is the endline evaluation of the Food for Education (FFE) programme (FFE￾442-2013/035-00) (2013-2016) of the World Food Programme in Cambodia which has been 
supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Program 
Grant. This work has been commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office and is based 
on the Terms of Reference provided by the office (Annex 1).1 The main objectives of the 
evaluation were for accountability and learning. The evaluation has assessed whether the 
project achieved the intended results and assessed the project’s effectiveness/efficiency of 
design, implementation and management. The main goal of the evaluation was to delineate 
the progress made over the past project period and the likely improvements needed to ensure 
a smooth transition to Government ownership in the coming years.
2. There are several expected users of this report who will have the responsibility of taking 
recommendations forward. These primarily include the WFP Cambodia Country Office, the
Royal Government of Cambodia including the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, other 
implementing partners including Plan International, World Vision, World Education, and 
Kampuchean Action for Primary Education. Other WFP offices such as the Regional Bureau 
in Bangkok and WFP Headquarters should also use this report for institutional learning.
Overview of evaluation subject
3. The FFE programme 2013-2016 is a continuation of USDA McGovern-Dole Program 
support from 2010. The programme operates under two strategic objectives: to improve 
literacy of school aged children, and to improve the use of health and dietary practices. The 
Theory of Change is that by providing a conducive school environment, reducing hunger and 
preventing illness, students will be able to participate more fully in class, resulting in better 
learning outcomes. With this in mind, for the 2013-2016 phase, USDA provided WFP with a 
US$20 million grant to implement a range of activities in schools. The programme provides 
a daily breakfast, hereafter referred to as the school meals programme, and take-home rations 
to poor students with good school attendance, in three provinces in Cambodia. Food 
commodities are provided by USDA as in-kind contributions. The programme targets 166,928 
primary school students for school meals and 12,221 students in Grades 4-6 receiving take 
home rations. The provision of rations prioritizes girls, especially in areas where gendergaps 
in education exist.
4. To complement the school meals and rations, the programme provides training for school 
personnel including the administrators/directors, teachers, storekeepers and cooks, conducts 
activities to promote literacy, and provides support to school infrastructure and school 
gardens. The FFE-targeted schools receive different components of the package depending on
whether they are SMP or THR schools, and whether the infrastructure support is required or 
not. The programme also invests in capacity building at the local, regional and national levels 
to ensure sustainability and Government ownership.
5. The programme was granted a six-month extension, so the evaluation therefore coversthe 
period from October 2013 to June 2017. The programme was implemented in partnership 
with several Cambodian Government ministries and with the non-governmental organization 
Plan International. The programme was designed to achieve two strategic objectives (SOs): 
improved literacy of school aged children, and the increased use of good health and dietary 
practices.
1 Please note all annexes are available in Volume 2 of this report.
ii
Methodology
6. The evaluation took place between June and December 2017. The evaluation followed a 
quasi-experimental approach employing a case-control methodology as per the 2014 baseline 
methodology. However, the baseline ‘comparison group’ was later found to include schools 
with some interventions by other agencies, meaning that the group was neither representative 
nor clean. Nevertheless, the same comparison group was utilized again for the midline, and 
now the endline survey.
7. The evaluation used mixed data collection methods, including quantitative andqualitative 
survey techniques, and triangulated information from different methods and sources to 
enhance the reliability of findings. Participatory methods, including focus group discussions 
and key informant interviews were used where relevant to highlight lessons learned. The 
evaluation included three main components of work:
• A secondary document review
• A quantitative survey to enable comparison of results against the 2014 baseline and the 
2015 midline surveys (August/September 2017)
• Qualitative field work to obtain input from key stakeholders (September/October 2017).
8. The qualitative data collection generated primary data that have been used to triangulate 
the quantitative survey data. In total, the quantitative survey covered a sample of 118 of the 
total 861 USDA supported schools, as well as 25 comparison schools. The evaluation team 
also interviewed 203 people as key informants during the field mission, including 81 women 
and 121 men, covering a range of programme stakeholders including USDA representatives 
in Ho Chi Minh City, WFP personnel at WFP’s Regional Bureau in Bangkok and the country 
office, as well as Government representatives, staff of United Nations agencies, partners’ staff, 
school personnel and parents and children.
Key findings
9. The key findings of the evaluation team are summarized below, structured according to the 
main evaluation questions.
Evaluation question 1: How appropriate is the programme?
10. The objectives of the FFE programme broadly align with Government policies and 
strategies. Provision of school feeding also aligns with WFP’s own corporate guidance, but
there is a misalignment between the food security and nutrition objectives of WFP’s other 
school feeding activities and the USDA’s literacy objective of the FFE programme. Similarly, 
there is a growing disconnect in the modality of the FFE programme, with in-kind support 
not being the preferred model of the Government. To resolve this difference, WFP is currently 
piloting other school feeding models that utilize local commodities. The school feeding 
activities and the complementary activities within the FFE programme also align well with 
the work of other development actors. Overall, this evaluation found the FFE programme to 
be appropriate to the education, food security and gender contexts, and coherent to the policy 
framework of the Government, as well as to WFP corporate guidance.
Evaluation question 2: What are the results of the programme?
11. The evaluation finds that the FFE activities have been well implemented and most of the 
output targets have been achieved. WFP has effectively contributed to Cambodia’s policy 
direction by supporting the development of Government policies, strategies and guidelines 
particularly related to school feeding and school health. The Roadmap2 indicates that a policy,
2 Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports and WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015
iii
dedicated implementation/coordination institution and budget allocation will be formalized 
in the period 2017-2020.
12. The evaluation found that both USDA McGovern-Dole Program’s Strategic Objectives 
have been met. Activities implemented under Strategic Objective 1 have resulted in most 
students in all surveyed schools performing well in the Grade 6 reading comprehension test, 
and performing better than the national average in literacy. Under Strategic Objective 2, more 
school meals and take-home rations schools were storing food off the ground (57 percent), 
having year-round access to clean water (72 percent) and providing soap handwashing 
facilities (96 percent).
13. USDA support has enabled WFP to reach over 400,000 beneficiaries (129 percent of 
overall plan) including school children who have benefited from school meals or take-home 
rations, and cooks, storekeepers, parents, teachers and school administrators having 
benefitted from training. The school meals have been effective at improving children’s 
attentiveness in morning classes, and household interviews indicate that the presence of the 
school meal has acted as an important social safety net for poor households who might 
otherwise be unable to provide breakfast for their children. The evaluation finds that the 
training activities have been effective in enabling school personnel to implement and manage 
the programme more effectively. Community awareness campaigns have also been effective, 
with most parents (80 percent) now able to name at least three benefits of education.
14. School infrastructure has improved, with those schools implementing school meals and 
take-home rations having considerably better infrastructure than the take-home ration and 
comparison schools. Most school meals and take-home rations schools now have dedicated 
kitchens (93 percent), food storerooms (75 percent), school gardens (87 percent), and 
functioning latrines (100 percent). Almost half of these schools (45 percent) also use energy 
efficient stoves, while none were found in the take-home ration only or comparison schools. 
In addition, 80 percent of the school meals and take-home rations schools had separate 
latrines for boys and girls. This is similar to the comparison schools, but considerably higher 
than in take-home ration only schools (67 percent).
Evaluation question 3: How and why has the programme achieved its 
results?
15. Most programme stakeholders have had partnerships with WFP over an extended 
period, well beyond this period of FFE implementation. Overall, stakeholders recognized WFP 
Cambodia as a well-managed, strong, innovative and flexible office and reported that 
programme implementation has been well managed. WFP has rolled out a phone-based 
standardized feedback mechanism this period that has been successful at identifying 
problems with programme implementation, each of which has been appropriately addressed.
16. Plan International’s implementation and monitoring of the programme has been strong, 
and the local school communities have made significant inputs into the programme including 
providing cooks, firewood, water and vegetables to the schools so that school meals can be 
regularly provided.
Evaluation question 4: How sustainable is the programme?
17. The current FFE modality of providing imported food commodities is not a sustainable 
model as the Government prefers cash-based assistance and/or models that support local 
farmers. Through WFP’s support, the Government is currently piloting different modalities 
to determine which are most effective and which ones the Government has the capacity and
resourcing to implement. Furthermore, the evaluation rates the current capacity of the
iv
MoEYS at Stage 1 of the transition stages according to the SABER approach.3 Given that there 
is still some discussion on the modalities of a nationally-owned school feeding programme, 
and the capacity of the Government to manage it, the evaluation finds the timeline outlined 
in the Roadmap for transitioning to national ownership to be too ambitious.
Overall conclusions
18. The evaluation finds the FFE programme to be relevant to the Cambodian context, and 
efficiently implemented. The FFE programme has enabled WFP to implement multiple 
capacity building activities and provide support to the Ministry of Education, Youth and 
Sports, including funding research into other school feeding modalities. The evaluation found 
that the WFP system of delivering food to schools was efficient. WFP provided high quality 
food commodities with no complaints, and minimal loss of food during transportation.
19. The programme has contributed to gender equality and improving the school 
environment. The construction and rehabilitation of separate latrines for girls and boys has 
contributed to a more conducive school environment, and is likely to result in more regular 
attendance for girls, although there is no monitoring data available on this. The take-home 
rations have been provided to both boys or girls based on poverty criteria, with girls being 
prioritized in locations with gender inequality in schooling. Over half the take-home ration 
beneficiaries were girls (56 percent), although data indicates higher drop-out rates in boys.
20. Overall, the evaluation found that school meals and take-home rations schools have 
received more support, and therefore performed better on multiple programme indicators. 
USDA support has resulted in a parallel system of assistance to schools in the three targeted 
provinces. Schools supported by USDA have received multiple interventions over a long 
period of time, while other schools are behind. It will therefore be of key importance for WFP 
and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports to take note of the activities that have been 
particularly effective, and scale up these activities. This should include literacy related 
activities, training for parents and community sensitization, infrastructure development and 
the provision of a school meal.
Recommendations
21. As part of the process of developing the USDA grant proposal for 2017-2019, WFP’s 
Country Office management has already taken decisions about the new USDA-supported 
programme. This includes establishing new partnerships (World Education and Kampuchean 
Action for Primary Education) to strengthen the implementation of the literacy component, 
removing yellow split peas from the school meals, and supporting the MoEYS to undertake 
research on Government-preferred school feeding models. The evaluation team believes that 
the current implementation approach is appropriately moving forward so the team has 
prioritized recommendations related to the transition to a nationally-owned school feeding 
programme. The recommendations are listed in priority order.
Immediate priority – to be initiated or completed within six months
Recommendation 1: Continue implementation of the USDA McGovern Dole Program as 
per the current agreement (2016).
Recommendation 2: In recognition that ongoing Ministry of Education, Youth andSports 
research findings are imminent on the cost effectiveness of the cash scholarship model, and 
the Government’s capacity to implement a home-grown school feeding model of school
3 The SABER approach (School Feeding) is a Government-led process that helps to build effective school feeding policies and systems. The 
approach was developed by the World Bank in 2013, and outlines five quality standards that should provide the foundation for strong 
nationally-led and sustainable school feeding programme: strong policy frameworks, strong institutional structure and coordination, stable 
funding and budgeting, sound programme design and implementation, including evaluation, and strong community participation and 
ownership.
v
feeding, the evaluation team recommends that WFP and the Government counterparts review 
the research findings as priority. This review should result in decisions that will guide the 
short/medium term development of a national school feeding approach.
Recommendation 3: Based on the research findings and decisions made above, the 
Roadmap should be reviewed. This should focus on identifying the priority actions required 
to coordinate and oversee implementation of a nationally owned school feeding programme 
(including budget).
Recommendation 4: Recognizing that most WFP personnel have skills in programme 
implementation but not in governance and capacity building per se, the evaluation 
recommends steps be taken to strengthen the capacity of the WFP Country Office in this 
regard.
Medium priority – to be implemented by the end of the 2017-2019 phase
Recommendation 5: The Government planning and budgeting processes for 2018 have 
already been finalized, so no additional Government contributions to school feeding are likely 
to be made before 2019. The evaluation team therefore recommends that for the next phase 
of planning the WFP Country Office works closely with Government counterparts at central 
and local levels to ensure that school feeding is appropriately reflected the next Government 
budget cycle.
Recommendation 6: The WFP Country Office and implementing partners should aim to 
have a minimum package of infrastructure facilities including kitchens, energy efficient 
stoves, store rooms, handwashing facilities and separate latrines for girls and boys in all USDA 
supported schools with the school meals programme. This should help ensure that schools 
would be able to function efficiently under a national school feeding programme.
Recommendation 7: The ET recommends that the WFP Country Office considers 
opportunities to undertake additional pieces of research:
• Effectiveness of USDA support: The evaluation team recommends that the 
Regional Bureau, with support from Country Offices and Headquarters as appropriate, 
undertakes a meta-analysis of the successes and weaknesses of the USDA McGovern￾Dole Program approach to school feeding.
• Increasing micronutrient content of the school meal: the evaluation team 
recommends that WFP Country Office conducts research on alternative, cost-effective 
strategies to provide a nutrient rich school meal. These strategies can then be considered 
by the Government in addition to the ongoing work to promote local fortification in 
Cambodia.
1
1 Introduction
1. This report is the endline evaluation of the Food for Education (FFE) programme (FFE-442-
2013/035-00) (2013-2016) of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Cambodia which has been 
supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant. This 
work has been commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) and is based on the 
Terms of Reference (ToR) provided by the CO (Annex 1).4 The evaluation took place between 
June and December 2017. The main objectives of the evaluation were:
• Accountability: The evaluation was to assess and report on the performance and results 
of all USDA McGovern-Dole funded activities as per the Performance Monitoring Plan 
(PMP).
• Learning: The evaluation was to determine the reasons why certain results occurred or 
not, to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It was expected to 
provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. 
WFP will be responsible for actively disseminating the evaluation findings and to ensure 
that lessons are incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
2. The evaluation assessed whether the project achieved the results outlined in the results 
framework as well as assessing the projects’ effectiveness/efficiency of design, implementation 
and management. The main goal of the evaluation is to delineate the progress made over the 
past project period and the likely improvements needed in the coming project period to ensure 
a smooth transition to Government ownership in the coming years. The evaluation was 
designed to answer four questions:
• How appropriate was the programme?
• What are the results of the programme?
• How and why has the programme achieved its results?
• How sustainable is the programme?
3. There are several expected users of this evaluation report including the following:
• WFP Cambodia CO and its main implementing partner, the Ministry of Education, Youth 
and Sport (MoEYS), notably with respect to decision-making related to programme 
implementation and/or design, country strategy and partnerships. The Royal 
Government of Cambodia is expected to take over the management and monitoring of the 
school feeding programme by 2021, therefore information on whether the programme is 
yielding the desired results is of primary importance.
• Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and
the Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) (as appropriate).
• Implementing partners past and present, including Plan International (PLAN), World 
Education, Kampuchean Action for Primary Education (KAPE) and World Vision as well 
as others involved in programme design, including school committees. Findings willalso 
be shared with education development partners, including USAID and other key 
education, nutrition and health stakeholders.
• USDA will use the evaluation findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks and 
critical assumptions.
• WFP’s Regional Bureau in Bangkok is (RBB) expected to use the evaluation findings to 
provide strategic guidance, programme support, oversight, and to extract lessons for 
sharing across the region.
• WFP Headquarters (HQ) may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and 
accountability.
4 Please note all annexes are available in Volume 2 of this report.
2
• WFP’s Office of Evaluation (OEV) may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed 
into evaluation syntheses.
4. Other WFP Regional Bureaux and COs under their oversight may also benefit from the 
findings, which can contribute to corporate learning on implementation of capacity 
development interventions. There are currently multiple USDA FFE evaluations taking place 
in the Asia region, so this evaluation will also contribute to regional WFP learning, and allow 
for a meta-analysis of results across programmes.
1.1 Overview of the evaluation subject
5. The FFE programme 2013-2016 is a continuation of USDA McGovern-Dole Program 
support from 2010. The programme operates under two strategic objectives: to improve 
literacy of school aged children, and to improve the use of health and dietary practices. The 
Theory of Change is that by providing a conducive school environment, reducing hunger and 
preventing illness, students will be able to participate more fully in class, resulting in better 
learning outcomes. For the 2013-2016 phase, USDA has provided WFP with a US$20 million 
grant to implement a range of activities in schools. The programme provides a dailybreakfast, 
forthwith referred to as the school meal programme (SMP) and take-home rations (THR) to 
poor students with good school attendance in three provinces in Cambodia: Battambang 
(BTB), Siem Reap (SRP) and Kampong Thom (KTM). Food commodities are provided by USDA 
as in-kind contributions for use in the programme as follows:
• School meal(per child/meal/day): 115g (grams) rice, 5g Vitamin A-fortified oil, 3g iodized 
salt, 20g canned fish and 10g yellow split peas for children in pre-school and Grades 1-6.
• THR (per child): 10kg rice per month to children in Grades 4-6.
6. The programme targeted 204,536 primary school students for SMP (100,223 girls; 104,313 
boys) and 20,375 students in Grades 4-6 receiving THR (11,209 girls; 9,166 boys). 
The provision of THR prioritizes girls, especially in areas where gender gaps in education exist.
7. To complement the SMP and THR, the programme provides training for school personnel 
including the administrator/director, teachers, storekeepers and cooks, conducts activities to 
promote literacy, and provides support to school infrastructure and school gardens. The FFE 
targeted schools receive different components of the package depending on whether they are
SMP or THR schools, and whether the infrastructure support is required or not. The 
programme also invests in capacity building at the local, regional and national levels to ensure 
sustainability and Government ownership. Overall, the agreement between USDA and WFP 
indicates 18 project activities, more details of which can be found in Annex 2.
8. The original agreement for this USDA McGovern-Dole Program was for implementation 
over a three-year period, covering three United States financial years - 2013/14, 2014/15 and 
2015/16. The programme was granted a six-month extension, so the evaluation therefore 
covers the period from October 2013 to June 2017. The programme is implemented in 
partnership with several Government ministries and with PLAN. Aside from the extension, 
there has been no change to the programme design since the original agreement was signed.
9. The key Government partner is the MoEYS which is responsible for the implementation of 
the programme in the schools. Within the MoEYS, WFP works closely with several 
departments including the Primary Education Department/Scholarship Office (which 
supports the implementation and monitoring of the programme), the School Health 
Department, and the Policy Department. Other ministries involved include the MoH, MAFF, 
the Ministry of Interior (MoI) and CARD.
10. Several other United Nations agencies also provide support to the FFE programme. These 
include:
3
• UNICEF - Currently the Head of Education Sector Working Group
• UNESCO - The previous head of Education Sector Working Group and support to Teacher 
Development Plans
• FAO - Provision of technical support, particularly to the school gardens
• World Bank - Involved in handover to government of the THR component
• WHO – Technical support to health and nutrition components.
Outputs, outcomes and planned beneficiaries
11. Under the McGovern-Dole Program, USDA supports 861 schools in three of the country’s 
25 provinces: Battambang (BTB), Siem Reap (SRP) and Kampong Thom (KTM) (see Map 1 
above). In total, 96 schools receive the SMP; 271 schools receive THR only, while 494 schools 
receive both programmes (Table 1). All 861 schools received literacy activities (literacy training 
for teacher and literacy materials), and 485 schools received infrastructure support (Table 2) 
based on a needs assessment.
Table 1: Number of schools receiving each type of FFE intervention
Province SMP SMP+THR THR Total
SRP 40 299 118 457
BTB 2 30 153 185
KTM 54 165 0 219
Total 96 494 271 861
Table 2: Number of schools receiving infrastructure support
Province Wells Latrine & hand 
washing
Store 
room
Fuel efficient 
stove Kitchen Total
SRP 33 63 45 223 80 268
BTB 25 29 25 27 25 32
KTM 53 87 40 147 70 185
Total 111 179 110 397 175 485
12. USDA provides WFP with rice, oil and yellow split peas (YSP), and these commodities are 
supplemented with food from other donors including canned fish from the Government of 
Japan and/or regionally procured using other cash contributions, vegetables from the local 
communities, and iodized salt. The agreement between USDA and WFP states that “breakfast 
will be served prior to the start of the school day throughout the school year (SY).5 Local 
communities will contribute firewood and water for cooking”.6
13. The USDA McGovern-Dole grant aims to provide long-term benefits to recipients and 
sustain the benefits to the education, enrolment and school attendance of children within the 
target communities. In keeping with these key goals, the USDA McGovern-Dole Program is 
implemented against two results frameworks (RF), each of which depicts a development 
hypothesis or a theory about how the highest-level result - the strategic objective (SO) - can be 
achieved, based on a cause-and-effect logic. While results may be achieved over a period of 
years, USDA expects the SOs of the two frameworks can begin to be achieved in whole or in 
part within a four-to-six-year period.
• RF 1: Literacy Results Framework: The SO of this framework is the Improved Literacy of 
School-Age Children. Achievement of this objective is dependent upon the achievement
5 Cambodia’s school year runs from November to August
6 USDA/WFP Commitment Letter for Agreement # FFE-442-2013/035-00. Signed 9 September 2013.
4
of three ‘result streams’ related to Improved Student Attendance, Improved Quality of 
Literacy Instruction, and Improved Attentiveness.
• RF 2: Health and Dietary Practices Results Framework: The SO of this framework is the 
Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, primarily by school age children but also 
by those who influence these children’s health and well-being, such as parents, families 
and school staff. The achievement of the SO is intended to support the IR Reduced 
Health-Related Absences in RF 1. RF 2 is complementary to RF 1.7
14. Over the next phase of programming (2017-2019), WFP intends to reduce their THR 
activities to zero as they are slowly handed over to the MoEYS Scholarship Office. The next 
phase of implementation will also focus on developing an agreed nationally owned school 
feeding model as per the Roadmap of 2015.8 More information on the Roadmap can be found 
in Section 2.4.
1.2 Context
15. Cambodia attained lower-middle-income country (LMIC) status in mid-2016, with GDP 
per capita reaching US$1,159.9 Cambodia is currently ranked 143 out of 188 countries on the 
United Nations Development Programme’s 2015 Human Development Index. Cambodia's 
growth is expected to remain strong at around seven percent, driven by solid performances in 
garment manufacture, construction, tourism, and the production of food and cash crops. 
Despite economic growth and ongoing development in urban areas, rural development lags.
16. Poverty: Rural communities still make up 79 percent of the population, and account for 
most of the country's poor.10 A significant proportion of Cambodians live on the brink of 
poverty; it has been estimated that losing just US$0.30 a day per person in income would 
double the poverty rate.11 This means that natural disasters such as storms, floods, droughts or 
serious illness could cause profound setbacks to fragile livelihoods. A recent joint WFP, 
UNICEF, FAO Household Resilience survey12 showed that 13 percent of households acquired 
additional debts because of the 2015/2016 El Niño event, increasing the overall percentage of 
indebted households to nearly 50 percent. While the poor are often disproportionally affected 
by shocks, near-poor and middle-class households are also put under considerable stress. Over 
the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a significantly reduced poverty rate, dropping from 
50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 2014.13 Although the official poverty rate has fallen 
dramatically, the poor have not made it very far above the poverty line, the rate of poverty 
reduction has tapered off sharply since 2009, and multidimensional poverty remains high.14
17. Gender: Cambodia ranks 112th out of 159 countries on the 2015 Gender Inequality Index 
(GII value 0.479) as persistent gender inequality still exists. Cambodia’s 2015 Gender 
Development Index value is 0.892.15 Women in Cambodia have lower levels of literacy than 
their male peers. In the 18-24 age group, more women than men are illiterate16 and the rate of 
illiteracy grows with older cohorts of women. Gender-based violence is also a barrier for
women’s development and participation. According to the Cambodian Demographic and 
Health Survey (2014) about one in five women aged 15-49 have experienced physical violence 
since the age of 15; and four percent of pregnant women experienced physical violence during 
their pregnancy.17 Despite these significant challenges, women are increasingly earning income
7 FY 2016 Food Aid Proposal Guidance. Annex III: Manual for the Use of Results Frameworks and Indicators. Food Assistance Division, Office 
of Capacity Building and Development, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 8 MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015. 9 WB. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 10 Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey, 2013 11 WB Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013
12 Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, May 2016, WFP. 13 Ministry of Planning. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia
14 Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis.
15 UNDP. 2016. Human Development Report 2015. 16 Commune database 2013
17 National Institute of Statistics, 2015
5
and starting small businesses from their homes. The number of women having their primary 
occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces,18 largely due to 
employment in the garment sector. However, women are typically employed at lower levels 
and paid less: estimates suggest an average 30 percent less than men for commensurate work.19 
A 2014 study found that women-headed households are disproportionately affected by 
floods,20,21 and women’s unemployment after natural disasters is high because agricultural and 
the informal sectors – the top employment sectors for women – are often the worst affected.
18. In recent years WFP Cambodia has undertaken several pieces of gender-related work in 
order to better understand the gender context. This includes joining the programme 
partnership on gender mainstreaming with the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) at the 
end of 2015, engaging in a Participatory Action Learning processes with IDS in February 
2016,22 conducting a review of gender in Cambodia’s food security and nutrition policies,23 and 
a study into gender in household decision-making.24 The latter indicates that women are often 
the sole decision-makers in determining how food and cash transfers are utilized for their 
household.
19. Education: In the last three decades, Cambodia has made good strides in improving 
primary education programmes in rural areas. The net primary school enrolment figure 
increased from 81 percent in 2001 to 98.4 percent in 2015-2016. The dropout rate at primary 
level has been consistently around 10 percent, and lower secondary education at about 20 
percent. Recent data however indicates that the primary school dropout reduced in the 2015/16 
school year to 6.2 percent.25 Though not captured at aggregate level, attendance and 
absenteeism are of concern. Available national statistics do not show substantial differences 
between boys and girls on any indicator of participation in education.
20. The fourth Education Strategic Plan (2014-2018)26 cites numerous remaining challenges 
including the need to focus on expanding equitable access to primary school education for 
remote, often marginalized, communities. It also highlights improving the quality of education 
by developing an accountability framework and by providing highly qualified teachers as well 
as better textbooks and learning materials. Cambodia’s integration into Association of South￾East Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2015 and its desire to be a middle-income country by 2030 
requires the authorities to make considerable investment in education. The Royal Government 
of Cambodia is expected to increase investment in this area, with much of this budget allocated 
for the recruitment, training and retention of teachers.
21. Food and nutrition security: The 2014 Cambodia Socioeconomic survey suggests 
that 14 percent of households continued to consume less than the minimum dietary energy 
requirement, while 11.6 percent had inadequate dietary diversity.27 As with the other 
indicators, between 2000 and 2010 Cambodia made significant progress in improving the 
health of its children. The infant mortality rate declined from 95 to 45 deaths per 1,000 live 
births, setting Cambodia on track to reach its Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 4 to 
reduce child mortality.28 However, malnutrition remains a significant problem and is a
18 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning
19 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009
20 ActionAid. 2014. Flood Impacts on Women: Exploring the Possibility of Gender Sensitive DRR Planning. 21 An earlier study provides an illustrative example of this trend: a majority of households affected by the 2011 floods in the Plains and Tonle 
Sap zones were female-headed (53 percent in both zones). WFP, ActionAid, ADB, Danish Red Cross, Save the Children and UNICEF. 2012. 
Cambodia Post-Flood Relief and Recovery Survey. 22 WFP (2016) Cambodia County Progress Report. Innovations from the field: Gender mainstreaming from the ground up. Institute of
Development Studies. 23 Sokrathna, P. (2016) Gender review of food security and nutrition policies. Sustainable Development Goals 2,5 and 17. Cambodia. 24 WFP (2016) Gendered nature of intra-household decision-making in Cambodia. WFP Cambodia. Phnom Penh. 25 MoEYS. Education Management and Information System data. 26 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Phnom Penh. 27 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: 
https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf
28 Ibid.
6
contributing cause in approximately one third of child deaths.29 Recent national statistics on 
nutrition show that the number of children suffering from both chronic (stunting) and acute 
malnutrition have decreased since 2010. The 2014 Cambodia Demographic Health Survey30 
found that the stunting rate fell from 49.2 percent in 2010 to 32.4 percent in 2014. Although 
this represents a significant improvement, this level is still considered to be high.31 Acute 
malnutrition (wasting) is at ten percent32 which is classified by the World Health Organization 
as serious. Micronutrient deficiencies remain widespread. Anaemia is common among children 
under five, with a prevalence of more than 80 per cent among children under two. It also affects 
a significant percentage of pregnant women. Nutrition statistics for school-aged children in 
Cambodia are limited, but an impact evaluation of the WFP School Feeding Programme in
201033 found prevalence rates of iron-deficiency anaemia of between 59 percent among the
control group and 83 percent in the SMP+THR for children 8-17 years of age. WHO classify 
rates >40 percent as severe anaemia. The impact evaluation report does not mention any 
gender differences in anaemia rates.
22. It is important to note that while under-nutrition continues to play an important role in 
determining population wellness and productivity, over-nutrition is on the rise; while 14 
percent of women between 15 and 49 years of age have a body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 
(thin), 18 percent are overweight.34 This double burden is indicative of economic shifts and 
predicts greater challenges in future, including those associated with non-communicable 
diseases, unless addressed in a timely manner.
23. Social protection. Cambodia has been heading towards a unified social health 
protection system since 2003, with the adoption of the Master Plan for the Development of 
Social Health Insurance.35 Since then, the Government has been making efforts to develop 
social protection systems. Currently, there are several social welfare programmes provided by 
different line ministries. The Government’s Rectangular Strategy (RS) Phase III and the 
National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) prioritize the creation of social safety nets to 
support the health and nutrition of the most vulnerable, including during emergencies or 
disasters.36,37 The new National Social Protection Policy Framework (2016-2025) includes 
mention of both school meals and scholarships.
24. Other WFP activities in Cambodia: WFP has been implementing programmes in 
Cambodia since 1979, including school feeding activities since 1999. Currently, WFP Cambodia 
implements a Country Programme (CP) 38 which will finish in December 2018. The USDA￾supported FFE programme is just one component of the broader country portfolio (Map 2). 
The CP focuses on education, nutrition and rural development, and seeks to strengthen food 
and cash-based social safety nets in Cambodia, and craft sustainable and scalable 
implementation models that can eventually be managed efficiently by the Royal Government 
of Cambodia.
25. The education component of the CP consists of a school meals programme and both food 
or cash-based scholarships, and constitutes 75 percent of all WFP programming in the country. 
The SMP provides daily, on-site, hot and nutritious breakfasts to primary school students 
attending the morning shift of classes. During the SY 2016/17, the SMP was implemented in
29 Ibid.
30 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of 
Health. Phnom Penh
31 http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html
32 Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. National Institute of Statistics and Director General of 
Health. Phnom Penh
33 Nielsen, N et al (2010) WFP Cambodia School Feeding 2000-2010: A mixed method impact evaluation. DARA. For WFP Office of
Evaluation, Rome. OE/2011/008.
34 BMI >25
35 UNDP. 2015. Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia. Strategy Paper.
36 Royal Government of Cambodia (RGoC). 2013. “Rectangular Strategy” for Growth, Employment, Equity and Efficiency. Phase III. Page 37. 37 RGoC. 2014. National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. Pages 86, 180-198. 38 CP 200202 (2011-2018). WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1
7
nine provinces comprising 1,251 primary schools and reached nearly 400,000 beneficiaries, 20 
percent of all primary school children in Cambodia. WFP is currently piloting new models of
food assistance in schools in both USDA and non-USDA supported provinces. These include a 
Home-Grown Schools Feeding (HGSF) model, a hybrid model (some food imported, some 
local), and cash scholarships in lieu of food THR. The MoEYS is also piloting full day 
schooling39 in some locations, with the support from WFP through provision of a school lunch 
instead of breakfast.
26. The capacity development activities described in this report are implemented across the 
11 WFP-supported provinces40 including the three with USDA programming. This is in view of 
the focus for the 2017-2019 phase of implementation being on the development of appropriate 
school feeding for national ownership by 2021.
27. Key events during 2013-2016: Since the start of this phase of the FFE programme in 
October 2013, there have been a few key events in Cambodia that have had some effect on the 
beneficiaries of the FFE programme (Table 3). Some of these events, such as flooding, have 
required international assistance.
Table 3: Key events in Cambodia (2013-2016)
2013 2014 2015 2016
Flooding causing severe damage
to livelihoods and rice crops.
Flooding along the Mekong
River and Tonle Sap Basin.
__ El Nino event resulting
in water shortages
28. An internal mid-term review was conducted by WFP Cambodia in 2014 but there are no 
documented recommendations. The report does, however, mention one key remaining 
challenge: the need to focus on expanding equitable access to primary school education for 
remote, often marginalized, communities and improving the quality of education by 
developing an accountability framework and by providing highly qualified teachers as well as 
better textbooks and learning materials.
1.3 Evaluation methodology and limitations
29. The ToRs for this evaluation confirmed the internationally agreed OECD-DAC evaluation 
criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability to evaluate the FFE 
programme.
30. The evaluation has assessed the achievement of the programme against the expected 
outcomes as per the USDA McGovern-Dole PMP. This includes an evaluation of the improved 
quality of literacy instruction and materials; increased student and teacher attendance; 
increased student enrolment rates; decrease in student absences; improved knowledge of 
health, hygiene, nutrition, and sanitation practices; and increased Government engagement 
and capacity building to manage and implement school meals programmes. The evaluation has 
also documented the trends in literacy achievement from students in programme and non￾programme schools, where data is available.41 The evaluation was designed to answer four 
questions:
• How appropriate is the programme?
• What are the results of the programme?
• How and why has the programme achieved its results?
• How sustainable is the programme?
39 Primary schooling in Cambodia is usually done in two shifts: morning and afternoon, due to a shortage of teachers and classrooms. The 
MoEYS is planning to increase teaching hours to try and improve the quality of learning over a longer stay in class (full day) so it has 
commenced a pilot programme to that effect. As part of the piloting the MoEYS requested WFP to provide a lunch programme in addition to 
breakfast to those schools but due to funding constraints WFP is only able to provide one meal per day. In the full day pilot schools, WFP 
therefore provides lunch instead of breakfast.
40 During the period under review, the WFP CP was implemented in 11 provinces: Kampong Speu, Prey Veng, Kampong Chhnang, Pursat,
Battambang, Banteay Meanchey, Oddar Meanchey, Siem Reap, Kampong Thom, Preah Vihear, Stung Treng. 41 In line with WFP’s School Feeding Policy WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C.
8
31. Annex 3 shows the evaluation matrix that was developed to provide an overview of the 
direction of the evaluation. Aside from the evaluation matrix, the United Nations Evaluation 
Group (UNEG) Guidance on integrating human rights and gender into evaluations42 has also 
been used to shape the evaluation approach. The evaluation methodology has integrated a 
gender equity lens as part of the overall analysis, addressing the substantive aspects related to 
gender and equity issues within the programme. The evaluation applied gender analysis where 
possible and assessed the extent to which the different needs, priorities, voices and 
vulnerabilities of women, men, boys and girls have been considered in the design, selection, 
implementation and monitoring of the programme.
32. The evaluation followed a quasi-experimental approach employing a case-control 
methodology as per the 2014 baseline methodology. However, the baseline ‘comparison group’ 
was later found to include schools with some interventions by other agencies, meaning that the 
group was neither representative nor clean. Nevertheless, the same comparison group was 
utilized again for the midline, and now the endline survey. The evaluation used mixed data 
collection methods, including quantitative and qualitative survey techniques, and triangulated 
information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability of findings. 
Participatory methods, including focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant 
interviews (KIIs) were used where relevant to highlight lessons learned. The evaluation 
included three main components of work:
• Secondary document review
• A quantitative survey to enable comparison of results against the 2014 baseline and the
2015 midline surveys (August/September 2017)
• Qualitative field work to obtain input from key stakeholders (September/October 2017).
33. The secondary document review included many project documents including the 
assessments on which the programme was designed, WFP and Government policies and 
normative guidance, as well as the baseline and midline survey reports. The list of documents 
reviewed can be found in Annex 4, and should be read together with the bibliography.
34. The quantitative survey intentionally replicated the same methodology as the 2014 
baseline and the 2015 midline surveys to enable direct comparison. To conduct the quantitative 
survey, KonTerra partnered with a local research firm – Indochina Research Limited (IRL) -
who conducted the survey with support from the ET. The survey utilized local enumerators for 
the data collection, ensuring that language and cultural barriers were minimized, andpolitical 
sensitivities were addressed. Enumerators spoke the local language (Khmer) to ensure both 
questions and responses were well understood. The quantitative survey generated primary 
data that has been utilized together with secondary sources of quantitative data including WFP 
monitoring data, and data from implementing partners.
35. The quantitative survey was conducted in two of the three USDA supported provinces: 
(Battambang and Siem Reap) (Map 1) and in all the same schools selected for the baseline and 
midline surveys. Kampong Thom was originally excluded from the baseline and midline 
surveys because only the SMP was being implemented with USDA support, and the food 
scholarships were provided by other donors. The survey therefore covers SMP+THR schools, 
and THR only schools. No SMP only schools were included. In total, the survey covered a 
sample of 118 of the total 861 USDA supported schools originally included in the FFE 
programme (Table 4), as well as 25 comparison schools with no USDA supported 
interventions. More details on how these schools were originally selected can be found in 
Annex 5. The full list of schools can be found in Annex 6.
42 UNEG (2014) Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations. Guidance document. August 2014.
9
Table 4: Summary of sample size for the 2013-2016 endline quantitative surveys
Battambang Siem Reap
No. of WFP SMP + THR schools 7 53
No. of WFP THR only schools 34 24
No. of comparison schools (no USDA-supported interventions) 10 15
No. of households surveyed 304 536
36. The quantitative survey included the implementation of three questionnaires: a school 
assessment, a teacher assessment and a household questionnaire. Each of the data collection 
tools are described in more detail in the annexes as shown below.
37. The school assessment includes basic information on the composition and 
performance of the school (number of children enrolled, attending, availability of advanced 
teaching materials, literacy testing success rates, etc.) as well as specific information on the 
school’s infrastructure (latrines, water sources, kitchens, school gardens, etc.). The primary 
respondent was the school’s principal or chief administrator. The school survey questionnaire 
can be found in Annex 7. It was adapted from a WFP school survey instrument with only slight 
modifications. It is comprised of five sections: General information, Improved quality of 
literacy instruction, Improved school infrastructure, Local organization and community 
groups, and Nutrition, health and dietary practices.
38. The teacher assessment includes information on student attentiveness in class, and
short-term hunger. The questionnaire can be found in Annex 8. This short survey was carried 
out in all case and comparison schools and answered by primary school teachers to collect data 
on estimated short-term hunger reduction and improved student attentiveness.
39. The household survey includes information on the composition and education of the 
household members, household income and expenditure, food consumption, and coping 
strategies. It also includes information on child health, parents’ involvement in the FFE 
programme, parental reasons for sending their children to school, and information on some of 
the effects of school feeding. The household questionnaire can be found in Annex 9 and more
information on the selection on respondents can be found in Annex 10.
40. The school and teacher assessments were collected manually, and entered into a CSPro 
database. The household survey was digitized and collected using SurveytoGo. Data analysis 
was done with STATA, R and Excel software. Household survey data have been weighted to 
reflect the proportion of the population benefitting from each programme.
41. The qualitative field mission was conducted by the KonTerra ET in all three USDA 
supported provinces (Map 1). The field mission evaluated the coherence of the diverse school 
feeding activities and projects implemented by WFP Cambodia under the USDA McGovern 
Dole Programme Agreement for 2013-2016. The qualitative data collection generatedprimary 
data that have been used to triangulate the quantitative data mentioned above in order to 
answer the four evaluation questions listed earlier. In total, the evaluation team interviewed 
203 people as key informants during the field mission, including 81 women and 122 men, 
covering a range of programme stakeholders including USDA representatives in Ho Chi Minh 
City, WFP personnel at RB and CO, as well as Government representatives, staff of United 
Nations agencies, NGO staff, school personnel and parents and children. The KIIs were done
using semi-structured questionnaires (Annex 12) based on the questions outlined in the 
evaluation matrix. Each questionnaire was then adapted appropriately according to the 
expertise and relevance of the key stakeholders. As part of the qualitative field mission, the ET 
conducted field visits to schools and communities in selected communes receiving assistance 
from the USDA McGovern-Dole Program. The ET visited two schools per province as per
Table 5. These schools were selected primarily based on
10
convenience given the time constraints of the field mission. Some schools were replaced at the 
last minute due to flooding.
Table 5: FFE sites visited during qualitative field mission
Battambang Siem Reap Kampong Thom
Province Provincial Governors, Provincial Directors of Education, PDAFF, Other provincial partners
District
Koh Kralor District: 
District School Feeding 
Coordination Committee
Kralanh District: District 
School Feeding 
Coordination Committee
Staung District: District 
School Feeding Coordination 
Committee
School Vatanak Vichea School 
Beung Chhnas School
Yusi Masa Tonliep School 
Sranal Primary School
Svay Oeur Primary School 
Srey Ronget Primary School
42. The main objective of the school visits was to collect information from people in charge 
of activities at local level and from beneficiaries (school children, parents). In each school, the 
ET therefore conducted the following: An interview with the school administrator and teachers, 
interviews with school cooks and storekeepers, FGDs with Local School Feeding Committee 
(LSFC), School Support Committee (SSC), Commune Council, individual parents (men and 
women), FGD with school children, and observation of school facilities
43. To ensure validity and reliability of data, the evaluation questionnaires were designed 
using an evaluation matrix (Annex 3). This helped ensure that all aspects of the ToR were 
included. The evaluation also used an independent team of enumerators, who collected the 
quantitative data from SMP schools. The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach and 
triangulated information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability of 
findings.
44. Ethical considerations were used to inform the evaluation methodology. Participation 
was voluntary and participants were informed that all their responses were confidential. All 
information received from the interviews was anonymous so answers could not be attributed 
to individuals directly. It was also made clear to respondents that there would be no personally 
identifiable information collected. The evaluation adopted additional procedures for obtaining 
consent for school-aged children to be interviewed. Head teachers and/or senior household 
members provided guardian consent for the students who participated in the quantitative data 
collection evaluation. Additional consent was obtained from class teachers, and the evaluation 
was explained to children before starting each interview. As above, the children were also told 
that participation was voluntary, and that all results would be anonymous.
Limitations of the evaluation
• Timing of the evaluation: Although the evaluation has taken place soon after the official 
end of the extended 2013-2016 implementation period (to June 2017), the WFP CO had 
been planning for the new phase since 2015 as per the USDA grant proposal timing.This 
has resulted in changes to the implementation of the next phase, and new partnerships 
already commencing work for SY 2016/17.
• Timing of quantitative data collection: A series of delays in the timing of the evaluation 
meant that the quantitative data collection was conducted at the very end of the school 
year (SY 2016/17), resulting in the last week of quantitative data collection being done 
when schools were closed. However, school directors, teachers, students and households 
returned to school on the day of the survey so that data collection could take place.
• Timing of the qualitative field mission: Due to the delays above, the field mission was 
carried out when schools were closed. Although School Directors, teachers, parents and 
school children attended school on the day of the field mission for interview, the ET was 
not able to see the school meals being prepared or distributed, and food stores contained 
very little or no commodities.
• Impact analysis: Although the baseline and subsequent surveys included a comparison 
group of schools, these schools were within the USDA supported districts, and some
11
received support from other agencies. The comparison group has also not been 
adequately matched to the case schools to enable impact assessment without the 
possibility of confounding. Impact analysis of the data is therefore not possible.
• Language and cultural barriers were constraints for the two international team members 
involved in the qualitative field mission, but were partially ameliorated by the presence 
of the national evaluator and the use of translators.
2 Evaluation Findings
2.1 Evaluation Question 1: How appropriate is the programme?
2.1.1 Appropriateness to needs
45. Global literature provides a strong body of evidence43 that school feeding affects 
educational outcomes. Keeping children in school is important as evidence shows that every 
additional year of primary schooling leads to a five percent increase in future wages.44
Traditionally, school feeding programmes aim to increase enrolment of children in school, 
increase regular attendance, decrease dropout, and encourage children to complete their 
primary school education. Some of these are the stated outcomes of the school feeding activities 
implemented by WFP Cambodia, including for the FFE programme. However, the Public 
Education Statistics and Indicators from MoEYS indicate that the primary school enrolment
has been high in Cambodia throughout the period under evaluation, particularly for girls, and 
higher still in the three USDA targeted provinces (Figure 1). Further information on enrolment 
rates in Cambodia can be found in Annex 13.
Figure 1: Cambodia’s net primary school enrolment rate (2013-2016)
46. School feeding provides an incentive for children to enroll in school and also to remain 
there. However, research suggests that there is no consistent correlation between either gross 
or net enrolment and the primary completion rate.45 Disparities between the primary 
enrolment ratios and the completion rate arise for many reasons, including children dropping 
out of school before the end of the year, particularly among the higher primary grades and 
transition into secondary school. In Cambodia, the primary school dropout rate is 8.3 percent 
at national level46 and more than 12 percent in the three USDA McGovern-Dole supported 
provinces. The ET therefore finds that it was appropriate to provide SMP and THR in these 
provinces, as an incentive for keeping children in school.
47. Targeting: The targeting for the USDA FFE programme follows a multi-step process 
that the ET has generally found to be appropriate:
43 Including Ahmed, 2004; Dreze and Kingdon, 2001; Lazmaniah et al., 1999,
44 Molinas, L. & Regnault de la Mothe, M. (2009) The multiple impacts of school feeding: a new approach for reaching sustainability. 
In: WFP (2010) Revolution: From food aid to food assistance: Thematic Areas, Chapter 14, p217-230. 45 The primary completion rate (PCR) is a flow measure of the annual output of the primary education system. It is calculated as the total 
number of students successfully completing the last year of primary school in a given year, divided by the total number of children of official 
graduation age in the population. 46 MoEYS EMIS Public Education Statistics & Indicators
2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016
100.0
98.0
96.0
94.0
92.0
90.0
95.6 94.5 95.8
93.9 94.9 94.7
Total Girls
Percentage of 
students (%)
12
• Geographic targeting: For this phase of programming, the three target provinces were 
pre-determined by USDA in their call for proposals as a continuance of support from 
previous years. At the time of the design of this phase, they were not areas with the highest 
levels of poverty, poor education or malnutrition. The CO then used their own data from 
the Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (MERVAM) 
Unit to determine the districts most in need. Aside from the pre-determined provinces, 
this targeting process aligns well with WFP’s targeting methodology for their other 
activities in Cambodia that are not supported by USDA – i.e. an emphasis on locations 
with high rates of poverty, poor education outcomes, and high levels of malnutrition.
• School selection: Both the SMP and THR activities are implemented in schools in poor 
districts, with low education outcomes. SMP school selection is made according to WFP’s 
SMP Guidelines47 to ensure support is directed to the demand areas. The SMP beneficiary 
schools are selected on education performance indicators48 providedthrough the national 
Education Management and Information System (EMIS). All schools within the target
SMP districts are then entitled to THR regardless of whether schools have SMP or not. The
THR is distributed to poor students in grades 4, 5 and 6, subject to a minimum 80 percent 
attendance rate. Schools with no Grade 4-6 are therefore not included in the programme. 
This leaves few SMP only schools.
• Household selection: THR students are selected by their teachers based on household 
poverty, and selection is verified by PLAN and WFP. The selection process is transparent, 
and clearly presented in the Food and Cash Scholarship Operation Guidelines (2015) and 
School Meal Programme Guidelines (2016). Generally, THR children are selected 
through poverty criteria, primarily whether their household has an IDPoor Card – an 
identification card provided to the most vulnerable families by local government (see Box 
1).49 Stakeholders felt that in general, the use of IDPoor was an appropriate means of 
targeting poorer children. Poor households that are not present (and thus not captured) 
in the rotating IDPoor classification rounds are able to be included in the THR targeting 
through assessment of household poverty as per the verification criteria.50
48. Teacher training: In 2013-14, the teaching staff represented 83 percent of the total 
MoEYS staff in Cambodia.51 According to MoEYS, one of the fundamental staffing problems 
was that more than 2,000 teachers per year leave the profession, many permanently. For the
quality of teaching to improve in the short and medium term, the immediate priority for the 
ministry is to improve the attractiveness of the profession, provide additional training for high 
qualification holders, and diversify entry points into teaching that will allow the best university 
graduates quick entry into classrooms. The MoEYS currently plans to train and supply 2,000 
to 2,500 teachers per year. Teacher training as one of the USDA McGovern-Dole Program 
activities is therefore fully appropriate.
47 MoEYS/WFP (2016) Updated School Meal Programme Guidelines 48 Lower levels of enrolment and higher drop-out rates 49 Since 2005, Cambodia’s Ministry of Planning has developed a standardized questionnaire and procedure to identify poor households in 
rural areas. This information can be used by policy decision-makers, government institutions and non-governmental organizations to plan 
poverty reduction programs and to target their support to the poorest areas or households in Cambodia.
50 In many schools, teachers also select students without IDPoor cards by assessing the students with the following criteria: 1) housing 
condition; 2) family owned farmland and crops; 3) owned animals and livestock; 4) owned asset such as radio, TV, etc.; 5) main livelihood 
and sources of income; 6) family food security situation; and 7) Household debts. 51 There were 88,818 teachers in the system, of whom approximately 52 percent taught in primary schools.
Box 1: The IDPoor System
The IDPoor system is officially referred to as the Identification of Poor Households Programme. It 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 criterion for targeting assistance.
13
49. Other programme activities: The FFE programme provides a breakfast at school 
before children start studying. This school feeding modality is appropriate as there is global 
evidence that poor health and poor nutrition among school-age children diminish their 
cognitive performance either through physiological changes or by reducing their ability to 
participate in learning experiences, or both.52 The FFE programme’s complementaryactivities 
of infrastructure construction and rehabilitation support, training, and focus on health and 
nutrition activities are all also appropriate for the local context. The provision of THR to reduce 
drop-out aligns with the Government's cash scholarship for the poor programme in Grades 7 
to 9. Although at national level boys are more likely to drop out of school than girls,53 the ET 
found that allowing schools to provide THR to both girls and boys depending on the individual 
circumstances was appropriate. Overall, the ET finds that the activities included in the FFE 
programme are appropriate to the needs of school-aged children in Cambodia.
2.1.2 Alignment with national policies and strategies
50. The Royal Government of Cambodia has developed several policies and strategies to 
support economic growth and development, each of which have some relevance to school 
feeding in general, and to the USDA FFE programme. The main strategy is the Rectangular 
Strategy (RS) that provides a framework for the country’s long-term development vision. The 
first RS was developed in 2004 and Phase III (2014-2018) is currently being implemented. The 
RS III is the ‘Socio-Economic Policy Agenda’ of the Royal Government of Cambodia. A new RS 
will be released in 2019. The RS aligns with the National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP) 
(2014-2018). School feeding will also have significant alignment with the next phase of the RS 
(Rectangle IV), especially in relation to strengthening and enhancing education and technical 
training, promotion of health and nutrition, and the development of a social protection system. 
More details on the next RS and other Government policies can be found in Annex 14.
51. The goal and objectives of WFP’s overall school feeding portfolio aligns well with the focus 
of the NSDP on the “creation of social safety nets” and to Priority 6 of the strategy to strengthen 
institutional capacity on food security, nutrition and social protection.54 Both the RS-III and 
the NSDP also support the primary education sub-sector on the promotion of early childhood 
capacity of reading and writing.
52. In addition, the Government has a National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 
(NSFSN) (2014-2018). The NSFSN is a coordination framework of multi-sectoral activities to 
enhance food security and nutrition, reducing child and maternal malnutrition and enhancing 
human and economic development. The FFE programme activities of the provision of food, 
improvement of water and sanitation facilities, and provision of training on health and 
nutrition, are aligned with the five priority areas of intervention within the NSFSN. More 
information on the objectives of the NSFSN can be found in Annex 14.
53. The Government has also recently developed a National Social Protection Policy 
Framework (2016-2025), encompassing both social assistance and social insurancemeasures, 
which will serve as the basis for reducing and preventing poverty, vulnerability and inequality, 
as well as strengthening human resource development in the country. The framework 
mentions School Feeding as a safety net.
54. The MoEYS follows the Educational Strategic Plan (ESP) (2014-2018) to “establish and
develop human resources of the very highest quality and ethically sound to develop a 
knowledge-based society within Cambodia.” The ESP’s overall objective is to “ensure that all 
Cambodian children and youth have equal opportunity to access quality education.” More
52 Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector, by Donald Bundy, Carmen Burbano, Margaret 
Grosh, Aulo Gelli, Matthew Jukes, Lesley Drake, WFP/The World Bank, 2009. 53 MoEYS EMIS Public Education Statistics & Indicators 54 “Strengthen institutional capacity, partnerships, and fund-raising capacity to increase the effectiveness of social services) that focused on:
a) food security and nutrition; and b) social protection”.
14
specific objectives include a focus on strengthening basic education and quality, especially 
building reading and mathematics skills during the early grades of primary education. The 
USDA McGovern-Dole Program is in line with these objectives, particularly through its first 
SO. In addition, the provision of scholarships for children in Grades 4-6 and the provision of a 
school feeding programme for primary schools are parts of the programmes and activities 
planned by MoEYS to increase student enrolment to primary schools within the national ESP.
55. Another key strategy is the move towards decentralization and deconcentration (D&D).
In recent years, the central Government has been moving towards a less centralized governance
model, and actively supporting local administration at provincial and district levels to become
more efficient, reliable and responsive, with stronger financial, human resource and decision￾making capacities.55 The first D&D programme was launched in 2000 and now the communes 
have received funds from the national budget to finance local affairs (including components of 
school feeding). More details can be found in Annex 15. The D&D process is likely to have 
significant effects on the management of the school feeding activities in future, particularly 
under national ownership.
56. In addition to all the above, WFP has not only aligned with, but has actively supported, 
the development of some Government policies and tools. WFP supported the MoEYS/School 
Health Department to develop a new National School Health Policy which is expected to be 
finalized in 2017. The policy highlights the importance of the school feeding programme in 
child development and educational achievement. WFP also supported the MoEYS School 
Health Department to develop water/sanitation and hygiene (WASH) guidelines for use in 
training school personnel. In parallel, WFP has supported the CARD to prepare a Social 
Assistance Policy Framework (SAPF), which includes the key targets and benchmarks of the 
school feeding Roadmap. The SAPF has been merged with social insurance activities into the 
country’s new national social protection policy framework (2016-2025).
57. The recent WFP review of gender in Cambodia’s food security and nutrition policies56
found that not all policies and strategies were clearly linked to international and national 
frameworks and commitments on gender equality.57 Gender Mainstreaming Action Plans while 
generally required are not updated or are lacking. In addition, only a few strategies or policies 
were informed by a gender analysis and described how the policy should address or impacted 
men, women, boys and girls differently. As a result, most training and programme activities do 
not target men, women, boys or girls based on informed learnings, but on traditional gender 
norms for participation.
2.1.3 Alignment with WFP corporate strategies, policies & normative guidance
58. In addition to the Government policies and strategies mentioned above, the FFE 
programme aligns with several of WFP’s own corporate policies and strategies, as follows:
• WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017):58 The FFE programme contributes to SO4 – to 
reduce under-nutrition and break the intergenerational cycle of hunger. The Strategic 
Plan specifies that school feeding programmes contribute to this goal by providing quality 
food and contributing to addressing micronutrient deficiencies. The second goal of the 
Strategic Plan is to increase access to education and health services.
55 GIZ Website.2017. Decentralisation and Administrative Reform Programme. https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/17335.html accessed 23 
August.
56 Sokrathna, P. (2016) Gender review of food security and nutrition policies. Sustainable Development Goals 2,5 and 17. Cambodia. 57 Including the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Sustainable Development Goal 5, the 
Rectangular Strategy, the National Strategic Development Plan, and Neary Rattanak IV. 58 WFP (2014) WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) https://www.wfp.org/about/strategic-plan
15
• The WFP Gender Policy (2012)59 provides guidance to ensure that WFP’s programmes 
promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. The FFE programme targets both 
girls and boys, with girls prioritized where gender differences in education still exist.
• The WFP School Feeding Policy (2009)60 was revised in 201361 to increase alignment 
with the Strategic Plan 2014-17, the Strategic Results Framework, and the safety net and 
nutrition policies. The revised school feeding policy has five objectives (Annex 16) 
including strengthening national capacity for school feeding. The change in corporate 
direction to strengthen the national capacity is currently in process in Cambodia with 
WFP and MoEYS signing a Roadmap for transitioning to a nationally owned school 
feeding programme by 2021.
59. A World Bank and WFP paper62 also highlights that the transition to sustainable national 
programmes depends on mainstreaming school feeding into national policies and plans, 
especially education sector plans. The research aligns with WFP Cambodia’s plan to transition 
the programme to national ownership.
60. Although overall the USDA FFE programme aligns well with Government priorities and 
with WFP’s own corporate policies and guidance, the ET notes two misalignments in the FFE 
programme:
• Operational objectives: The mid-term evaluation of the Cambodia CP63 confirmed 
that its education component was in line with WFP SO464 and SO565 of the 2008-2011 
Strategic Plan. Outside of the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme, WFP Cambodia’s 
school feeding activities operate under a food security and nutrition objective, and do not 
specifically target an improvement in student learning. Instead the activities are intended 
to contribute solely to reduced short term hunger which contributes to active learning. 
The USDA SO1 - improved literacy of school children - is not among WFP’s stated 
objectives. Furthermore, the evaluation found that most programmestakeholders66 were 
unaware of the literacy and health objectives of the FFE.
• Food assistance modalities and commodities: Cambodia has had several years of 
rice surplus, and the Government prefers a school feeding model that supports local 
production, due in part to the economic benefits to local farmers. The wider WFP school 
feeding activities are focused on developing modality options suitable for transition to 
national ownership. Also, while key informants appreciated the provision of fortified 
products with their high micronutrient content, it is unclear if the government will have 
the resources to fortify local products in the foreseeable future. More information about 
the Government’s preferred school feeding models can be found in Section 4: 
Sustainability.
61. The evaluation recognizes that with support from USDA, WFP is already considering 
alternative modalities. A HGSF pilot project was launched in two USDA schools in Siem Reap 
province in November 2014, reaching 1,062 pre-primary and primary school students. At the 
request of the MoEYS, the school meal was changed in these two schools from WFP delivery of 
USDA-funded food commodities to locally purchased commodities. The schools still receive 
infrastructure and other materials through USDA support. The success of this model means 
that it has since been scaled up to 84 schools in four provinces including two USDA supported
59 WFP (2009) Gender policy: promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women in addressing food and nutrition challenges. 
WFP/EB.1/2009/5-A/Rev.1 60 WFP/EB.2/2009/4-A 61 WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C 62 Bundy, D (2009) “Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the Education Sector 63 Reed S. et al (2014) Operational Evaluation - WFP Cambodia Country Programme 200202. A mid-term evaluation of WFP’s Country 
Programme 2011-2016. The KonTerra Group. 64 SO4; Reduce chronic hunger and undernutrition
65 SO5: Strengthen the capacities of countries to reduce hunger, including through hand-over strategies and local purchase 66 Aside from WFP and PLAN
16
provinces. HGSF aims to source school meal commodities from local smallholder farmers, 
strengthen local markets and develop income generation opportunities. The HGSF pilot 
provides a daily meal to students with a weekly set menu using locally produced agriculture 
products. To date, 124 smallholder farmers have participated in the programme. Advocacy for 
this initiative to be introduced in other non-USDA target areas is ongoing, while the MoEYS 
has agreed to further review the model and WFP’s replication of the model in other 
schools/provinces.
2.1.4 Alignment with other development partners
62. The SMP programme was originally aligned to the global MDG 1 to “Eradicate extreme 
Poverty and Hunger”, and MDG 2 to “Achieve universal primary education”. With the 
development of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, the SMP now aligns to 
SDG 2: Zero hunger, SDG 4: Quality education, and SDG 5: Gender equality.
63. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2011-2015 under 
which the present phase of the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme has been implemented, 
stating that "the United Nations will focus on strengthening the knowledge and skills, human 
and financial resources, as well as coordination and communication that are necessary (but not 
sufficient) if Cambodia is to achieve its MDG targets by 2015". The UNDAF listed five expected 
outcomes, of which the FFE programme aligns to three: Outcome II - Health and Education,67
Outcome III- Gender equality,68 and Outcome V - Social protection.69 As of 2016 there is a new 
UNDAF in place. The endline evaluation for the next phase of the USDA McGovern-Dole 
Programme will have to establish to what extent the programme aligned with the new UNDAF
2016-2018.”
64. In 2011, collaboration between the Government and WFP was formalized through the 
Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) signed by WFP and the Ministry of Finance. The 
CPAP outlines the roles in school feeding (not just for the FFE) of the MoEYS at all levels 
including monitoring, reporting responsibilities, accountabilities and technical supervision, as 
well as the modalities for distribution of WFP food and cash commodities. In addition to the 
formal partnerships, the evaluation identified multiple development partners working in the 
same locations, with similar objectives and implementing similar activities (Annex 17). WFP is 
aware of these activities and actively assesses which schools require infrastructure work to 
ensure USDA funds complement the work of other actors. Additional information on the way 
the FFE programme aligns with the work of other development actors can be found in Annex 
18.
65. To harmonize efforts and share knowledge with other development partners, WFP 
participates in multiple fora. These include the Joint Technical Working Group in Education 
(chaired by MoEYS), the Education Sector Working Group (ESWG) (chaired by 
UNICEF/UNESCO), the Technical Working Group on Social Protection, Food Security and 
Nutrition, and the Food Security and Nutrition Forum (both chaired by CARD), the Nutrition 
Working Group (chaired by the MoH), the Nutrition & WASH sub-working group (chaired by 
CARD with the MoH and the Ministry of Rural Development), and the Food Based Dietary 
Guideline Working Group (chaired by the MoH with support from Foundation for Integration 
of Rural Development (FIRD)).
66. Table 6 provides a summary of the key findings to Evaluation Question 1: the 
appropriateness of the programme. The following key has been used throughout the report to 
highlight whether programme targets/objectives have been met.
67 "By 2015, more men, women, children and young people enjoy equitable access to health and education" 68 "By 2015, all women, men, girls and boys are experiencing a reduction in gender disparities and progressively enjoying and exercising equal 
rights"
69 "By 2015, more people, especially the poor and vulnerable, benefit from improved social safety net (SSN) and social security programmes, 
as an integral part of a sustainable national social protection system"
17
Findings key:
Achievement of objective
Target has almost been achieved / Within 10% of achieving target
Objective or target has not been met
Table 6: Summary of key results - Evaluation Question 1
Programme
elements Appropriateness
Objectives
The objectives of the FFE programme to improve educational achievement is 
generally coherent with national policies. The objectives are strongly aligned with
recent WFP strategies, policies and guidance.
The literacy objective of USDA McGovern Dole Programme is not included within
the objectives of WFP’s other school feeding activities.
The health and nutrition objective is appropriate to the school infrastructure context
of the three supported provinces.
Targeting of 
intervention area
USDA selected the provinces to implement the programme – there are not the
locations with the highest levels of poverty or poorest education outcomes.
Choice of modality
Through USDA support, WFP provides direct in-kind food assistance. In general, 
stakeholders did not find the importation of commodities into Cambodia to be an 
appropriate modality of support, particularly for rice, as there has been a surplus in 
Cambodia for several years.
WFP and the MoEYS are currently conducting research to determine the most
appropriate modality for a nationally owned school feeding programme.
The evaluation recognizes that USDA are currently supporting pilot projects on 
HGSF to assess the effectiveness of using local food commodities.
Choice of activities The FFE activities are appropriate to the Cambodian context, particularly the 
provision of incentive to prevent drop-out.
Alignment with 
national policies
School feeding activities are coherent with key Government policies and strategies. 
The FFE programme is implemented closely with MoE and other ministries.
Alignment with
WFP strategies
School feeding is coherent with key WFP corporate policies.
Alignment with 
other development 
actors
The complementary FFE programme activities align with similar work by other 
agencies in the same locations. The ET found evidence of multiple other actors 
working in the USDA supported schools through different programmes with similar
objectives.
Alignment with 
partner UN agencies
and donor policies
The SMP objective is coherent with the partner United Nations agencies and other 
donor policies that are embedded within the SDGs.
Summary of key findings: Evaluation question 1 - How appropriate is the FFE 
programme?
• The FFE locations were pre-determined by USDA but in general, programme targeting 
aligns well with the WFP Cambodia targeting criteria of poverty, poor education outcomes 
and malnutrition.
• The FFE aligns with Government policies and strategies, and with WFP’s own corporate 
guidance. However, there is some misalignment between USDA’s literacy objective and the 
food security and nutrition objective of the other WFP school feeding activities in Cambodia.
• The provision of imported food, particularly rice, is no longer considered to be an 
appropriate modality as Cambodia has had several years of rice surplus. Furthermore, the 
Government prefers a school feeding model that is cash-based and/or supporting local 
farmers. The HGSF model is currently being piloted.
• The FFE is coherent with other development actors who provide support to schools. The 
evaluation identified multiple agencies working in the USDA supported schools, 
implementing similar complementary activities such as infrastructure support and the 
provision of educational materials.
18
2.2 Evaluation Question 2: What are the results of the programme?
67. This section of the report provides the evaluation’s findings on each of the indicators and 
results listed in the two programme RFs. It also provides additional household food security 
and nutrition findings. Annex 19 provides some demographics of the household survey 
respondents which should provide a better understanding of the context in which the 
programme operates.
68. As described earlier, the FFE programme has two major objectives, each with its own 
results framework:
• RF1: Literacy Results Framework: The strategic objective of this framework is the 
Improved Literacy of School-Age Children. Achievement of this SO is dependent upon the 
achievement of three ‘result streams’ related to improved student attendance, improved 
quality of literacy instruction, and improved attentiveness.
• RF2: Health and Dietary Practices Results Framework: RF2 is complementary to RF1.70
The SO of this framework is the Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, primarily 
by school age children but also by those who influence these children’s health and well￾being, such as parents, families and school staff. The achievement of the SO is intended 
to support the result related to reduced health-related absences in RF1.
2.2.1 Results Framework 1: Improved literacy of school aged children
Results Stream 1: Improved Student Attendance
Increased access to food
69. By increasing access to food, school feeding programmes are expected to provide an 
incentive for children to attend school. The details of the SMP and THR rations are asfollows:
• SMP: A hot meal of rice, canned fish, yellow split peas, oil and salt and supplemented 
with vegetables from the school garden or local community. The SMP meal provides 555 
kilocalories (30 percent of a child’s daily calorie requirement), 31 percent of protein 
intake, 27 percent of fat intake, 19 percent of iron intake and nine percent of vitamin A.
• THR: From SY 2013/14 the THR was 10kg of rice per student per month, and provided 
three times per year. For SY2015/16, to better align with the Government cash 
scholarship (US$60/child/SY), the transfer value of take home rations has increased to 
12kgs of rice per student per month (which is equal to US$6/child/month).
70. Overall, USDA has provided WFP with 11,609 metric tons (mt) of commodities for the 
FFE programme, 100 percent of the planned volume (Figure 2). The first commodity delivery 
from USDA was delayed, so the CO utilized food from other donors to start implementation on 
time for the SY2013/14.71 The late arrival of these first USDA commodities, followed by timely 
delivery of subsequent tranches, resulted in an overstock of food by the end of the original 
programme timeline, since USDA commodities can only be used in USDA supported provinces. 
In 2016, WFP Cambodia was therefore granted a six-month extension, to June 2017, to enable 
the programme to utilize all the USDA food commodities for the period.
70 FY 2016 Food Aid Proposal Guidance. Annex III: Manual for the Use of Results Frameworks and Indicators. Food Assistance Division, 
Office of Capacity Building and Development, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA. 71 This included 1,089 mt from other donors: 853 mt of rice, 141 mt of oil and 95 mt of yellow split peas.
19
Figure 2: Commodities provided by USDA
71. The USDA food has also been complemented with 917 mt of canned fish from the 
Government of Japan and other regional suppliers (purchased by WFP using cash 
contributions), 138 mt of salt from private donors and vegetables from the local communities 
and/or school gardens. More information on the programme’s achievements related to the 
commodity provision can be found in Annex 20.
72. Distribution of food commodities to the schools was unaffected by pipeline breaks, and 
commodities were delivered in a timely manner throughout the period. The main concern 
noted about the food commodities were questions regarding the cultural appropriateness of 
providing YSP. Yellow split peas are not part of the traditional food basket in Cambodia, and 
despite efforts to encourage schools to explore alternative recipes, their consumption remains 
low. These findings had already been identified by the CO, and for the new phase of 
programming YSP will not be provided by USDA, to be replaced by internationally procured 
YSP and/or additional canned fish from the Government of Japan to make up the protein 
content until such time a locally viable option can be introduced at scale.
73. In accordance with a recommendation from the CP mid-term review, since 2015 the 
MoEYS and the LSFCs are jointly responsible for ensuring that the correct quantity of food is 
delivered to the schools, including signing the waybills.
74. The provision of food from USDA has enabled 87 percent of students in target schools to 
consume daily school meals (Table 7). This is a lower figure than found at midline, with the 
decrease identified during the qualitative field mission as being mainly due to cooks’ absences, 
so meals were not provided daily.
Table 7: Percentage of surveyed students consuming daily school meals
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percent of students in target schools consuming 
daily meals at schools 95% 0 96.9% 87%
75. Since SY 2015/16, the cooks’ incentive payments are no longer supported by the FFE 
programme, but instead they are the responsibility of the community and commune councils. 
Communities/communes are expected to provide at least USD10 per month per cook. This was 
perhaps the single most problematic implementation issue identified during the qualitative 
field mission. However, WFP, PLAN and the MoEYS/School Health Department have made 
considerable efforts to ensure that cooks feel acknowledged and appreciated to help ensure 
their regular attendance at school to prepare the school meals. One example of how this was 
approached included cooking competitions organized by the school health department with 
support from WFP in Siem Reap and Kampong Thom.72 These competitions provided an 
opportunity for school cooks to present their skills, to meet and share experiences with the 
public as well as to promote hygiene and introduce new recipes in the School Meal Programme. 
The competition was also designed to solidify the training that cooks have received on the
72 Competition in Siem Reap in July/August 2016, and in Kampong Thom in June 2017.
Rice Yellow split peas Oil
820 780 270 308
10000
5000
10350 10521
15000
TOTAL 2013-2016 Planned TOTAL 2013-2016 Actual
Metric tons
20
importance of hygiene in meal preparation and incorporate guidelines in their daily practices 
at school or at home.
76. Figure 3 shows the planned targets and actual numbers of children receiving SMP and 
THR. WFP has reached more children than expected for both SMP and THR, with 55 percent 
of THR recipients being girls.
Figure 3: Number of students benefiting from school meals and take-home rations
77. Overall, the food commodities have enabled WFP to reach over 400,000 beneficiaries 
(129 percent of plan) as per Table 8. This includes school children, cooks and storekeepers who 
have benefited from SMP or THR, as well as parents, teachers, school administrators who have 
benefitted from training. The overachievement of the targets is due to the programme 
extension and the inclusion of almost an entire additional SY.
Table 8: Overall totals of direct and indirect beneficiaries reached (2013-2016)
Planned Actual Achieved
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from 
USDA-funded interventions 315,168 407,613 129%
Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from
USDA-funded interventions 262,449 320,585 122%
Improved school infrastructure
78. To make attending school healthier and safer for children, the programme rehabilitated 
or constructed numerous schools’ infrastructure including kitchens, storerooms, latrines, 
water sources, energy-efficient stoves and school gardens, as listed in Annex 20. The 
programme has met almost all the targets in this regard except for energy efficient stoves (397 
achieved out of 450 target), and the overall numbers of students benefiting from the 
rehabilitated/constructed latrines, energy-efficient stoves and drilled wells and water stations. 
The latter is primarily due to the lower numbers of enrolled students than expected.
79. Table 9 shows that overall, the infrastructure of USDA supported schools has been 
significantly improved compared to non-supported schools, mainly due to the considerable 
effort put into SMP+THR schools. THR only schools show a similar profile to comparison 
schools. As no meal is prepared at the schools, the programme has prioritized SMP only, and 
SMP+THR schools for kitchen, energy saving stoves, and/or food storerooms. Nearly all 
surveyed schools had functioning latrines regardless of intervention type.
Table 9: School infrastructure by type of intervention
All USDA supported 
schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Schools with dedicated kitchen 49% 93% 5% 4%
Schools with dedicated storerooms 42% 75% 9% 8%
Schools with functioning latrines 99% 100% 98% 100%
Schools with energy saving stoves 24% 45% 0% 0%
Planned Actual
300000 251886
204536
10022 124751 104313127135
100000
11209 21148 9166 17303 2037538451
Boys Total
Take home ration
Boys Total Girls
School meal(breakfast)
Girls
21
80. Agriculture and school gardening has been a part of the life skills curriculum at all 
primary schools in Cambodia for decades. Recent research73 found that about 70 percent of the 
primary schools in Cambodia have a school garden but it is often not used to its full potential. 
Through the FFE programme, WFP, through PLAN, coordinated activities in the school 
gardens, and PLAN together with personnel from the Provincial Department of Agriculture, 
Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFF) conducted training at 257 schools on school gardens. The 
school committees, principals and teachers were trained in basic school vegetable gardening. 
The FFE programme provided seeds – including morning glory, wax gourd and amaranth - to 
schools with an established school garden. Although other agencies have also supplied seeds, 
the majority come from the school’s budget, PLAN and WFP.
81. Table 10 shows that 61 percent of all USDA supported schools have established school 
gardens, compared to 42 percent in comparison schools. A higher percentage (87 percent) of 
SMP+THR schools have gardens. In THR schools, since no school meal is provided, the 
gardens are primarily established to enable the students to practice life skills including growing 
and harvesting food crops. SMP schools use the school gardens not only for life skills but to 
produce vegetable crops to supplement the school meal. Both boys and girls in schools with 
gardens generally spend 1-2 hours per week in the garden, regardless of whether it is a THR 
only, SMP+THR school or a comparison school. More information on the findings of the 
evaluation on school gardens can be found in Annex 20.
Table 10: School gardens by type of intervention
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Schools with school gardens 61% 87% 34% 42%
Purpose of the school garden
Practicing life skills only 34% 13% 100% 90%
Supplementing SMP recipe only 10% 13% 0% 0%
Both life skills and SMP 56% 74% 0% 10%
82. During the 2014-2016 period, FAO piloted school gardens in 30 schools some of which 
overlapped with USDA supported schools and these are fully operational. These school gardens 
have been used to teach agriculture, nutrition, mathematics, Khmer language, life skills and 
other subjects as required.74 There is a push from MAFF and FAO for the school gardening to 
be an integral part of the education curriculum. However, the evaluation found that most 
teachers are not equipped with the necessary knowledge to manage school gardens or on how 
to effectively use them for educational purposes. This is largely due to the lack of a standard 
curriculum and materials for the school gardens. This should be rectified in the next phase of 
programming by the FAO/MAFF pilot programme and the development of new guidance on 
school gardens and nutrition education released in July 2017.75
Increased economic and cultural incentives
83. The FFE programme provided specific incentives to help some groups facing economic 
or cultural obstacles to attend school. Food scholarships/THR have been provided by the 
programme to ease the economic burden of attending school and, in doing so, to help prevent 
the poorest children from dropping out of school, particularly in Grades 4-6. Table 11 shows 
that the programme has exceeded its target for the number of THR beneficiaries, with more 
girls than boys receiving THR. The overachievement is due to continuous annual planning of 
the transitional process between WFP and MoEYS of the scholarship programme.
73 Ouma, E. (2016); Promotion of school gardens for better nutrition. PowerPoint presentation given at Food and Nutrition Forum. 31/05/16. 74 http://www.fao.org/cambodia/news/detail-events/en/c/854063/ 75 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) School garden preparation and nutrition education. Phnom Penh. The set of resources includes 
Guidance for Trainers, Guidance for Teachers, and Textbooks for students in Grades 4-6. CARD, MOEYS, & FAO.
22
Table 11: Provision of THR
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of students at target 12,221 students
0
12,342 students 15,152 students
schools regularly receiving take Boys: 5,499 B: 5,445 B: 6,526
home food ration (yearly) Girls: 6,722 G: 6,897 G: 8,626
84. Similarly, the rehabilitation or construction of separate latrines for girls and boys was 
intended to reduce cultural barriers to school attendance by girls. Although the programme 
intended to provide separate toilets in all USDA supported schools, only around three quarters 
among them have been equipped with separate latrines to date (Tables 12 & 13). No significant 
difference was found between USDA supported schools and comparison schools on this 
indicator.
Table 12: Provision of separate latrines for girls and boys
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percentage of schools providing 
separate latrines for girls and boys
861 543 550 661
100% 63% 64% 77%
Table 13: Provision of separate latrines for girls and boys by type of intervention
All USDA
supported schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Schools with latrines separated for 
girls and boys 77% 80% 66% 79%
Reduced health-related absences
85. Strategic Objective 2 and its associated Results Framework are complementary to SO 1. 
The two RFs are interlinked, as improved practices of good health and dietary practices are 
intended to result in good health and subsequent improved attendance at school through 
reduced absence due to illness. The household survey asked parents to report on absence from 
school due to illness (Table 14).76 On average, children who were ill missed 0.896 days in the 
two-week recall period, equivalent to 16 days over the school year. This is the same figure found 
by the baseline survey.
Table 14: Absence due to illness
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Average number of school days missed by students’ 
due to illness (for each school and in aggregate) 5 days 16 days 15 days 16 days
Increased community understanding of the benefits of education
86. The FFE programme includes activities to disseminate key messages on the value of 
education, notably at the time of THR distribution or during the training of provincial and 
district SF committees and other partners. This is considered as an important factor in 
determining whether children attend school regularly.
87. Table 15 shows that, although WFP have not met their target, there has been a marked 
improvement (from 17.6 percent to 80.2 percent) since the baseline in the percentage of 
parents who can name at least three benefits of primary education. When asked about the 
factors considered when deciding about their child’s schooling, surveyed parents declared that 
a good future career/livelihood prospect of the child if s/he finishes the school was very 
important (79 percent) and important (20 percent). More than half the surveyed parents (55 
percent) also reported that the need for the child to do household chores rather than going to 
school was not important (i.e. school is more important).
76 Parents from USDA supported schools reported an average of 0.88 days for girls, and 0.91 for boys.
23
Table 15: Benefits of primary education
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percent of parents in target communities who can 
name at least three benefits of primary education
85% of 
parents 18% 17% 80%
88. The increasing involvement of parents in school-based community groups such as the 
Parent Teacher Association (PTA) since the baseline is an additional indicator of parents’ 
ongoing commitment to the education of their children (Table 16). Furthermore, WFP actively 
encourages community financial and in-kind support to USDA supported schools.
Table 16: Participation in PTAs
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of parents in target communities who 
are members of PTAs (or similar school based
community group)
4,315
parents 3,615 3,986 4,305
89. Table 17 shows that USDA supported schools received significantly more in-kind support 
than comparison schools. Overall contributions to THR schools exceed comparison schools by 
almost 50 percent, and contributions to SMP+THR schools exceed by 32 percent. Schools in 
which only THRs are provided are usually those in less remote, possibly more urbanized 
(wealthier) settings which may account for the greater contributions.
Table 17: Average annual total contributions received from parents
All USDA
supported schools
SMP+ 
THR THR Only Comparison 
schools
Average cash contributions from 
parents $197.53 $180.40 $215.60 $189.25
Average value of in-kind 
contribution from parents $82.98 $85.08 $80.77 $11.46
Overall average contribution $280.51 $265.48 $296.33 $200.71
90. The PTAs are formed to create a bond between the community and the school to improve 
children’s education. For instance, parents and teachers survey all school–age children in the 
school catchment area to ensure that they are enrolled in schools. PTA members also help 
verify the reasons why children drop out or do not attend school, and they set goals to remedy 
these problems. PTA members assist in monitoring supplies delivered to the school and ensure 
that local teachers and children receive and care for them. Interviews conducted during the 
qualitative field mission indicate that parent and community involvement contributes to 
building new levels of trust between families, school staff and local authorities.
Increased student enrolment
91. As previously mentioned, primary school enrolment in Cambodia was already high (>90 
percent) at the start of the programme period, so achieving a five percent increase in enrolment 
year on year was unlikely. Table 18 shows that the planned increase in student enrolment has 
not eventuated. The enrolment increase at the start of the period (baseline) was up 2.4 percent 
from the end of the previous phase. Subsequent school years (midline and endline) saw total 
enrolment increases of 2.7 percent which is still notable given the high national enrolment rate. 
Girls’ enrolment increased overall by 3.4 percent, and boys by two percent.
24
Table 18: Student enrolment
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of students Total: 258,900; T: 244,010 T: 248,356 T: 250,622
(boys/girls) enrolled in Boys: 132,040; B: 125,229 B: 124,823 B: 127,817
school Girls: 126,860 G: 118,781 G: 123,533 G: 122,805
Percentage increase in 5% increase per year T: 2.4% T: 1.7% T: 1%
students (girls, boys) for boys, and 5% B: 2.2% B: 0% B: 2%
enrolled in school increase for girls G: 3.0% G: 4.0% G: -0.5%
92. Table 19 shows high gross enrolment rates compared to local catchment numbers. There 
is no statistical difference between USDA supported schools and comparison schools in terms 
of student enrolment, with enrolment high in all schools. Girls make up half the enrolled 
students in both USDA supported and comparison schools.
Table 19: Student enrolment by intervention type
All USDA
supported
schools
SMP+ 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Percentage of enrolled school aged 
students out of total school aged
students in catchment areas
Total 105% 92% 120% 116%
Girls 105% 104% 106% 123%
Average number of enrolled 
students in grades 1 to 6
Total 285 190 388 285
Girls 141 96 191 139
Percentage of girls in grades 1 to 6 Girls 49% 50.5% 49% 48.7%
Improved student attendance
93. Altogether, activities building this Results Stream should converge to enable increased 
student attendance. Once children are enrolled it is expected that they attend at least 80 
percent of school days. Both the baseline and midline surveys highlighted that official student 
attendance rates are not available in Cambodia, as adequate attendance records are not kept at 
some schools. The attendance rates in USDA supported schools in Table 20 is therefore based 
on estimates via actual headcount of students present in classrooms on the day the schools 
were visited.77 These attendance rates increased over the period under evaluation and have 
exceeded the programme target.
Table 20: Student attendance
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percent of students (boys/girls) regularly (80%) attending 
USDA supported classrooms/schools 80% 78.2% 86.1% 88.8%
94. Primary school drop-out rates have been higher than the national average throughout the 
period in all three programme provinces, but have decreased considerably. Data from EMIS 
shows that Siem Reap reached the national average by the SY 2015/16 (Figure 4). Figure 5 
shows that during the SY 2015/16 EMIS data found higher drop-out rates among boys in all 
three target locations. Key informant interviews indicated this is mainly due to economic 
circumstances, with boys more easily able to find work (casual labour) at a young age than girls.
77 The ET is aware that this methodology does not meet the indicator definition for regular attendance i.e. at least 80% attendance during the 
school year. However routine attendance data was not available from all the surveyed schools. The method used at endline is the same as used 
in the baseline and midline surveys.
25
Figure 4: Drop-out rates Grades 1-6, total (2013-2016)
Source: MoEYS, EMIS
Figure 5: Primary school drop-out rates, by gender (2015-2016)
Source: MoEYS, EMIS
Results Stream 2: Improved Quality of Literacy Instruction
95. To improve the literacy of school aged children WFP agreed to implement a range of 
activities as per their agreement with USDA. This includes the provision of specialized training 
to teachers related to improved child literacy (e.g. skills to identify and support children with 
learning difficulties), village and homebased remedial support and tutoring (so-called 'literacy 
coaching'), curriculum guidance (e.g. ensuring the inclusion of core elements necessary for 
improving child literacy skills), and provision of some school equipment and supplies (e.g. 
visual aid material for literacy instruction).
96. The in-service literacy training, coaching and mentoring for teachers was originally 
planned under the USDA budget to be implemented by PLAN. However, the evaluation found 
that both WFP and PLAN recognized early in the programme (SY2014/15) that they did not 
have sufficient expertise in literacy education to conduct the necessary training activities. 
Training was therefore delegated to the MoEYS Primary Education Department (PED) as part 
of the regular MoEYS teacher training programme.
More consistent teacher attendance
97. International evidence has shown that a teacher’s knowledge and their ability to transfer 
that knowledge is the key predictor of student achievement. 78 In fact, teacher effectiveness has 
been found to be the single most important school-based predictor of student learning. The 
presence of qualified teachers in the classroom is therefore of paramount importance to student 
learning. A study into teacher attendance conducted in Cambodia during SY 2012-13 
established a correlation between student performance and teacher attendance.79 Apart from 
training and counseling and provision of school supplies and materials, teachers in target 
schools did not benefit from any specific incentive (e.g. take-home rations, support for housing, 
awards, etc.) from the USDA McGovern Dole Programme. Table 21 shows that teachers in 
USDA supported schools have nevertheless attended school regularly.
78 Hanushek and Rivkin (2012) The Distribution of Teacher Quality and Implications for Policy. Annual Review of Economics.
79 “Children in more remote areas had less access to the primary school curriculum, and performed less well in our standardized tests in Khmer 
and Mathematics than those in urban areas. In rural areas, we observed that student performance in tests was associated with the absence 
rate of their teacher during the year, with the worst average test performance from students associated with rural, frequently absent, teaching 
staff”. From Sopha, A et al (2015) Teaching Hours in Primary Schools in Cambodia. NGO Education Partnership (NEP), 
www.nepcambodia.org
Cambodia Battambang Kampong Thom Siem Reap
4.4 5.6 4.6
7.1
10.5 8.3
12.8 15 11.8
10
2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016
Total Girls
10% 7.10%
4.60% 3.80% 5.40% 5.60% 4.20% 4.40% 3.00%
0%
Cambodia Battambang Kampong Thom Siem Reap
Percentage of 
students (%)
Percentage of 
students (%)
26
Table 21: Teacher attendance rate
Target Baseline Midline Endline
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% 80.9% 95%
Average teacher attendance rates (for each 
school and aggregated)
90 percent 
of teachers 94.4% 88.2% 97.7%
Source: Endline evaluation, School Assessment
98. By the endline, teacher attendance has exceeded the programme targets in all schools, 
including the comparison schools (Table 22). This may be partly due to the recent teacher 
salary increases (April 2016), which have enabled teachers to focus on teaching in school 
instead of being engaged in complementary income generating activities, resulting in 
absenteeism. No significant difference was found between USDA-supported schools and 
comparison schools on this indicator.
Table 22: Teacher attendance rate according to type of food support provided
All USDA
supported schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Percent of teachers in target schools who 
attend and teach school at least 90% of 
scheduled school days per year
95% 95% 95% 91%
Average teacher attendance rates (for each 
school and aggregated) 97.7% 97.6% 98% 97%
Source: Endline evaluation, School assessment
Better access to school supplies and materials
99. The programme has provided school supplies such as paper, pencils, chalk, blackboards, 
desks and books once a year during the intervention to USDA supported schools to support 
quality instruction. All targets in this regard have been achieved (Table 23).
Table 23: Provision of school supplies and materials
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of schools receiving school 
supplies & materials (learning material
packages and stationary packages)
861 schools 0 856 861
Number of learning material packages 
provided to target schools. 2,589 0 993 2,892
Number of stationery packages 
provided to target schools. 2,589 0 993 2,892
Number of students (boy/girls) 172,600 students Total: 151,837 Total: 180,809
benefitting from the provision of Boys: 88,026 0 B: 79,055 B: 92,213
school supplies Girls: 84,574 G: 72,782 G: 88,596
100. Table 24 shows that all surveyed schools received support regarding stationery and other 
school materials. However, fewer THR only schools received USDA support than SMP+THR 
schools.80 Comparison schools received support from a range of NGOs including Room to Read 
and World Vision.
80 Differences are statistically significant. t-student tests were applied to two independent samples (THR+SMP and THR only), assuming equal 
variances, to test the hypotheses that SMP+THR schools were less often receiving learning packages and stationery packages. While α=0.05, 
the hypotheses were rejected (learning package: Difference=0.1421, t (Observed value) = 2.5824, p-value (one-tailed) = 0.0055<0.05=α; 
stationery package: Difference=0.1605, t (Observed value) = 2.6512, p-value (one-tailed) = 0.0045<0.05=α). Therefore, we conclude that
SMP+THR schools were more often receiving learning packages. Also, SMP+THR schools were more often receiving stationery packages. The 
risk of having rejected hypotheses that were actually true is very low (0.55% and 0.46% respectively)
27
Table 24: Provision of learning package at endline by type of intervention
All USDA
supported schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Schools receiving learning package 89% 97% 82% 100%
Schools receiving stationery package 86% 95% 78% 100%
Classrooms with adequate literacy
materials 92% 92% 93% 98%
Improved literacy instructional materials
101. The national literacy curriculum (NLC) and related instructional materials were provided 
to teachers in USDA supported schools, and classrooms equipped with literacy materials for 
improved instruction. The midline survey highlighted that while there was an increasing 
utilization of the NLC by teachers after two years of programme implementation, the number 
of classrooms with sufficient literacy instructional materials was decreasing. This has now been 
addressed, with more classrooms with more materials than planned (Table 24). The percentage 
of teachers using the NLC showed a considerable decline from 75 percent at midline to only
9.3 percent at endline (Table 25). This decrease can be explained by the MoEYS effectively 
changing the curriculum at the start of SY 2016/17, and shifting the focus to basic EarlyGrade 
Reading (EGR) pedagogy to align with the introduction of the new governmental National 
Reading Standards (Benchmarks) and associated assessment workbooks for Grades 1 and 2, 
and Guidelines for Grade 3. The curriculum being measured at baseline and at endline are 
therefore not the same, and cannot be directly compared.
Table 25: Literacy materials and curriculum supply and utilization
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of classrooms in target schools with 
literacy instructional materials sufficient for
effective instruction
3,452
classrooms 2,969 2,645 4,788
Percentage of teachers using the national literacy 
curriculum and the related instrumental materials
85 percent of 
teachers 59.8% 75% 9.3%
Increased skills and knowledge of teachers
102. With support from the PED, the programme has met, or almost met, its planned targets 
for all these activities (Table 26). For the next phase of programme (2017-2019) WFP will 
partner with World Education and KAPE to support the implementation of the new EGR 
literacy curriculum. More information on this new partnership can be found in Annex 21.
Table 26: Teacher training
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of teachers/educators/ teaching 
assistants trained of certified.
5,178 teachers/ 
educators/ teaching 
assistants
664 3,162 4,867
Number of teachers/educators/ teaching 
assistants who successfully completed in 
service or received intensive coaching or
mentoring
5,178 teachers/ 
educators/ teaching 
assistants
0 3,257 4,867
Number of teachers in target schools
with recognized teacher certification 
credentials
3,452 1,976 2,787 3,894
Increased skills and knowledge of School Administrators
103. Training for School Administrators/Directors was organized with support of either PLAN 
or the PED on topics such as administrative management, leadership, classroom management, 
problem solving, creation of study games, use of multiple resources, reading development, 
writing development, assessment of student learning achievements, support to slow learners,
28
etc. The training was intended to help School Administrators foster an environment that 
promotes quality teaching and is conducive to student learning and inclusive education.Table 
27 shows that the targets for this activity have been met. With agreement from WFP Cambodia, 
the evaluation did not collect information on whether school administrators could demonstrate
new techniques or tools since the enumerators did not have the capacity to assess this.
Table 27: School administrators’ training
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of school administrators and 
officials trained or certified
3,452 school 
administrators 129 1,825 4,903
Number of school administrators and 
officials in target schools with recognized 
education certification credentials
1,726 school 
administrators 224 217 2,942
Percentage of school administrators in
targeted schools who demonstrate use of 
new techniques or tools
85 percent of
school 
administrators
16.9% 29.2% No data 
collected
Results Stream 3: Improved attentiveness
104. Through increasing food access at school, like all traditional school feeding programmes, 
the FFE programme seeks to reduce students’ short-term hunger and subsequently improve 
their attentiveness at school. Overall, although the targets have not been achieved (Table 28), 
the evaluation found that the SMP plays a role in promoting attentiveness in class, with the 
percentages of hungry and inattentive students decreasing in schools with SMP (Table 29).81
The full table of significance (t-tests) can be found in Annex 22. Boys were more likely to be 
inattentive in class than girls, indicating that hunger is not the only contributing factor to 
attention in class.
Table 28: Hunger and attentiveness of students
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percentage of students in target schools identified 
as inattentive by their teachers
≤10 percent of 
students 11.3% 8.7% 13.2%
Percentage of students in target schools identified 
as attentive or very attentive during class
90 percent of 
students 89.7% 91.3% 87.8%
Percentage of students in target schools who 
indicate they are "hungry" or very "hungry" during
class
≤10 percent of 
students 20.9% 17.3% 25.3%
105. Teachers were also asked about hunger in general, and reported that hunger varies by 
season – typically increasing during May-August (Cambodia’s wet or pre-harvest season). 
Teachers also reported that children in the morning shift come to school without breakfast 
because of the presence of the school meal, while children attending the afternoon shift have 
usually eaten before school. Teachers also reported that not all their students have breakfast at 
school (only 39 percent of teachers claimed that 100 percent of their students had breakfastat 
school).
81 t-student tests were applied to two independent samples (THR+SMP and THR only), assuming equal variances, to test the hypotheses that 
proportions of “hungry” and “inattentive” students are equal in both samples, fixing α=0.05. Both hypotheses are rejected (Hunger, 
Difference=-0.0717, t (Observed value) = -2.5659, p-value (Two-tailed) = 0.0107<0.05=α; Attentiveness: Difference=-0.02668, t (Observed 
value) = -2.2399, p-value (Two-tailed) = 0.02573<0.05=α). Therefore, we can conclude that the percentages of “hungry” and inattentive 
children decrease with the SMP component.
29
Table 29: Hunger and attentiveness of students, by intervention type
Target
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Percent of students in target schools 
identified as inattentive by their teachers
≤10 
percent 
of
students
13.2% 11.8% 14.5% 13.2%
Percent of girl students in target schools 
identified as inattentive by their teachers 9.5% 8.0% 10.9% 9.3%
Percent of students in target schools 
identified as attentive or very attentive
during class
90% of 
students 87.8% 88.2% 85.5% 86.8%
Percent of students identified as “hungry” 
(sometimes or always) during class ≤10% of 
students
25.3% 21.7% 28.9% 27.5%
Percent of girl students identified as 
“hungry” (sometimes or always) during class 23.9% 21.1% 26.6% 26.0%
Results Stream 4: Increased capacity of Government institutions
106. The USDA funding contributes to the ongoing work by WFP in Cambodia to support the 
capacity building of the MoEYS and other Government ministries regarding school feeding. 
This work includes the development of procedures and tools to manage school feeding 
programmes (Table 30), including Guidelines on Hygiene, Sanitation and Food Safety 
developed by the School Health Department, the National School Health Policy to befinalized 
in 2017, and the SAPF including key targets and benchmarks of the school feeding Roadmap. 
The target of two operating procedures or tools has therefore been exceeded.
Table 30: Operational procedures and tools for school feeding
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Standard operating procedures and tools for 2 standard
management and oversight of school feeding 
programmes by relevant Government offices
operating 
procedures 0 3 3+
are operational and tools
107. Throughout the programme period, WFP has also been working on education and school 
feeding related policies. Table 31 shows that to date, the main improvement in the capacity of 
the MoEYS has been the establishment of a National Scholarship Office (and policy), for the 
implementation of the national scholarship programme. In terms of programme indicators, 
Table 31 shows that there is currently no school feeding policy in place, and no central level 
school feeding coordination body of any form established (Table 32) despite these being targets 
set for the programme. The ET notes that there is ongoing debate about whether a national 
school feeding policy is required as a stand-alone document now that school feeding is included 
in the NSPPF and in the draft School Health Policy; and that neither of these indicators is 
included for the next phase of programming to allow the possibility of not needing a stand￾alone policy document or specific coordination body.
30
Table 31: Improved policy and regulatory framework for school feeding
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of educational policies, 
regulations and/or administrative 
procedures in each of the following 
stages of development:
Stage 1: Underwent the first stage 
of policy reform process i.e. analysis 
(review of existing policy/ 
regulation/administrative procedure 
and/or proposal of new policy/ 
regulation/administrative procedure
Stage 5: 1 
(National 
scholarship policy 
for primary 
schools)
Stage 1:1 
(national 
scholarship 
policy for 
primary
schools)
Stage 4 for 
national 
scholarship 
policy
Stage 5 for 
national 
scholarship 
policy
Stage 5:1 (National 
school feeding 
policy)
None for 
national school 
feeding policy
None for 
national 
school 
feeding
policy
None for 
national 
school 
feeding
policy
Government has a fully developed 
national primary education 
strategy/strategic plan that includes
a policy framework
1 national primary 
education 
strategy/ strategic
plan
1 1 1
National school feeding policy is 
operational
1 national school 
feeding policy at 
stage 1
0 0 0
Table 32: Presence of a national school feeding unit
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Establishment of a national school 
feeding unit within the government
1 national school 
feeding unit 0 0 0
108. Table 33 shows that an area where WFP has been successful in capacity building for 
school feeding is the engagement of local and community groups. WFP has achieved its target 
of establishing PTAs or similar governance structures in all USDA-supported schools. Under 
the HGSF in its entirety (four provinces, including two USDA supported provinces) WFP has 
also successfully developed 124 partnerships with farmer associations as a starting point to 
scaling up the HGSF model of school feeding preferred by the MoEYS.
Table 33: Engagement of local and community groups in school feeding
Target Baseline Midline Endline
No. of parent-teacher associations or similar school 
governance structures contributing to their school
861
groups 467 785 861
Number of public-private partnerships formed (e.g. 
farmer associations) 1 0 4 124
2.2.2 Overall achievement of Strategic Objective 1: Improved literacy of school￾age children
109. According to the logic model of the USDA McGovern-Dole Program, all activities 
contributing to the three Results Streams described above should converge to enable the 
achievement of the Strategic Objective 1: Improved Literacy of School-Aged Children, 
measured through the percentage of students (boys/girls) at USDA supported schools who,by 
the end of Grade 6, demonstrate reading comprehension equivalent to their grade level as 
defined by national standards.
110. In the SY 2012/13, the Education Quality Assurance Department (EQAD) within MoEYS 
conducted a Grade 6 national assessment survey and the results were published in December
31
2015.82, 83 They showed that a significant number of Grade 6 students were not performing at 
the expected level for their grade. Overall, 43.5 percent of students passed the test, with the 
average student answering fewer than half of the test items correctly. The summaries by 
proficiency level showed that about 39 percent of students were classified as “deficient”. One
of the main findings by EQAD was that “these results simply confirm that much workremains 
to improve student achievement levels in primary schools”, precisely one of the major 
objectives of the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme. EQAD is now conducting one national 
assessment per year, rotating across grades 3, 6 and 8. Student performance in each of these 
grades is therefore assessed every three years.
111. In 2016, a new Grade 6 National Assessment was conducted with a nationally 
representative sample of 5,939 students from 210 schools, measuring student performance and 
progress in Khmer (reading and writing) and mathematics.84 Scaled scores, with 500 as the 
benchmark scores, were used for comparison across years 2007, 2013 and 2016 Results 
showed that mathematics scores have shown more improvement over the years, from 489 in 
2013 to 519 in 2016, while reading has remained about the same, approximately at 504. Despite 
this, average student achievement in both subjects has yet to reach desired proficiency levels.85
In contrast, the results of the FFE baseline, midline and endline surveys have all shown 
improvements in Grade 6 literacy (Table 34). As part of the school assessment, school 
principals were asked if their school participated in the national literacy test during SY 2016/17. 
Of the 143 schools surveyed, 100 had participated in the test, and 93 of those had received their
results. In these 93 schools,the evaluation found thatthe programme target has been exceeded, 
with 85 percent of Grade 6 students demonstrating reading comprehension equivalent for their 
grade. Survey results also indicated that girls performed better than boys (girls: 87 percent; 
boys: 84 percent). Additional information on the literacy findings can be found in Annex 23.86
Table 34: Results of Grade 6 reading comprehension
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percent of students (boys/girls) at USDA 
supported schools who, by the end of 
Grade 6, demonstrate reading 
comprehension equivalent to their grade 
level as defined by national standards
80%
Total: 56.5%
Boys: 54.5%
Girls: 54%
Total: 65.6%
Boys: 64.6%
Girls: 66.7%
Total: 85.3%
Boys: 84.4%
Girls: 86.5%
112. Table 35 shows that all intervention groups have recorded high pass rates on the Grade 6 
reading comprehension test, with girls generally doing better than boys, particularly in THR 
only and comparison schools. These evaluation findings indicate that the USDA targeted 
provinces (including the comparison schools) have performed better than the national average 
in terms of Grade 6 reading comprehension. It should be noted, however, that the test that is 
measured by the baseline and endline surveys is the literacy test administered by schoolseach 
year, and not the EQAD literacy test. The ET has determined that the results included inthose 
surveys are not as accurate a measure of literacy as the national test conducted by EQAD.
82 Results of Grade 6 Student Achievement from the National Assessment in 2013, EQAD, MoEYS, December 2015.
83 The test was conducted in 210 sample schools in 25 provinces in which 6,300 students participated and employed 100 proctors. The test 
was conducted for Khmer language and mathematics for SY 2012-2013. The Khmer test for Grade 6 at the end of primary education was based 
on curriculum minimum standards and focused on just reading and writing competencies. 84 https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ekqZE5ZIUJNzFGSTlRcm9qY1E/view
85 Four performance standards (below basic, basic, proficient and advanced) were developed by ranking the level of item difficulty and 
classified using the IRT analysis.
86 t-student tests were applied to two independent samples (THR+SMP and THR only), assuming equal variances, to test the hypothesis that 
SMP+THR school students had better results at the national standard reading comprehension test (6th grade). The hypothesis had to be 
rejected, also when the same test was applied for girls and boys test results separately. General: Difference=-0.1288, t (Observed value) =-
2.4656, p-value (one-tailed) = 0.0080<0.05=α; Boys: Difference=-0.0965, t (Observed value) = -1.7914, p-value (one-tailed) = 
0.0387<0.05=α; Girls: Difference=-0.1501, t (Observed value) = -2.5527, p-value (one-tailed) =0.0064<0.05=α. Therefore, we can conclude 
that THR students have better chances to pass reading comprehension test. One can guess that this difference is important for girls, their p￾value being much smaller than that of boys.
32
Table 35: Grade 6 reading comprehension results by FFE intervention
Target
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP
+THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Percent of students (boys/girls) at USDA 
supported schools who, by the end of 
Grade 6, demonstrate reading 
comprehension equivalent to their grade
level as defined by national standards
80% 85.3% 77.9% 90.7% 86.0%
Percent of boy students at USDA 
supported schools who, by the end of 
Grade 6, demonstrate reading 
comprehension equivalent to their grade
level as defined by national standards
80% 84.4 78.7% 88.3% 80.6%
Percent of girl students at USDA 
supported schools who, by the end of 
Grade 6, demonstrate reading
comprehension equivalent to their grade 
level as defined by national standards
80% 86.5 77.8% 92.8% 87.5%
Key findings and conclusions – Results framework 1
• Most outputs have been implemented as planned.
• Improvement of school infrastructure has been implemented largely as planned, resulting 
in USDA supported schools having better infrastructure than non-USDA supported schools.
• SMP+THR schools have had more infrastructure support than THR only schools, resulting 
in the THR-only infrastructure profile looking like the non-supported comparison schools.
• The provision of food from USDA has enabled 87 percent of students in target schools to 
consume daily school meals. This is a lower figure than found at midline, with the decrease 
identified during the qualitative field mission as being mainly due to cooks’ absences, so 
meals were not provided daily.
• The provision of school meals has contributed to reducing short term hunger among the 
children who attend the morning shift.
• A significant difference was found in the attentiveness of students in SMP schools, compared 
to other intervention types. Girls were also found to be more attentive than boys.
• As expected, hunger in class is also lower in the schools providing school meals (SMP+THR 
schools) than in THR only or comparison schools. However, the ≤10 percent target has not 
been achieved.
• School enrolment and attendance were already high at the start of this period of 
implementation and they have remained high.
• Primary school drop-out rates have decreased considerably, with schools in Siem Reap 
reaching the national average during the SY 2015/16. Drop-out rates were higher for boys in 
all targeted provinces, indicating that boys should be prioritized for THR.
• International evidence has shown that a teacher’s knowledge and their ability to transfer 
that knowledge are the key predictors of student achievement. Teacher training istherefore 
highly appropriate, particularly to achieve a literacy objective, when teacher qualifications 
are low, as in Cambodia.
• Teacher training activities have been implemented with support from the MoEYS PED. With 
the new partnership with World Education in the next phase, teacher training is expected to 
be more focused on literacy training per se.
2.2.3 Results Framework 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices
113. The USDA RF2 assesses the use of health and dietary practices, including access toclean 
water and sanitation facilities, access to the requisite food preparation and storage facilities 
needed for implementing the school feeding component, and access to preventive health
33
practices. The activities under RF2 are intended to complement RF1, and similarly include 
some indicators on the Government’s capacity on health and dietary practices. All the activities 
under RF2 are intended to contribute to improved use of health and dietary practices in 
schools, including handwashing with soap, storing food for the school meals off the ground, 
and ensuring that schools use clean utensils and kitchen equipment.
114. RF2 also looks at the knowledge of various health and nutrition topics of parents, children 
and school personnel. Training targets teachers, parents and school children, as well as the 
cooks (usually community volunteers) and storekeepers (usually teachers). The training 
focuses on safe food preparation (for cooks) and storage practices (for teachers and 
storekeepers), and water, sanitation and hygiene practices (for parents and children).
115. The activities under RF2 are carried out through PLAN and supervised by WFP Field 
Monitors, with some follow up done by the Department of School Health and Hygiene of the 
MoEYS. PLAN and WFP also conducted Trainings of Trainers for MoEYS personnel at district 
level to improve programme sustainability and ensure a larger cadre of trainers are available 
when needed.
116. Over the period of implementation, WFP planned to reach 467,324 direct beneficiaries 
with this component of the programme, and has reached 373,911 (80 percent) (see Table 36). 
These beneficiaries were also all supported under SO1. This target is not part of the USDA￾WFP grant agreement. Rather, it is used for WFP’s internal tracking and shows the children 
who benefit from programme activities as identified in the annual school assessment.
Table 36: Planned vs. actual beneficiaries – Strategic Objective 2
Planned Actual Achieved
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA￾funded interventions 467,324 373,911 80%
Number of total individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA￾funded interventions 415,619 323,597 78%
Results Stream 1: Improved knowledge of health and hygiene practices
117. Providing parents and children with training/awareness on health and hygiene practices 
helps ensure that the practices learned at school, such as handwashing with soap before meals, 
are also followed at home, and vice versa. At baseline, only half (56 percent) of the surveyed 
parents, the majority of whom were female (74 percent) could identify at least three important 
health/hygiene practices. By endline, the percentage had increased considerably, beyond the
target, to 87 percent. Most parents (94 percent) knew at least one source of accurate health 
information (see Table 37). This already exceeded the programme target, and this figure has 
remained high throughout the evaluated period.
Table 37: Students’ and parents’ knowledge of health/hygiene practices
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percentage of parents in target 
communities who can identify at least
three important health/hygiene practices
85% of parents 56% 53.2% 87%
Percentage of students (and parents) in 
target communities who can identify at 
least one local source of information on
good health practices (e.g. health centre)
85% of students
85% of parents
93.7%
(Parents)
87.8%
(Parents)
Students 
91.7%;
Parents 87%
Results Stream 2: Improved knowledge of safe food preparation and storage
practices
118. WFP Cambodia supported the MoEYS Department of School Health to develop a training 
resource “Hygiene, Sanitation, Nutrition and Food Safety” and this was formally endorsed in
34
April 2014. Using this resource PLAN provided training to cooks, storekeepers and school 
directors on the basics of food safety and hygiene to facilitate the daily provision of a hygienic 
and safe school meal. After receiving this training, schools should be able to ensure kitchen 
hygiene and safe food preparation of the meals, and ensure that food commodities required for 
the school meals are kept safely, reducing the likelihood of food spoilage.
119. The knowledge of cooks and storekeepers on safe food preparation and storage was 
assessed using a test. At baseline, the test was under development, and at midline 64.3 percent 
of cooks and storekeepers achieved a passing score (Table 38). This test was not administered 
at endline, but the evaluation has used the results from a school assessment by SBK Research 
and Development in USDA supported schools in late 2016, commissioned by WFP Cambodia87
which found that approximately 70 percent of schools were aware of food preparation and 
correct cooking management (68 percent), and proper food storage (70 percent). This figure 
increased to 99 percent in SMP and SMP+THR schools, which is to be expected since most of 
the training activities were conducted in those schools.
Table 38: Cooks’ and storekeepers’ knowledge on safe food preparation and storage
Target Baseline Midline Achieved
Percentage of cooks/storekeepers at 
target schools who achieve a passing 
score on a test on safe food
preparation and storage
85% of cooks/ 
storekeepers
Not 
collected 64.3%
* SMP & 
SMP+THR schools 
only = 99%
Source: Endline data figure is from SBK school assessment report (2017)
* Food preparation, management and storage training are mainly done in SMP, and SMP+THR schools, and not in THR only schools.
Results Stream 3: Improved knowledge of nutrition
120. RF2 assesses nutrition knowledge using two indicators:
• The percentage of students and parents who can identify at least one local source of 
information on proper diets and nutrition, and
• The percentage of cooks and storekeepers with a passing grade on good nutrition and 
dietary practices.
121. Training on nutrition was conducted by PLAN using guidance from WFP and FAO on 
food safety, good health and nutrition, and agriculture. New training materials on life skills 
education such as school garden preparation and nutrition education have been developed by 
CARD, MoEYS, WFP, FAO and MAFF, which will be utilized from 2017.88
122. The evaluation found that most parents and students (88 percent) were knowledgeable 
on local sources of information on nutrition and diet at baseline, and remained so throughout 
the programme period. The programme has exceeded the target for both students (91.7 
percent) and parents (86.9 percent) (see Table 39). No significant difference was found 
between male and female parents’ responses.89 The SBK assessment also found that overall73 
percent of parents in USDA supported schools were aware of good nutritional practices. This
figure was much higher in SMP and SMP+THR schools (99 percent) which again is to be 
expected, since most of the training activities were conducted in those schools (Annex 24).
87 SBK Research and Development (2017) School Assessment Report 2015-2016. For World Food Programme Cambodia. 88 CARD, MOEYS, & FAO, 2017. School garden preparation and nutrition education. Phnom Penh. The Royal Government of Cambodia. The 
set of resources includes Guidance for Trainers, Guidance for Teachers, and Textbooks for students in Grades 4-6. 89 Female parents 91.5%, Male parents 93.1%
35
Table 39: Knowledge on good nutrition and dietary practices
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percentage of students (and 
parents) in target communities who
can identify at least one local source 
of information on nutrition and diet
85% students
85% parents
88%
(parents)
74%
(parents)
Students: 91.7%
Parents: 91.9%
Percentage of cooks/storekeepers at 
target schools who achieve a passing 
score on a test on good nutrition and 
dietary practices
85% of cooks/ 
storekeepers
Not 
collected 40.7%
**SMP & 
SMP+THR
schools only =
99%
Source: Endline data figure on test on good nutrition and dietary practices is from SBK school assessment report (2017)
** Training in nutrition and health are mainly done in SMP, and SMP+THR schools, and not in THR only schools.
Results Stream 4: Increased access to clean water and sanitation
123. The presence of clean drinking water in schools is necessary for safe food preparation and 
for student health. At baseline, 67 percent of the targeted schools had year-round access to 
clean water. Ongoing construction and rehabilitation of water sources in schools by 
WFP/PLAN and by other agencies has increased this figure to 97 percent of targeted schools 
by endline (Table 41). However, the evaluation found a decrease in the number of schools with 
latrines in good repair has decreased since the midline, indicating the importance of ongoing 
rehabilitation work. The full list of agencies identified during the evaluation as supporting 
water & sanitation facilities in USDA supported schools can be found in Annex 17.
Table 40: Improvement of school water and sanitation facilities
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of target schools with year-round 
access to a clean and safe water source 861 schools 580 667 839
67% 77% 97%
Number of target schools that have latrines 
of sufficient quality (in good repair) 861 schools 673 800 742
78% 93% 83%
Results Stream 5: Increased access to preventative health interventions
124. The FFE programme aimed to improve access to preventative health interventions such 
a handwashing with soap and the consumption of micronutrient fortified foods. At baseline,it 
was found that although 70 percent of schools maintained stocks of soap, only 64 percent of 
handwashing stations included soap. PLAN and the WFP Field Monitors have therefore 
actively encouraged schools to maintain soap supplies and promote hand washing with soap 
among students. At endline, 100 percent of schools had sufficient soap stocks and 96 percent 
of handwashing stations had soap available (Table 41).
Table 41: Increased access to preventive health interventions
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of target schools that have at
least one month supply of soap 861 schools 603 755 861
Percentage of handwashing stations 
with soap __ 64% No data 96%^
^Source: SBK school assessment report (2017)90
125. Another key preventive health intervention is the use of fortified food commodities for 
school feeding activities. For many years, WFP has been providing fortified oil and iodized salt 
to prevent micronutrient deficiencies. After a rice fortification impact study conducted during 
the SY 2012/13,91 the Royal Government of Cambodia formally approved the use of fortified 
rice in the school feeding programme, which was started in SY 2015/16. During the period
90 SBK Research and Development (2017) School Assessment Report 2015-2016. For World Food Programme Cambodia. 91 Wieringa, F. (2014) Final Report FORISCA Project. Institute of Research for Development.
36
under evaluation, the CO also commissioned a study into the acceptability of different types of 
rice.92 Table 42 shows that at endline the programme has exceeded the targets of the number 
of students receiving fortified commodities.
Table 42: Provision of micronutrient fortified commodities
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of students (boys/girls) 
receiving daily school meals with 
micronutrient fortified
commodities (rice, oil, salt)
Total: 204,536
Boys: 104,313
Girls: 100,223
0
Total: 196,957
Boys: 99,333
Girls: 97,624
Total: 251,886
Boys: 127,135
Girls: 124,751
126. As part of their ongoing work in Cambodia, WFP has been working with the Ministry of 
Planning’s Department of Improvement of Nutrition to support Government efforts to 
establish local fortification processing. Most evaluation key informants recognized the 
importance and nutritional benefits of the fortified USDA commodities, particularly the oil. 
Most stakeholders commented on the high micronutrient content of the oil, and appreciated 
that similar high-quality products were not available in Cambodia. Stakeholders therefore felt 
that it will be important for the Government to look to other ways to ensure a high 
micronutrient content of the school meals when they are responsible for the programme. 
Deworming is routinely carried out in schools by the MoH as part of preventive health 
measures. A recent report from the MoEYS found that 89 percent of all primary school children 
had been dewormed in school year 2016-17.93
Results Stream 6: Increased access to requisite food preparation and storage
tools and equipment
127. To assess this objective, surveys examined the number of target schools with improved 
food preparation and storage equipment such as cooking and serving utensils, energy saving 
stoves, and dedicated storerooms where food is stored off the ground. At baseline, no schools 
indicated such improved equipment. Table 43 shows that by endline, 97 percent of schools 
were using improved equipment.
Table 43: Schools with improved food preparation and storage equipment
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of target schools with improved food 
preparation and storage equipment
600
schools 0
455 580
76% 97%
Results Stream 7: Increased capacity of Government institutions
128. As in RF1, RF2 includes activities to increase the capacity of the Government in actions 
relevant to school feeding.
Improved policy or regulatory framework
129. WFP has provided financial support and technical advice to the School Health 
Department of the MoEYS, for the formulation of guidelines for Health Education on Hygiene, 
Sanitation and Food Safety for the School Meal Programme, adopted in April 2014. These 
guidelines form the basis of the hygiene, sanitation and food safety training that WFP and 
PLAN provide in schools.
92 Wieringa, F., Chamnan, C. & Kuon, K (2016) Acceptability of different types of rice fortified with multiple micronutrients in women of 
reproductive age, working in a garment factory. A comparison between coated and extruded fortified rice. Institute of Research for 
Development.
93 The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) Education congress. The Education, Youth and Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2015-
2016 and Goals for the Academic Year 2016-2017. 21-23 March 2017. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.
37
Increased Government support
130. The number of national and sub-national Government staff working on school-based 
health and nutrition programmes has remained the same (n=4) throughout the programme 
(Table 44). All these staff are housed in the MoEYS School Health Department.
Table 44: Results indicator - Improvement of Government capacity on health, hygiene 
and nutrition
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of Government staff in the Ministry of 
Education, Youth and Sports to monitor the safety of
food in SFP
5 staff 0 4 4
Government water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)
standards for primary schools are established and 
implemented
1 WASH
standard 0 0 1
Number of national and sub-national government94 
staff working on school-based health and nutrition
programmes
5 0 4 4
2.2.4 Overall achievement of Strategic Objective 2: Increased use of health and 
dietary practices
131. The findings described above generally show that WFP/PLAN have achieved, or come 
close to achieving, their output targets. According to the programme’s Theory of Change, all 
the above outputs should contribute to the overarching objective RF2: to increase the use of 
health and dietary practices. Although significant effort has gone into training and 
infrastructure development, the programme has not achieved some of the endline targets. 
However, further analysis shows that overall the USDA supported schools are performing 
better in these areas than the comparison schools, with SMP+THR schools performing the 
best. The overall achievement of the results streams can be found in Table 45. Overall, the 
survey found that training activities had resulted in increased knowledge of parents, cooks and 
storekeepers in SMP+THR schools. In addition, most SMP+THR schools had soap at 
handwashing stations and had dedicated food storage facilities. As noted under RF1, the FFE 
programme had a focus on providing separate toilets for boys and girls as an incentive for girls 
to attend school regularly. The ET found that 77 percent of USDA supported schools provided 
separate toilets for girls and boys, and 80 percent of SMP+THR schools (see Tables 11 & 12 
above, under RF1). Thus, although the ratio of toilets to total students has improved, and 
reached the target in SMP+THR schools of 1:50, the gender based targets have not.
Table 45: RF2 outcome indicators - USDA supported schools
All USDA
supported
schools
SMP + 
THR THR only Comparison 
schools
Training
Percentage of parents who can identify at least 
three important health/hygiene practices 87% 81.7% 91.2% 0%
Percentage of parents who can identify at least
one local source of information on good health 
practices (e.g. health centre)
91.7% 89.3% 94.1% 2.2%
Percentage of schools with cooks knowing
correct cooking management^ 98% 98% n/a 80%
Percentage of schools with storekeepers
knowing proper food storage^ 99% 99% n/a 96%
94 Refers to School Health Department only
38
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP + 
THR THR only Comparison 
schools
Access to water and sanitation facilities
Schools with year-round access to a clean and 
safe water source 59% 72% 46% 63%
Schools with latrines separated for girls & boys 74% 80% 67% 79%
Average ratio of latrines (boys/girls) to 
students at target schools
Total 1:71
Boys 1:113
Girls 1:104
Total 1:48
Boys 1:92
Girls 1:89
Total 1:97
Boys 1:139
Girls 1:122
Total 1:70
Boys 1:107
Girls 1:112
Access to preventive health services
Schools with soap & water at handwashing
points 90% 97% 82% 75%
Improved food preparation equipment
Schools using clean cooking & eating
equipment 23% 23% n/a 4%
Schools with energy saving stoves 47% 47% n/a 0%
Improved food storage equipment
Schools that store food off the ground95 57% 57% n/a 4%
Source: Endline evaluation ^Source: SBK school assessment report (2017)
132. Further, only 47 percent of SMP+THR schools use energy saving stoves. No such stoves 
were found in the non-USDA supported comparison schools. Table 45 also shows that
SMP+THR schools are more likely than other schools to have year-round access to clean water. 
However, the percentage of schools with no water is similar regardless of intervention. This 
indicates that most USDA-supported schools have water year-round, while most of the 
comparison schools have water for only part of the year. As with RF1, the evaluation finds that 
overall, the support provided to THR only schools have been less, and this has resulted in THR 
only schools not meeting the targets for RF2. Additional findings by intervention type can be 
found in Annex 24.
133. Overall, the evaluation finds that THR schools have not had the same level of input as 
SMP+THR schools have and therefore their profile is like the comparison schools on several 
indicators. Statistical t-tests applied on indicator values presented in the above table show 
significant differences between SMP+THR and THR only schools (Annex 25). For the latter, 
parents are significantly more aware of hygiene practices and sources of information. 
SMP+THR schools are better equipped in terms of latrines, as they are significantly more often 
functional and separated for girls and boys.
134. In addition to the RF2 results above, the evaluation looked at the results from the 
household questionnaire regarding food security, coping strategies and nutrition to assess the 
role of the FFE in household food security. On average, households from all intervention 
groups reported eating four meals or snacks per day, which is the typical pattern. However, 
more than 20 percent of households in all intervention groups reported using consumption 
coping strategies. Half the households (50 percent) reported using the least severe coping 
strategy mentioned in the survey: relying on less preferred or less expensive foods, regardless 
of intervention group (Table 46). Approximately a third percent of households also reported 
reducing portion size, reducing adult consumption, and reducing the number of meals/day.
95 Off the ground or on pallets
39
Table 46: Consumption coping strategies (percentage of households reporting using 
each strategy at least once a week)
Coping strategies SMP + THR THR Only Comparison Schools
Base Mid End Base Mid End Base Mid End
Reduced number of meals
eaten per day 9.1 14.6 36.9 5.2 6.4 37.4 6.4 7.2 22.5
Reduction in the quantities 
consumed by adults 25.0 18.8 42.6 14.5 11.0 42.2 17.5 7.9 44.2
Reduced portion size 12.3 23.8 36.0 6.1 8.3 39.7 7.9 7 37.0
Borrowed food or relied on
help from friends &relatives 15.2 18.9 25.3 19.9 13.4 19.4 13.7 8.5 15.9
Rely on less preferred and 
less expensive foods 43.1 66.9 51.7 41.5 52.8 62.5 37.8 34.1 54.4
135. The endline survey found greater use of consumption-related coping mechanisms 
amongst households in the intervention groups than was found at baseline and at midline. This 
difference can be explained by the timing of the surveys. Both the baseline and midline surveys 
were conducted in March, during the rice harvesting period, while the endline survey was 
conducted in August, at least four months after harvesting had ended. The main difference in 
coping strategies between SMP+THR and THR only households was the increasedpercentage 
of THR households reporting being reliant on less preferred and less expensive foods.
136. Inadequate household diet: Dietary ‘inadequacy’ is a measure of the consumptionof 
the seven main food groups (staple grain, pulses, protein, vegetable, fruit, oil & milk). The 2014 
baseline survey indicated that between 1-4 percent of surveyed households had inadequate 
diets (eating less than 4.5 groups),96 deteriorating at midline to 3-8 percent of households. 
Table 47 shows that the endline survey found more than 40 percent of all intervention groups 
eating an inadequate diet, again most likely due to the timing of the survey. The survey found 
that most households were eating predominantly rice, fish and vegetables, with limited intake 
of milk, pulses, or fruit. However, because of the variety of vegetables eaten, according to the
Food Consumption Score (Table 48) the majority (>90 percent) of all intervention groups had 
an “acceptable” diet i.e. they were consuming a diet containing multiple varieties of food. 
Additional information of diet of survey respondents can be found in Annex 26.
Table 47: Adequacy of household diets
All USDA
supported schools
SMP
+THR
THR
only
Comparison Schools
High (adequate) diet 5.1% 6.1% 4.3% 5.3%
Medium diet 54.3% 50.2% 42.8% 46.8%
Low (inadequate) diet 40.6% 43.7% 52.8% 47.9%
Table 48: Household food consumption
Poor Borderline Acceptable
USDA supported schools 0.5% 2.26% 97.25%
SMP+THR 1.1% 2.99% 95.96%
THR 0.0% 1.63% 98.37%
Comparison schools 0.0% 3.62% 96.38%
137. Individual dietary diversity (children): Data collection on the child’s diet as 
reported by the child was not successful, with low percentages of children reporting that they 
ate “cereals,” which includes rice (Annex 26). More training for data collection enumerators 
will therefore be needed in future. However, despite this issue, the endline survey confirms 
that the diet of intervention and comparison children are very similar across all food groups
96 Inadequate diets are measured through the WFP Food Consumption Score. Households with FCS rated as “poor” are considered to have 
inadequate diets.
40
with no significant differences found. Overall, the evaluation did not find any correlation 
between the FFE programme and improvement or otherwise in household diets. THR 
households show greater food security stress than SMP+THR or comparison households.
138. Overall, the evaluation found no significant differences in the dietary patterns of the 
different intervention groups.
139. Household benefits of school feeding: The evaluation also collected data on the 
benefits of school feeding as reported by parents (Annex 27). Most surveyed parents from 
SMP+THR schools (86.3 percent) said the presence of the school meal helps them save money 
or food for the household. This is coherent with self-reported expenditure data, which indicates 
that the proportion of household expenditure on food is lower in SMP+THR households.97 The 
finding is also consistent with the community mobilization survey by PLAN98 in which both 
community members and school staff stated that the whole household benefitted from the 
reduced burden of providing morning meals for children.
2.3 Evaluation Question 3: How & why has the programme achieved its results?
2.3.1 Internal factors
WFP Cambodia Office
140. WFP Cambodia management and personnel: Many of the evaluation stakeholders
have had partnerships or collaborations with WFP over an extended period, well beyond this 
period of FFE implementation. Overall, stakeholders recognized WFP Cambodia as a well￾managed, strong, innovative and flexible office and reported that programme implementation 
has been well managed. Through strong awareness of the implementation and use of 
programme monitoring data, the evaluation has found that management has already taken
appropriate decisions regarding the next phase of programming.
141. Since November 2014, WFP CO has had a phone-based standardized feedback 
mechanism in place. The mechanism allows people to provide feedback free of charge, and 
report any problems observed. Depending on the severity of the issue, the system can connect 
them immediately to WFP management staff. The system has helped WFP identify 
programmatic issues and deal with them appropriately. More information on the feedback to 
WFP can be found in Annex 28.
142. The evaluation finds that WFP personnel are highly experienced programme 
implementers and have the appropriate skills in that regard. However, the focus for the next
97 SMP+THR household expenditure on food is 39.8% compared to 43.3% in THR households, and 44.2% in comparison households.
98 PLAN International (2017) Program review of local authority and community mobilization for school feeding. Key findings and lessons 
learned. PLAN International Cambodia.
Key Findings and conclusions – Results Framework 2
• WFP/PLAN have achieved or almost achieved most output targets for the RF2 activities.
• The full package of USDA supported interventions have not been applied in all USDA 
schools, with SMP+THR schools receiving most support. This has resulted in these schools 
having better school infrastructure, greater access to clean water and soap for handwashing 
than in THR or comparison schools.
• Although not all the RF2 outcome indicators have been achieved, the USDA-supported 
schools have performed better than the comparison schools.
• Parents in USDA supported schools have received training that has increased their 
knowledge on health, hygiene and nutrition and dietary practices.
• The evaluation found little difference in the food consumption or nutrition of households in 
the different intervention groups, except that more THR households reported using 
consumption coping strategies.
41
phase of FFE implementation will require skills in governance, capacity building and 
organizational development.
143. WFP Cambodia Education Unit: The Education Unit has a complex job to implement 
a programme that includes different implementation modalities, funded by multiple donors, 
using different indicators depending on donor requirements. The USDA RFs are a heavy 
administration load for the small team, with many indicators outside the usual WFP School 
Feeding monitoring system. Despite this, in partnership with PLAN, the Unit has effectively 
monitored all the required USDA McGovern-Dole indicators as per the programme agreement, 
and effectively utilized the data for decision-making.
144. WFP Cambodia Logistics Unit and food delivery systems: All evaluation 
stakeholders acknowledged WFP as a leader in commodity management and transportation, 
and positively reviewed their procurement, storage and delivery of food commodities, 
including their operational guidance to support their logistics systems, and strict quality 
standards. Overall, the WFP logistics system has enabled the provision of high quality food to 
be delivered to the USDA supported schools in a timely manner with no complaints.
145. WFP Cambodia MERVAM Unit: The MERVAM Unit has played several important 
roles in the implementation of the FFE programme. The Unit collects, analyses and maps data 
on the economic, food security and nutrition situation in Cambodia. This data has been used 
effectively by the programme teams for planning and targeting purposes. The WFP maps and 
data are also used by other agencies and donors in Cambodia for their programme planning.
146. In 2015, to improve programme impact and value-for-money, the Unit established an 
innovative new system that enables more efficient outcome monitoring and more responsive 
programme monitoring: Platforms for Real-time Information SysteMs (PRISM). The system 
includes mobile data collection devices for routine monitoring and assessment. This is a key 
WFP Cambodia innovation over this evaluation period and it was positively evaluated by 
several stakeholders.
147. WFP CO is in consultation with MoEYS regarding the possible roll out of PRISM and 
make it possible to collect information on the Effective School Standards.99 With PRISM’s 
connection to the Ministry of Planning’s IDPoor database, Government and development 
partners will also be able to more efficiently provide scholarships to the most vulnerable 
households. More information on PRISM can be found in Annex 29.
Implementation partnerships
148. The FFE programme has successfully achieved most of the planned outputs due largely 
to the field implementation by PLAN and the MoEYS, and overall monitoring by WFP Field 
Assistants.
149. Plan International is an experienced NGO in programme management and the FFE 
programme has been well implemented and monitored by PLAN personnel. PLAN also 
contributes approximately US$400,000 per year to the programme’s activities (US$1.2 
million+ over this programme period). PLAN has conducted multiple community mobilization 
activities with local community groups, commune councils and parents and have documented 
key lessons learned.100 These lessons will be useful for the next phase of programme 
implementation as the local authorities and communities take on more responsibilities.
150. The main constraint of the partnership with PLAN is that neither they nor WFP have 
expertise in literacy programming, which has meant that the literacy related training and 
support to schools has not been implemented fully. The new phase of programming (2017-
99 The Effective School Standards are a series of indicators that monitor measurements on enrolment, performance, parental and community 
engagement, student services, teacher student ratios, learning materials, school administration and environment
100 PLAN International (2017) Program review of local authority and community mobilization for school feeding. Key findings and lessons 
learned. PLAN International Cambodia.
42
2019) brings a new partnership between WFP and World Education that should effectively 
address this issue.
151. Collaboration with MoEYS: Support from the MoEYS is critical to the success of the 
FFE programme as they are responsible for all the infrastructure and personnel connected to 
the schools. MoEYS personnel at district level are particularly involved in the programme and 
participate in regular school feeding related meetings. The MoEYS has also provided ongoing 
support to WFP activities in Cambodia by providing 2,000 mt of rice per year.
152. Programme monitoring: Information on school-based activities is captured by WFP 
and PLAN field staff through mobile uploading of geo-referenced checklists using smart 
phones and tablets. Results are captured in real time in an online platform which allows 
programme managers to monitor progress and respond in a timely manner in case of alerts 
and concerns. Outcome information is captured though an annual comprehensive survey of 
targeted schools, as well as during dedicated donor evaluations.
153. The MoEYS personnel at provincial and district level conduct regular site visits for
oversight and help school administrators where needed, and results are discussed inquarterly 
sub-national coordination meetings. Programme performance analysis makes use of 
information captured in the national EMIS, compiled from individual reports from all schools 
in the country.
154. The evaluation found that the WFP and MoEYS monitoring systems are not streamlined, 
resulting in the MoEYS personnel having little knowledge of programme targets, outputs, 
outcomes or ongoing results in general. The ET finds that the MoEYS is currently not ready to 
take over the sophisticated monitoring and evaluation system currently shared between WFP 
and PLAN. The potential roll out of the PRISM within the MoEYS may address this.
2.3.2 External factors
155. The role of other agencies: The evaluation identified several other agencies working
in the FFE targeted schools, implementing activities like those within the FFE programme. 
This means that not all the programme results can be attributed to USDA and WFP/PLAN 
alone, particularly the case for infrastructure rehabilitation and construction, the provision of 
school stationery and books, and teacher training. During the qualitative field mission, theET 
visited USDA supported schools that were equipped with libraries, created and supplied with 
reading material by Room to Read, an NGO that has been involved for many years in 
supporting reading activities in primary schools in Cambodia, in cooperation with MoEYS. 
From SY2013/14 Room to Read has constructed and set up numerous libraries and provided 
books for schools in Siem Reap and Kampong Thom. In 2015-2016, multiple agencies, 
including Room to Read, supported reading activities in USDA supported primary schools.
156. The role of the community: The local school communities have made significant 
inputs into the programme results. School cooks are community members, who ‘volunteer’ 
their time in exchange for a small incentive of rice or cash payment. In addition, the LSFC 
coordinates parents and community members to provide firewood, water and vegetables to the 
schools so that school meals can be regularly provided. The community is also now responsible 
for the payment of incentives to the cooks. In some districts, these costs are now included 
within the Commune Investment Plan, which will ensure ongoing support to the programme.
157. Other partnerships: CARD, MoP, MoI, MAFF, national committees at provincial, 
district, commune and school levels were all involved in programme decision-making 
throughout the evaluation period. The Technical Working Group on Food Security and 
Nutrition coordinated by CARD is an effective structure for open partnership dialogues 
between WFP and other stakeholders involved in school feeding. WFP use this forum to work 
collaboratively towards information and experience sharing, informing policy and decision 
makers, and the transition to national ownership.
43
158. Funding: The FFE programme has been implemented with 100 percent funding as per 
the commitment document signed in 2013. However, future funding for FFE and for other 
programmes in Cambodia is uncertain. This is partly due to Cambodia reaching lower-middle￾income status in 2016, which will probably mean that development partners will change their 
support policy from providing grants to soft or full loan commitments. In addition, USDA 
funding comes to an end in August 2019, which is too early for the planned transition to 
Government ownership and the Roadmap completion by 2021.
2.4 Evaluation Question 4: How sustainable is the programme?
159. The evaluation has found that the FFE model of implementation – reliance on imported 
food commodities, is not the preferred modality of the MoEYS. Although the MoEYS 
appreciates the presence of both the FFE programme and WFP’s school feeding programme in 
general, they lack the capacity to deliver commodities to schools and their budgetary priorities 
are on teacher training and findings ways to recruit more - and better qualified -teachers rather 
than on school feeding. The Government therefore prefers cash-based modalities (lower 
logistic requirements) and prefers to implement a model that benefits the local economy and 
supports farmers, which is why USDA supports the piloting of a HGSF model. Furthermore, 
food fortification within Cambodia is not yet possible, despite salt iodization beingmandatory 
by law. Key informants felt that the provision of locally fortified rice, salt and oil is unlikely in 
the near future. A landscape analysis is planned for late 2017/early 2018 which will bring more 
clarity on this issue. Overall, the evaluation therefore finds that the FFE model is not 
sustainable.
160. Although the ET has not evaluated WFP’s overall school feeding portfolio, the focus of the
field mission on capacity building activities enables the ET to make some evaluation on the 
sustainability of school feeding in general and the transition to Government ownership. To 
evaluate the sustainability of school feeding in general and the likelihood of the activities within 
the Roadmap being achieved by 2021, the ET considered a number of key results including the 
results of the National Capacity Index (NCI), whether each of the short-term activities listed in 
the Roadmap have been completed and/or medium-term activities started, and whether the 
five quality standards of the Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) initiative 
are in place (or in progress). These findings were then triangulated with the qualitative field
Key findings and conclusions – Question 3
• Most programme stakeholders have had partnerships with WFP over an extended period, 
well beyond this period of FFE implementation. Overall, stakeholders recognized WFP 
Cambodia as a well-managed, strong, innovative and flexible office and reported that 
programme implementation has been well managed.
• WFP has rolled out a phone-based standardized feedback mechanism during this period. 
The feedback system has been successful at identifying problems with programme 
implementation, each of which has been appropriately addressed.
• The FFE programme has been well managed by the Education Unit, and appropriate 
improvements to programming have already been made for the new phase on the basis of 
programme monitoring data and input from implementing partners.
• The Education Unit, Logistics Unit and MERVAM Unit have all played important roles in 
the programme and have been positively reviewed by several programme stakeholders.
• Plan International’s implementation and monitoring of the programme has been strong.
• Both WFP and PLAN lack the necessary expertise in literacy programming to implement the 
full breadth of activities required to improve literacy.
• The local school communities have made significant inputs into the programme including 
providing cooks, firewood, water and vegetables to the schools so that school meals can be 
regularly provided.
44
mission KII feedback from multiple MoEYS personnel. More information on the SABER 
approach can be found below and in Annex 30.
Progress on the School Feeding National Capacity Index
161. WFP assesses the progress on improving the capacity of the Government at an annual 
workshop jointly organized by CARD, MoEYS and WFP to challenge and assess the School 
Feeding NCI. The NCI is not intended to be a scientific measure, but a flexible tool to help COs 
determine the progress of a country in the transition and/or national capacity development 
process.
162. The ET notes that the total Cambodian school feeding NCI score101 has increased from 12 
to 15.5 between the first annual workshop organized in 2013 and the most recent meeting in 
January 2017 (reflecting changes up to the end of 2016) (Table 49). The improved score isdue 
to the inclusion of scholarships and school meals in the Social Protection Policy Framework for 
2016-2025, the establishment of the Scholarship Office within the MoEYS, the creation of a
national budget line for the cash scholarship programme, and expansion of the HGSF model.
Table 49: National Capacity Index (NCI)
Quality 
Standard
Policy 
Framework
Institutional 
structure and 
coordination
Funding and 
budgeting
Programme 
design and 
implementation
Community 
participation and 
ownership
2013 3 2 1 3 3
Total = 12
2016 3 2 2 3 3
Total = 13
2017 3.5 3 2.5 3.5 3
Total = 15.5
163. It should be noted that some activities taken into consideration when assessing the school 
feeding NCI are not aligned with the approach of the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme. For 
example, the USDA supported programme includes the provision of food take-home rations 
(THR) but no cash scholarships.
164. WFP has supported multiple Government capacity building activities over the period 
under evaluation including the following:
• 2015: A study tour to Brazil with the cooperation of WFP’s Centre of Excellence against 
Hunger, as part of the Government’s information strengthening and capacity building, 
has a direct relationship with the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme.
• 2016: A joint mission to Siem Reap Province for officials from MoEYS, the Ministry of 
Interior, CARD, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, as well as the Prime Minister’s 
Office. This was funded by USDA. The mission visited schools to which WFP provides 
commodities as well as those who purchase food locally through the home-grownmodel. 
The visit focused on the implementation of different school meals models, which could 
be used in a future national school meals programme.
Progress towards the achievement of the Roadmap activities
165. A Roadmap towards national ownership of the school feeding programme was endorsed 
by WFP and MoEYS in 2015. The Roadmap specifies that by moving away from externally 
supported programmes, the Government will transition to full responsibility for a 
comprehensive, nationally-owned approach to school feeding by 2021. At the core of this 
transition is a strategy that includes approaches and tools that strengthen the Government's
101 Each of the five Quality Standards has a score ranging from 1-4, which reflects the capacity of the country. Weak or absent capacity Score: 1 
point, Limited capacity Score: 2 points, Moderate capacity Score: 3 points, Strong capacity Score: 4 points. The total result is obtained by 
adding the scores for each of the 5 QS. The NCI score will range from 5 to 20.
45
institutional capacity to design, finance and manage the programme over time. The Roadmap 
is organized according to a set of short (2015-2016), medium (2017-2020) and long-term (2021 
onward) periods, and aligns with the quality standards of the SABER approach.
166. The ET note that most of the short-term activities outlined in the Roadmap have been 
completed within the allocated time frame, except for a School Feeding Budget. Key informant 
interviews indicate that an operational School Feeding Budget Line (and its precursor, a School 
Feeding Policy) are critical to the sustainability of school feeding in Cambodia. To date, the 
Government’s main direct input to the programme is the annual contribution to WFP of 2,000 
mt of rice per year, some of which is used for school feeding activities.
Progress towards the SABER quality standards
167. The SABER approach (School Feeding) is a Government-led process that helps to build 
effective school feeding policies and systems. The approach was developed by the World Bank 
in 2013, and outlines five quality standards that should provide the foundation for strong 
nationally-led and sustainable school feeding programme:
• Strong policy frameworks
• Strong institutional structure and coordination
• Stable funding and budgeting
• Sound programme design and implementation, including evaluation
• Strong community participation and ownership.
168. Policy frameworks: There is a misalignment between the FFE indicator and the 
Roadmap in terms of policy framework. One of the indicators for the FFE was to have a 
National School Feeding Policy operational by the end of the 2013-2016 phase, while the 
Roadmap pushes the policy into medium-term targets. Given the current capacity of the
MoEYS, the evaluation finds the medium term more reasonable, although this will make a 2021 
completion difficult.
169. Institutional structure and coordination: This is perhaps one of the areas of 
greatest progress, as WFP has supported the establishment of multiple school feeding 
coordination bodies albeit before the period under evaluation. These include a central level 
Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and a School Feeding Task Force (SFTF) established in 
2011. The PCC is chaired by the Secretary of State, with multiple Directors from MoEYS 
departments as members.102 The SFTF is chaired by the Director of Primary Education with 
nine other members from relevant MoEYS technical departments, to support the management 
and implementation of the programme on the ground and to regularly provide updated 
information on the programme to the PCC team.
170. These structures have been replicated at sub-national level through the establishment of 
Provincial School Feeding Committees (PSFCs) and District School Feeding Committees 
(DSFCs). At school level, the LSFC ensures regular implementation, including daily food 
management, preparation and serving breakfast to children, and reporting. This scheme is not 
limited to the three USDA supported provinces, but implemented in all provinces where WFP 
implements the education component of its country programme.
171. At both national and sub-national level, these implementing bodies have contributed to 
overall planning, implementation, coordination and monitoring of school feeding activities 
within the framework of their limited capacity.
172. Funding and budget: Government ownership has improved over recent years, 
including through the handover of responsibility for the THR programme in nine districts in 
SYs 2012/13 and 2013/14. In SY2014-15, the Government took on full ownership inbudgeting 
for and implementing the primary school scholarship programme in those districts. However,
102 Departments include General Education, Primary Education, School Health, Early Child Care, Planning and Curriculum Development
46
there is still no school feeding budget line, and the qualitative field mission found that the 
MoEYS’s spending priorities include improving teachers’ salaries and recruiting andretaining 
better qualified teachers, rather than on the implementation of school feeding.
173. Programme design and implementation: A critical component of the Roadmap is 
the identification and development of suitable implementation approaches which reflect the 
Government’s priorities and institutional capacity. Although the transition to a national school 
feeding programme is for 2021, there is still uncertainty on the capacity of the MoEYS. Using 
USDA funds, WFP has supported the MoEYS to undertake research on the effectiveness and 
capacity of the Government to manage cash scholarships and HGSF modalities for providing 
school feeding.
174. Community participation and ownership: Strong community participation has 
been identified as a major element towards national ownership by both WFP school feeding 
policy and the SABER approach, as well as the USDA Results Framework.
175. Since 2015, food THRs are no longer provided by the programme as incentives for cooks 
and storekeepers. Local authorities and communities are encouraged to mobilize resources 
locally to complement the increased engagement from Commune Councils and District 
Governors. As noted by WFP, “in successful cases, cooks received more than the basic stipends. 
The experience varies widely across the many schools and communities, leading to uneven 
compensation and motivation of cooks”.103 Communities are also providing other 
contributions for the building and rehabilitation of school infrastructures, including wells, 
latrines and fuel-efficient stoves as described in Section 2.1.
176. The mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the current WFP country programme highlighted a 
widespread tendency by parents and community representatives to depend on WFP assistance 
to maintain school feeding activities. On the other hand, due to the high level of poverty in WFP 
assisted schools, the same MTE indicated that there is a demonstrated limitation to the 
contribution, be it in-kind or in cash, that parents and communities can afford in support of 
school feeding activities. This was confirmed by the community mobilization study by PLAN104
which found that stakeholders were not confident that the SMP could be sustained if funding 
from development partners was significantly reduced. This was due to the limited involvement 
of local government and the limited ability of the local community to increase the regularity 
and size of payments if necessary.
177. Overall, the evaluation finds that the level of Government capacity on school feeding is 
currently consistent with SABER level 1 (out of 5) (see Annex 30). This means that the 
suggested timeline of the current Roadmap is unlikely to be achieved by 2021.
103 WFP Semi-annual Report Narrative, April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016. 104 PLAN International (2017) Program review of local authority and community mobilization for school feeding. Key findings and lessons 
learned. PLAN International Cambodia.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4
 Reliance on imported, fortified food commodities is not the preferred school feeding modality of 
the Government. Therefore, the evaluation finds that the USDA McGovern-Dole model is not 
sustainable as such.
 Through USDA funding, WFP has contributed to gradually strengthening institutional capacities 
at MoEYS central and sub-national levels, as well as local communities. These human resources 
will be important in identifying and implementing the most appropriate school feeding models.
 A Roadmap was adopted in 2015 to guide the Government and partners to produce a national 
strategy to ensure a fully Government-owned and operated school feeding programme. The 
examination of the information collected in the light of the performance drivers commonly used 
to benchmark school feeding systems, in compliance with the five SABER quality standards, 
shows that the transition to a national school feeding programme is still at the very early stage. 
This suggests that the present timeframe set to fully roll-out the Roadmap isover-ambitious.
47
3 Conclusions and Recommendations
178. The following section describes the main conclusions of the evaluation. The conclusions 
are organized as per the international evaluation criteria: relevance, effectiveness, impact, 
efficiency and sustainability. This is followed by six recommendations of how WFP, MoEYS 
and other programme partners can act to build on the key findings.
3.1 Overall Assessment/Conclusions 
Relevance
179. The FFE programme aims to improve literacy among school-aged children, and improve 
the use of health and dietary practices. These objectives broadly align with Government 
policies and strategies, although most stakeholders aside from WFP and PLAN were not aware 
of either of these two objectives. The provision of school feeding aligns well with official policies 
and strategies, and with WFP’s own corporate guidance, but there is a misalignment between
the food security and nutrition objectives of WFP’s other school feeding activities and the 
USDA’s literacy objective of the FFE programme. Similarly, there is a growing disconnect in 
the modality of the FFE programme, with in-kind support not being the preferred model of the 
Government. To resolve this difference, with the support of USDA, WFP is currently piloting 
other school feeding models that utilize local commodities.
180. The school feeding activities and the complementary activities within the FFE 
programme also align well with the work of other development actors. Overall, this evaluation 
found the FFE programme to be appropriate to the education, food security, and gender 
contexts, and coherent to the policy framework of the Government as well as to WFP corporate 
guidance.
Effectiveness
181. The FFE programme has enabled WFP to implement multiple capacity building activities 
and provide support to the MoEYS, including funding research into other school feeding 
modalities. WFP has also effectively contributed to Cambodia’s policy direction, by supporting 
the development of Government policies, strategies and guidelines particularly related to 
school feeding and school health, some of which are now operational. However, key Roadmap 
targets of developing a National School Feeding Policy and establishing a central school feeding 
coordination unit have not been achieved.
182. The evaluation finds that overall the FFE activities have been well implemented and most 
of the output targets have been achieved. The school meals and THR are intended to act as 
incentives for children to enrol, attend and remain in school. The evaluation found that both 
these indicators have been high since baseline with no difference in enrolment rates or school 
attendance found between intervention and comparison schools. Primary school drop-out 
rates have been consistently higher than the national average in all USDA supported provinces, 
with rates for boys higher than for girls. Although still high, the drop-out rates have reduced 
considerably over the period, with rates in Siem Reap below the national average by SY2015/16. 
To continue to effectively reduce dropout rates, schools will need to provide THR to both boys 
and girls depending on individual circumstances.
183. WFP and PLAN have successfully provided school meals and THR to more than 500,000 
beneficiaries and the school meal has been effective at improving children’s attentiveness in 
morning classes. Children in afternoon sessions are not provided with any food in schools, so 
parents provide a meal at home before school starts. Household interviews indicate that the 
presence of the school meal has acted as an important social safety net for poor households 
who might otherwise be unable to provide breakfast to their children.
184. USDA funding has enabled WFP and PLAN to conduct numerous trainings for teachers, 
cooks, storekeepers, MoE officials and parents. Most cooks and storekeepers in SMP+THR
48
schools achieved a passing score on a test on good nutrition and dietary practices, and now 
prepare food and store food in a more appropriate way. Overall, the evaluation finds that the 
training activities have been effective in enabling school personnel to implement and manage 
the programme more effectively. The evaluation found that community awareness campaigns 
have also been effective, with most parents (80 percent) now able to name at least three 
benefits of education. Trainings for parents on health, hygiene and nutrition have also been 
effective with almost all (90 percent) surveyed parents recalling the main messages of the 
training.
185. The FFE programme has been effective at improving school infrastructure, with 
SMP+THR schools having considerably better infrastructure than THR and comparison 
schools. Most SMP+THR schools now have dedicated kitchens (93 percent), food storerooms 
(75 percent), school gardens (87 percent), functioning latrines (100 percent), and soap at 
handwashing stations (97 percent). Almost half the SMP+THR schools (45 percent) also use 
energy efficient stoves, while none were found in THR or comparison schools. In addition, 80 
percent of SMP+THR schools had separated latrines for boys and girls. This is like the 
comparison schools, but considerably higher than in THR only schools (67 percent).
186. The evaluation found that both Strategic Objectives of the programme have been met. 
Activities implemented under SO 1 have resulted in most students in all surveyed schools, 
regardless of intervention type, performing well in the Grade 6 reading comprehension test, 
and performing better than the national average in literacy. Activities under SO 2 have helped 
more SMP+THR schools storing food off the ground, having year-round access to clean water, 
and providing soap handwashing facilities.
187. The programme has also contributed to gender equality and improving the school 
environment for both girls and boys. The construction and rehabilitation of separate latrines 
for girls and boys has contributed to a more conducive school environment, and is likely to 
result in more regular attendance for girls, although there is no monitoring data available on 
this. The THR have been provided to both boys or girls based on poverty criteria, with girls 
being prioritized in locations with gender inequality in schooling. The FFE programme found 
that 56 percent of the THR beneficiaries were girls, although data indicates higher drop-out 
rates in boys.
188. Overall, the evaluation found that SMP+THR schools have received more support, and 
therefore performed better on multiple indicators. It is noteworthy that USDA support has 
resulted in a parallel system of support to schools in the three targeted provinces. Schools 
supported by USDA have received multiple interventions over a long period of time, while 
other schools are behind. It will therefore be of key importance WFP and MoEYS to take note 
of the activities that have been particularly effective and scale up these activities. This should 
include literacy related activities, training for parents and community sensitization, 
infrastructure development and the provision of a school meal.
189. Impact
190. This evaluation was not designed to be an impact evaluation, so it is not possible to 
determine the impact that can be attributed to USDA support. Further, the evaluation found 
multiple agencies working in FFE schools, many of which implement school infrastructure 
development, and/or provide education or literacy resources. This makes attribution ofUSDA 
support even more difficult for some indicators. However, for programme indicators related 
specifically to school meals and to activities not implemented by any other agency, such as 
education campaigns, community mobilization and training of school personnel, it is clear that 
USDA support and WFP, MoEYS and PLAN’s implementation have contributed significantly 
to the achievement of programme outcomes.
191. The ET note that although the qualitative field mission found that the presence of regular 
school meals acts as a safety net for poor families, the full extent of the impact on the food
49
security of the household is not well captured in the monitoring findings. The food security and 
nutrition findings are mixed, and show no difference between USDA supported households 
and the comparison group.
Efficiency
192. The evaluation found that the WFP system of delivering food to schools was efficient. In 
general, WFP provided high quality food commodities with no complaints, and minimal loss 
of food during transportation.
193. The findings from the comprehensive WFP monitoring system has also contributed to the 
efficient implementation of the programme, and changes in implementation as required.
Sustainability
194. The current FFE modality of providing imported food commodities is not a sustainable 
model as the Government prefers cash-based assistance and/or models that support local 
farmers. Through WFP’s support, the Government is currently piloting different modalities to 
determine which are most effective and which ones the Government has the capacity and 
resourcing to implement.
195. The evaluation rates the current capacity of the MoEYS at Stage 1 of the transitionstages 
according to the SABER approach. Given that there is still discussion on the modalities of a 
nationally owned school feeding programme, and the capacity of the government to manage it, 
the evaluation finds the timeline outlined in the Roadmap for transitioning to national 
ownership to be too ambitious.
3.2 Recommendations
196. Although the evaluation has taken place soon after the official end of the extended 2013-
2016 implementation period (in fact extended to June 2017), the CO management hasalready 
taken decisions about the new USDA-supported programme based on their own monitoring 
results, and stakeholder input from the 2013-2016 phase. This was necessary due to the new 
grant proposal process in 2015 in preparation for the 2017-2019 period. These decisions have 
resulted in changes to the 2017-2019 phase of programming including establishing new 
partnerships (World Education and KAPE) to strengthen the implementation of the literacy 
component, removing YSP from the school meals, and supporting the MoEYS to undertake 
research on Government-preferred school feeding models. The ET feels that had the evaluation 
taken place immediately after SY2015/16, the team would have made similar 
recommendations. The ET believe that the current implementation approach is appropriately 
moving forward.
197. The focus of the 2017-2019 phase on the implementation of the Roadmap and capacity 
building of the government means that the ET has prioritized recommendations related tothe 
transition to a nationally owned school feeding programme. Given the tight timeline identified 
in the Roadmap and the current capacity of the MoEYS, the evaluation finds that WFP 
Cambodia’s immediate priority moving forward must be on building Government structures 
for future school feeding implementation and management. The evaluation finds that the 
Government’s preference for a national school feeding programme centres on cash 
scholarships and HGSF. However, it is not possible to determine if the Government can 
dedicate adequate resources to school feeding given the numerous competing demands and 
priorities.
198. Based on the findings and conclusions of this evaluation, the recommendations of the 
evaluation team are outlined below. The recommendations are listed in priority order.
50
Immediate priority – to be initiated or completed within 6 months
Recommendation 1: Continue implementation of the USDA McGovern-Dole Program as 
per the current agreement (2016).
Recommendation 2: In recognition that research findings are imminent from the MoEYS 
on the cost effectiveness of the cash scholarship model, and the capacity of the MoEYS to 
implement a HGSF model of school feeding, the ET recommend that WFP and the Royal 
Government of Cambodia review the research findings as priority. This review should result in 
decisions that will guide the short/medium term development of a national school feeding 
approach. This decision should be made with input from other ministries such as Ministry of 
Economics and Finance, Ministry of Planning and the Ministry of Interior as appropriate.
• The inclusion of both school meals and scholarships in the 2017 National Social 
Protection Framework indicates that future schools feeding activities should involve 
other ministries, in addition to the MoEYS, particularly those involved in social
protection. Considering this, the evaluation recommends that the Government review 
which ministry/ies are now best placed to move the school feeding agenda forward.
Recommendation 3: Based on the research findings and decisions made above, the 
Roadmap should be reviewed by the WFP CO, the MoEYS and other ministries and partners 
as appropriate. The review should focus on identifying the priority actions required to 
coordinate and oversee implementation of a nationally owned school feeding programme 
(including budget).
• The review should also involve the development of a school meals implementation 
transition plan that includes specific responsibilities, timelines and budgets.
Recommendation 4: Recognizing that most WFP personnel have skills in programme 
implementation but not in governance and capacity building per se (including strategic 
planning, policy development, organizational development etc.), the evaluation recommends 
steps be taken to strengthen the capacity of the WFP CO in this regard. The ET supports the 
notion of a workforce planning exercise aligned with the Country Strategy development 
process, to ensure CO staff skills are appropriate for the transition from implementation to 
enabling.
• Depending on the result of the workforce review, WFP CO may need to look for 
opportunities for training from WFP RBB or HQ or other agencies as needed, including 
on strengthening Government institutions.
Medium priority – to be implemented by the end of the 2017-2019 phase
Recommendation 5: The ET understands that Government planning and budgeting 
processes for 2018 have already been finalized, and that no additional Government 
contributions to school feeding are likely to be made before 2019. The ET therefore 
recommends that for the next phase of planning the WFP CO works closely with Government 
counterparts at central and local levels to ensure that school feeding is appropriately reflected 
the next government budget cycle.
• This may include the development of formal school meal contribution plans with annual 
contribution targets.
Recommendation 6: The WFP CO and the implementing partners (World Vision and PLAN 
International) should aim to have a minimum package of infrastructure facilities including 
kitchens, energy efficient stoves, store rooms, handwashing facilities and separate latrines for 
girls and boys in all USDA supported schools with the school meals programme. This should 
help ensure that schools would be able to function efficiently under a national school feeding 
programme.
51
Recommendation 7: The ET recommends that the WFP CO considers opportunities to
undertake additional pieces of research:
• Effectiveness of THR/scholarships: Given that there are currently several USDA 
McGovern-Dole Programme evaluations underway or planned in the Asia region, the ET 
recommends the RBB, with support from COs and HQ as appropriate, undertakes a meta￾analysis of the successes and weaknesses of the USDA McGovern-Dole Programme 
approach to school feeding.
• Increasing micronutrient content of the school meal: The ET recognizes that 
iron-deficiency anaemia is endemic in Cambodia, and that it will be important for a 
nationally owned school feeding programme to provide a nutritionally balanced meal. 
Given the lack of fortification capability in Cambodia at present, the ET recommends WFP 
CO conducts research on alternative, cost-effective strategies to provide a nutrient rich
school meal. These strategies can then be considered by the Government in addition to 
the ongoing work to promote local fortification in Cambodia.
52
4 Bibliography
ActionAid (2014) Flood Impacts on Women: Exploring the Possibility of Gender Sensitive 
DRR Planning.
Asian Development Bank (2014) Cambodia Country Poverty Analysis.
Bundy, D (2009) Rethinking School Feeding: Social Safety Nets, Child Development, and the 
Education Sector. WFP/The World Bank, 2009.
Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey (2013) 
CSO report on Cambodian gender issues (2009)
GIZ Website (2017) Decentralisation and Administrative Reform Programme. 
https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/17335.html. Accessed 23 August.
Hanushek and Rivkin (2012) The Distribution of Teacher Quality and Implications for Policy. 
Annual Review of Economics.
http://www.fao.org/cambodia/news/detail-events/en/c/854063/
http://www.who.int/nutgrowthdb/about/introduction/en/index5.html
MoEYS/WFP (2016) Updated School Meal Programme Guidelines 
MoEYS/WFP School Feeding Roadmap. Signed 28 April 2015.
Molinas, L. & Regnault de la Mothe, M. (2009) The multiple impacts of school feeding: a new 
approach for reaching sustainability. In: WFP (2010) Revolution: From food aid to food 
assistance: Thematic Areas, Chapter 14, p217-230.
Nielsen, N et al (2010) WFP Cambodia School Feeding 2000-2010e: A mixed method impact 
evaluation. DARA. For WFP Office of Evaluation, Rome. OE/2011/008.
Ouma, E. (2016); Promotion of school gardens for better nutrition. PowerPoint presentation 
given at Food and Nutrition Forum. 31 May 2016.
Reed S. et al (2014) Operational Evaluation - WFP Cambodia Country Programme 200202. A 
mid-term evaluation of WFP’s Country Programme 2011-2016. The KonTerra Group.
SBK Research and Development (2017) School Assessment Report 2015-2016. For World 
Food Programme Cambodia.
Sokrathna, P. (2016) Gender review of food security and nutrition policies. Sustainable 
Development Goals 2,5 and 17. Cambodia.
Sopha, A. et al (2015) Teaching Hours in Primary Schools in Cambodia. NGO Education 
Partnership (NEP), www.nepcambodia.org
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2013) Rectangular Strategy for Growth, Employment, 
Equity and Efficiency. Phase III. Page 37.
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. 
National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey. 
National Institute of Statistics and Director General of Health. Phnom Penh
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey. National 
Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning; Available at: 
https://www.unicef.org/cambodia/6.Maternal.pdf
53
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018. Ministry of 
Education, Youth and Sport
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2014) National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018. 
Pages 86, 180-198.
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) School garden preparation and nutrition 
education. Phnom Penh. The Royal Government of Cambodia. The set of resources includes 
Guidance for Trainers, Guidance for Teachers, and Textbooks for students in Grades 4-6.
CARD, MOEYS, & FAO
The Royal Government of Cambodia (2017) Education congress. The Education, Youth and 
Sport Performance in the Academic Year 2015-2016 and Goals for the Academic Year 2016-
2017. 21-23 March 2017. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport.
The World Bank (2013) Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013 
The World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/
UNDP (2015) Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia. Strategy Paper. 
UNDP (2016) Human Development Report 2015.
UNEG (2014) Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations. Guidance 
document. August 2014.
USDA (2016) Food Aid Proposal Guidance. Annex III: Manual for the Use of Results 
Frameworks and Indicators. Food Assistance Division, Office of Capacity Building and 
Development, Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA.
USDA/WFP Commitment Letter for Agreement # FFE-442-2013/035-00. Signed 9 
September 2013.
WFP (2009) Gender policy: promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women in 
addressing food and nutrition challenges. WFP/EB.1/2009/5-A/Rev.1
WFP (2014) WFP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) https://www.wfp.org/about/strategic-plan
WFP (2016) Cambodia County Progress Report. Innovations from the field: Gender 
mainstreaming from the ground up. Institute of Development Studies.
WFP Cambodia (2016) Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food 
security and health, May 2016.
WFP (2016) Gendered nature of intra-household decision-making in Cambodia. WFP 
Cambodia. Phnom Penh.
WFP Country Programme Cambodia 200202 (2011-2018). WFP/EB.A/2011/9/1 
WFP Semi-annual Report Narrative, April 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016.
WFP, ActionAid, ADB, Danish Red Cross, Save the Children and UNICEF (2012) Cambodia 
Post-Flood Relief and Recovery Survey.
Wieringa, F. (2014) Final Report FORISCA Project. Institute of Research for Development.
Wieringa, F., Chamnan, C. & Kuon, K (2016) Acceptability of different types of rice fortified 
with multiple micronutrients in women of reproductive age, working in a garment factory. A 
comparison between coated and extruded fortified rice. Institute of Research for 
Development.
54
WFP Cambodia
http://www1.wfp.org/countries/cambodia
Phnom Penh, December 2017, Report Number
i
Decentralized Evaluation
Endline Evaluation of United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant Food for 
Education (FFE) Programme for WFP Cambodia
2013-2016
Volume 2:
ANNEXES to Final Report
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making
2
List of Annexes
Contents
List of Annexes..........................................................................................................................................................2
Annex 1: Terms of Reference....................................................................................................................................3
Annex 2: Description of project activities.............................................................................................................. 15
Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix ................................................................................................................................... 21
Annex 4: Documents included in the secondary data review ...............................................................................33
Annex 5: Original methodology for selection of case and control schools (2014 baseline) .................................36
Annex 6: List of 2017 endline survey case and control schools ............................................................................ 37
Annex 7: School assessment................................................................................................................................... 41
Annex 8: Teachers questionnaire...........................................................................................................................50
Annex 9: Household questionnaire Household Survey Questionnaire ................................................................52
Annex 10: Selection of respondents for quantitative surveys ...............................................................................70
Annex 11: List of agencies........................................................................................................................................71
Annex 12: Key informant semi-structured interviewed guides............................................................................. 72
Interviews with Teachers........................................................................................................................................ 74
Annex 13: Additional information on participation in education in Cambodia ................................................... 75
Annex 14: Additional information on key government strategies and policies.................................................... 76
Annex 15: Additional information on the decentralization and deconcentration strategy of the Royal 
Government of Cambodia ...................................................................................................................................... 79
Annex 16: Additional information on WFP’s relevant policies and corporate guidance......................................80
Annex 17: Other agencies working in the FFE programme schools...................................................................... 81
Annex 18: Additional information on the alignment of the FFE programme with other development actors ...82
Annex 19: Additional information on the household survey respondents ...........................................................83
Annex 20: Additional findings for Results Framework 1 – Improved literacy of school aged children..............88
Annex 21: Information on the new partnership between WFP and World Education for supporting 
literacy activities in USDA supported schools .......................................................................................................93
Annex 22: T-tests on survey data – RF1 ................................................................................................................94
Annex 23: Additional findings on literacy testing .................................................................................................97
Annex 24: Additional findings for Results Framework 2: Increased use of health and dietary practices...........98
Annex 25: T-tests on survey data – RF2..............................................................................................................100
Annex 26: Additional findings: Household level food security and nutrition.....................................................101
Annex 27: Benefits of school feeding as reported by parents.............................................................................. 103
Annex 28: Additional information on the WFP feedback mechanism ............................................................... 105
Annex 29: Additional information on WFP’s Platforms for Real-time Information Systems (PRISM)............ 106
Annex 30: SABER stages of transition................................................................................................................. 107
Annex 31: Updated PMP – Results Framework 1.................................................................................................118
Annex 32: Updated PMP – Results Framework 2............................................................................................... 124
3
Annex 1: Terms of Reference
1. Introduction and Context
This Terms of Reference (TOR) is for the End-line evaluation of United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) McGovern-Dole Grant (MDG) Food for Education (FFE) supported school feeding 
activities in Cambodia in FY2013-2016.1 This TOR is also for the Baseline Survey of the USDA MGD 
FFE- supported school feeding activities in Cambodia in FY2013-2016. Both evaluations are included 
in one TOR to ensure better continuity in terms of evaluation management, leading to better 
understanding by the evaluation team of the programme and the context. This is anticipated to improve 
the usefulness of evaluation findings, while also creating efficiencies in the contracting and management 
of the evaluation process, ensuring better cost effectiveness.
The Government of the United States of America, through the USDA MGD Programme, has been a 
trusted partner of the World Food Programme (WFP) in Cambodia, dating back to 2001. Since its 
inception, this partnership has ensured that more than 3.4 million children have benefited from School 
Feeding Programmes.
These evaluations are commissioned by WFP’s Cambodia Country Office (CO) and will occur between 
2017 and 2019. These evaluations will cover the end of actual implementation of the MGD funded 
operation 2013-2016 and the implementation of the MGD funded operation for 2017-2019. The 2017-
2019 MGD funded operation is a continuance of the 2013-2016 MGD programme, covering the same 
provinces and continuing the programme in largely the same schools. The approach and transfer, under 
these grants, is largely the same with some schools receiving the School Meals Programme (SMP), some 
schools receiving the Take Home Ration (THR) Programme and other schools receiving both 
programmes, depending on the detailed targeting criteria within WFP. The main difference in the two 
grant periods (2013-2016 and 2017-2019) is the stronger focus on government management of the 
programme and the accelerated pace of handing over programme responsibilities as WFP anticipated a 
full handover of the programming in the years after the end of the 2017-2019 grant. The 2017-2019 
grant is also more focused on partnership to achieve maximum impact, with a particularly strong focus 
on literacy improvements.
Recognizing the importance of sustainability of the school feeding programme moving forward, WFP’s 
overarching vision is to oversee the transition from a WFP-led school feeding programme in Cambodia 
to a government-led programme by 2021, as outlined in the School Feeding Roadmap which was agreed 
and signed between WFP and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MoEYS) in May 2015. WFP’s 
strategy is to utilize MGD commodities and capacity building funds to increase the readiness of MoEYS,
preparing them for adopting the school meals programme and absorbing the THR beneficiaries into the 
national cash scholarship programme. WFP’s FY2017-19 (SY 2016/2017, 2017/2018, 2018/2019) MGD 
programme of US$15 million will be used to reach 859 schools with the SMP and THR in three of 
twenty-five provinces, while also supporting complementary activities focused on improving literacy as 
well as health and dietary practices. Resources will be used to provide 145,000 pre-school and primary 
schoolchildren with school meals and 15,000 children from the poorest households with THRs.
The evaluation process within WFP will be managed by an evaluation manager (WFP - EM) appointed 
by the WFP Cambodia Country Office (CO) who will be the main focal point for day to day contact during 
the evaluation period. An outside firm will be contracted to carry out the actual evaluation and will 
appoint their own evaluation manager in accordance with normal practice. Appropriate safeguards to 
ensure the impartiality and independence of the evaluation are outlined within these TORs.
These evaluations will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of performance of the 
operation and associated interventions so far, so that WFP-Cambodia and the Cooperating Partners 
(CPs) can adjust the project’s course as necessary to ensure effective programme management and 
design, while also making it possible to quantify the impacts of the programme. Please note, evaluations 
reports should contain explicit conflict of interest statements verifying the evaluators’ independence. 
This TOR was prepared by WFP-Cambodia based upon an initial document review and consultation 
with stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold: firstly, it 
provides key information to the evaluation team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation 
process; and secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluation.
1 The 2013-2016 USDA MGD was for USD 19,224,753 and the 2017-2019 USDA MGD is for USD 15,212,822.
4
2. Reasons for the Evaluations
2.1. Rationale
The WFP Cambodia CO is commissioning an end-line evaluation for the 2013-2016 MGD supported 
WFP Education Support activities in Cambodia to assess the performance of programme operations 
and associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and programme strengthening. This 
endline evaluation is particularly important given that WFP will hand over large parts of the programme 
to the government in the coming years. It is therefore critical that the successes and failures of the 
programme are clearly outlined so that WFP can address them more robustly in the next 3 years of 
programming.
The WFP Cambodia CO is also commissioning a baseline survey for the 2017-2019 MGD supported 
WFP Education Support activities in Cambodia to assess the performance of programme operations and 
associated interventions for the purposes of accountability and programme strengthening. As for the
2013-2016 endline evaluation, these exercises are important in ensuring that the weaknesses in the 
programme from past years are being adequately addressed in a fashion that will facilitate eventual 
handover of the programme. This requires not only a focus on solutions, but a focus on solutions that 
the Government of Cambodia can sustain over time.
As one MGD supported School feeding programme is now concluding and another project period is just 
beginning, the Cambodia CO is keen to evaluate progress to date and to help design and tailor the MGD 
School Feeding programme 2017-2019 for maximum effectiveness. Further, a key component of the 
programme is to work in partnership with stakeholders and provide capacity building to government to 
eventually take over the programme. Therefore, an important part of this evaluation will be to assess 
the partnerships with the government and other key stakeholders, such as the local communities and 
NGOs.
These evaluations will also fulfil a requirement of USDA that MGD funded projects critically and 
objectively review the progress of the 2013-2016 school feeding programme while also enabling WFP￾Cambodia and USDA to assess the baseline of the 2017-2019 school feeding programme.
2.2. Objectives
Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning.
• Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of all MGD 
funded activities.
• Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw 
lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to 
inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and 
lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
For USDA, the purpose of the evaluation is to critically and objectively review and take stock of the 
program participant’s implementing experience and the implementing environment, assess whether 
targeted beneficiaries are receiving services as expected, assess whether the project is on track to 
meeting its stated goals and objectives, review the results frameworks and assumptions, document 
initial lessons learned, and discuss necessary modifications or mid-course corrections that may be 
necessary to effectively and efficiently meet the stated goals and objectives.
2.3. Stakeholders and Users
Stakeholders: A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have an interest in the results 
of the evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process.
Accountability to affected populations is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key 
stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s 
empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by 
women, men, boys and girls from different groups.
Users: The primary users of this evaluation will be:
• WFP Cambodia and its main implementing partner, MoEYS, notably with respect to decision￾making related to programme implementation and/or design, country strategy andpartnerships.
• Ministry of Health (MoH), Ministry of Agricultural, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), and the Council 
for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) (as appropriate);
• Implementing partners including: World Vision, Plan International and World Education as well as 
others for targeted programme design, including for instance, school committees. Findings will also 
be shared with education development partners (DPs), including USAID and other key education, 
nutrition and health stakeholders.
• USDA will use evaluation findings to inform project strategy, results frameworks, and critical 
assumptions.
• WFP’s Regional Bureau in Bangkok is expected to use the evaluation findings to provide strategic 
guidance, programme support, oversight, and to extract lessons for sharing across the region.
• WFP Headquarters (HQ) may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability
5
• WFP’s Office of Evaluation (OEV) may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into 
evaluation syntheses.
• The government is expected to take over the management and monitoring of the school feeding 
program over time, therefore, information on whether the programme is yielding the desired results 
is of primary importance.
• Other WFP regional bureaus and COs under their oversight may also benefit from the findings, 
which can contribute to corporate learning on implementation of capacity development 
interventions.
• The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP 
operations. This evaluation will not be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into annual 
syntheses and into corporate learning processes.
To ensure maximum use of the lessons learned for national partners, the resulting reports will be 
translated into Khmer language. Importantly, this will facilitate learning amongst government, as 
technical staff often do not speak or read English.
3. Country Context
The current economic growth has allowed Cambodia to attain lower-middle-income country (LMIC) 
status, with GDP per capita reaching USD 1,1592. Over the past two decades, Cambodia has seen a 
significantly reduced poverty rate, from 50 percent in 1992 to 13.5 percent in 20143. Ranked 143 out of 
188 countries on the UNDP 2015 Human Development Index, Cambodia's growth is expected to remain 
robust at around seven percent, driven by solid performances in garment manufacture, construction, 
tourism, and production of food and cash crops. Cambodia achieved the World Bank’s LMIC status in 
mid-2016, though it is recognised that human capital development and economic sustainability lag, thus 
delaying the graduation from the UN’s least developed country (LDC) rating.
Persistent gender inequality is measured in the Gender Inequality Index; Cambodia is ranked 105 out 
of 149 countries in the 2013 index4. However, women are increasingly income generators, migrating 
from rural areas to urban areas to work or starting small businesses from their homes. The number of 
women having primary occupation in the private sector is higher than men in many provinces5, 
particularly in the garment sector. Women are typically employed at lower levels and paid less. It is 
estimated that on average women are paid thirty percent less than men on commensurate work6.
Despite economic growth and current development in urban areas, rural development lags. Rural 
communities, which make up 79 percent of the population, account or most of the country's poor7. A 
significant proportion of Cambodians lives on the brink of poverty; it has been estimated that losing just 
USD 0.30 a day per person in income would double the poverty rate8. This means that natural hazards 
such as storms, floods, droughts or serious illness could cause profound setbacks to fragile livelihoods. 
A joint WFP, UNICEF, FAO Household Resilience survey9 showed that 13 percent of households 
acquired additional debts because of the 2015/2016 El Nino event, increasing the overall percentage of 
indebted households to nearly 50 percent. While the poor are often disproportionally effected by shocks, 
near poor and middle-class households are also put under considerable stress.
Food poverty reduced from 20 percent in 1993 to 4.1 percent in 2010 and zero in 2014, surpassing 
Cambodia’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 target. However, the newly proposed Sustainable 
Development Goal (SDG) indicators, undernourishment and dietary diversity, suggest that 14 percent 
of households continued to consume less than the minimum dietary energy requirement while 11.6 
percent had inadequate dietary diversity.10 Thus, works remains to be done to end food insecurity and 
hunger for all.
The 2014 Cambodia Demographic Health Survey found that the stunting rate fell from 49.2 percent in 
2010 to 32.4 percent in 2014; approximately half a million Cambodian children under five are stunted 
while wasting remains unacceptably high at 9.6 percent. While micronutrient deficiencies appear to be 
reducing, iodine deficiency in increasing, which impacts growth and cognitive development. Two out of 
three children aged 6-23 months do not have access to timely, appropriate, nutritionally adequate and 
safe complementary food. Total mortality rate of children under five is 35 per 1,000 live births of which 
malnutrition contributes 12.25 percent. It is important to note that while under-nutrition continues to 
play an important role in determining population wellness and productivity, over-nutrition is on the
2 WB. World Bank Open Data: http://data.worldbank.org/ 3 MoP. Poverty Estimate in 2014 in Cambodia
4 Human Development Report,2015, UNDP
5 Commune Database 2013, Ministry of Planning
6 CSO report on Cambodian gender issues. 2009
7 Cambodia Inter-Censal Population Survey, 2013 8 WB Policy Note on Poverty Monitoring and Analysis, October 2013
9 Household Resilience in Cambodia: A review of livelihoods, food security and health, May 2016, WFP.
10 Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute of Statistics, Ministry of Planning
6
rise; while 14 percent of women between 15 and 49 years of age have a body mass index (BMI) below
18.5 (thin), 18 percent are overweight (BMI> 25). This double burden is indicative of economic shifts 
and predicts greater challenges in future, including those associated with non-communicable diseases, 
unless addressed in a timely manner.
In education, Cambodia has made good strides in improving primary education programs in rural areas.
The net primary school enrolment figure increased from 81 percent in 2001 to 98.4 percent in 2015-
2016. The dropout rate has not changed significantly, with primary education stagnating at about 10 
percent and lower secondary education at about 20 percent; though not captured at aggregate level, 
attendance and absenteeism are of concern. Available national statistics don’t show substantial 
differences between boys and girls. The ASEAN integration in 2015 and the desire of Cambodia to be a 
middle-income country by 2030 require Cambodia to make considerable investment in education. The 
Royal Government of Cambodia is expected to double its national budget for education in 2017; much 
of this budget is allocated for the recruitment, training and retention of teachers.
4. Approach of the Evaluations
4.1. Overall Scope
The 2013-2016 End-line evaluation will cover the WFP Cambodia School Feeding USDA MGD Grant 
FFE-442-2013/035-00-A while the 2017-2019 Baseline will cover the WFP Cambodia School Feeding 
USDA MGD Grant FFE-442-2016/015-00, including all activities and processes related to their 
formulation, implementation, resourcing, monitoring, evaluation, and reporting relevant to answer the 
evaluation questions. These evaluations, commissioned by the WFP Cambodia Country Office, will 
cover the end of implementation of the 2013-2106 MGD funded operation and the baseline for the 
implementation of the MGD funded operation 2017-2019.
The endline evaluation for the 2013-2016 MGD grant will be conducted at the same time as the baseline 
survey for the 2017-2019 MGD grant. The justification for joining these exercises is largely due to the 
cost efficiency of such an approach. It will also give the evaluation company a unique understanding of 
what has been achieved to date, where things currently stand and how to achieve the results required 
by USDA moving forward. In practice, joining these exercises requires the evaluation team to follow the 
methodology of the previous baseline survey for the 2013-2016 grant while also devising a new 
methodology for the 2017-2019 period. This means that survey work for both exercises may diverge 
slightly, with study cohorts for the endline and baseline not necessarily matching exactly. This is 
particularly true of control schools as USDA has endorsed the Cambodia CO approach of defining 
control schools in a different way.11
4.2 Quality Assurance
WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards 
expected from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for quality assurance, templates 
for evaluation products and checklists for the review thereof. It is based on the United Nations 
Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation 
community, Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and Active Learning Network for 
Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) and aims to ensure that the 
evaluation process and products conform to best practice and meet WFP’s quality standards. DEQAS 
does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team.
The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the 
provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. Refer to WFP Directive (#CP2010/001) on 
Information Disclosure.
DEQAS should be systematically applied to this evaluation and the evaluation manager will be 
responsible to ensure that the evaluation progresses in line with its process steps and to conduct a 
rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their submission to WFP.
The CO will designate an Evaluation Manager who has no involvement in the daily implementation of 
the school meals programme. An internal evaluation committee (IEC) will be chaired by the Country 
Director (CD) or his/her deputy. The IEC will ensure due process in evaluation management, providing 
advice to the evaluation focal point and clearing evaluation products submitted to the Chair for 
approval.
The CO will further establish an evaluation reference group of WFP and external stakeholders to review 
the results of the evaluation to ensure appropriate safeguards for independence and impartiality (Annex 
7 and 8 shows the composition of the two groups).
WFP’s OEV has developed a quality assurance checklist for its independent evaluations. This includes 
checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. These checklists will be applied
11 Control schools were previously schools within the same province that were not selected for inclusion in the programme. This approach
didnotwork because the overwhelmingmajority of schools withintargetedprovinces were includedintheprogramme. Those not selected 
tended to be urban or peri urban schools which were fundamentally different in terms of performance and quality than rural schools, 
rendering them poor controls. USDA has now endorsed a decision to select control schools from surrounding non target provinces to 
attempt to fix this issue.
7
to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs. In addition, a post-hoc quality assessment 
of the final decentralized evaluation report will be conducted by OEV.
Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should systematically check 
accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any 
limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
4.3. FY2013-2016 End-line evaluation
Purpose & Scope: The Final Evaluation will serve both accountability and learning purposes, 
assessing whether the project achieved the results outlined in the results framework as well as assessing 
the projects effectiveness/efficiency of design, implementation, and management, providing lessons 
learned for stakeholders. The main goal of the evaluation will be to delineate the progress made over 
the past project period and the likely improvements needed in the coming project period to ensure a 
smooth handover to government in the coming 5 years. Where USDA support corresponds exactly to 
the school feeding program cycle, the evaluation will commence from the beginning of the current cycle 
of USDA support. Where the two do not coincide precisely, the life cycle of the school feeding program 
as a whole will take precedence (and dates of baselines) in order to ensure that the school feeding 
program is assessed holistically and USDA’s support as a contribution to it. The evaluation will focus on 
locations receiving USDA support.
Key Evaluation Questions: The final evaluation will use the internationally agreed criteria of 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The final evaluation will put greater 
emphasis than the Mid Term Evaluation, conducted in 2015, on the effectiveness, impact and 
sustainability of the program. The final evaluation is thus focused on accountability (against intended 
results) and learning (for the continuance of the school feeding in Cambodia).
The final evaluation will assess the impact of the program against the following objectives: improved 
quality of literacy instruction and materials; increased student and teacher attendance; increased 
student enrolment rates; decrease in student absences; improved knowledge of health, hygiene, 
nutrition, and sanitation practices; and increased government engagement and capacity building to 
manage and implement school meals programs. The evaluation will document the trends in literacy 
achievement from students in program schools and non-program schools, where data is available.12 
Preliminary emphasis of the final evaluation would include an examination of:
Areas for analysis will include the extent to which the objectives, targeting, 
choice of activities and of transfer modalities were:
Are the activities and transfers appropriate to the needs of the target
The 
appropriateness 
of the program
The results of 
the program
Why and how 
the operation 
produced the
population?
Are the activities and transfers aligned with relevant stated national policies, 
including sector policies and strategies and do they seek complementarity with 
the interventions of relevant humanitarian and development partners [as well 
as with other CO interventions in the country, if relevant]?
Are the activities and transfers aligned with WFP strategies, policies and 
normative guidance?
While ensuring that differences in benefits between boys and girls from 
different groups are considered, the evaluation will analyze:
The efficiency of the program (attainment of the planned outputs, cost factors, 
logistics and pipeline performance);
The effectiveness of the program (the contribution of outputs to selected 
program objectives);
The intended and unintended impacts of the program (comparing to non￾program schools/areas against selected program objectives).
MoEYS capacity to manage school feeding moving forward
Does the Government of Cambodia have adequate institutional and human 
resource capacity to assume responsibility for future school meals and 
scholarship activities?
Is the design of the programme suitable to government management?
Which procurement models are feasible for government and how can they 
designed in such a way to ensure accountability and transparency?
Is there a functioning government reporting and monitoring and evaluation 
system?
Are community feedback mechanisms in place?
The evaluation should generate insights into the main internal and external 
factors that caused the observed changes and affected how results were 
achieved. The inquiry is likely to focus, amongst others, on:
8
12 In line with WFP’s School Feeding Policy WFP/EB.2/2013/4-C.
9
observed 
results
Sustainability of 
the project 
moving forward
Internally (factors within WFP’s control): the processes, systems and tools in 
place to support the operation design, implementation, monitoring/evaluation 
and reporting; the governance structure and institutional arrangements 
(including issues related to staffing, capacity and technical backstopping from 
RB/HQ); the partnership and coordination arrangements; etc.
Externally (factors outside WFP’s control): the external operating environment; 
the funding climate; external incentives and pressures; etc.
The implications for this as the programme transitions to MoEYS
With a roadmap for national ownership of the school feeding programme 
already being implemented, the government will begin to gradually assume 
ownership of the programme over the next 5 years. As such, the evaluation 
should have a strong focus on various implementation models tested over the 
course of the project period. It should draw conclusions about the following: 
Cost effectiveness, efficiency and practicality of each of the models tested 
Government buy in on each model tested
Recommendations on which model may be most appropriate given the findings 
Evidence that activities are likely to be sustained or scaled up beyond the project 
life
The evaluation should also assess the success of USDA supported initiatives to 
improve information systems within MoEYS to ensure transparency and cost 
effectiveness of the programme.
Methodology: As with the Mid Term Evaluation, the Final Evaluation will take a program theory 
approach based on the results framework. It will draw on the existing body of documented data as far 
as possible. Documents will include previous evaluations of the school feeding program as well as all 
monitoring data and the Mid Term Evaluation. The evaluation will use mixed methods (including 
quantitative and qualitative survey techniques) and triangulate information from different methods and 
sources to enhance the reliability of findings. Participatory methods, like focus group discussions and 
key informant interviews, will be used where relevant to highlight lessons learned and case studies 
representative of the interventions.
Fieldwork will mirror the methodology of the baseline survey, which followed a quasi-experimental 
design. Before/after comparison will be done through use of the same sampling strategies followed in 
the 2014 baseline survey13. Through these methodological options, the evaluation will endeavour to 
analyse questions on impact of project interventions (Key Question 2)
Partnership with local research firms is encouraged in order to ensure that there is local knowledge 
including as a part of the evaluation team. This includes the use of local enumerators for any survey 
work, ensuring that culturally and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration teams 
have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries.
The final evaluation will be conducted in two (of the three) USDA supported provinces, Siem Reap and 
Battambang. Kampong Thom province will be excluded from the evaluation given the methodology 
decided upon by the research agency that handled the baseline survey in 2014. According to the 
company that handled the baseline survey, Kampong Thom could not be included as only part of the 
USDA programme was implemented in the province (there was SMP but no THR beneficiaries). 
Inclusion of this province therefore would complicate the analysis of project outcomes without 
providing added benefits (given that poverty and educational indicators in Kampong Thom are quite 
similar to the situation observed in the other two provinces). This complication is a result of the various 
cohorts that were examined individually in the initial baseline methodology. Excluding Kampong Thom, 
the final evaluation, as is based on the baseline, will consist of a sample survey among USDA- supported 
beneficiaries in 531 target schools and communities as well as non-beneficiaries in control schools and 
communities. Control schools have been “matched” to USDA supported schools according to geographic 
proximity and socioeconomic characteristics, including poverty status of surrounding communities and
school infrastructures (as much as possible). All schools selected for the baseline and midline survey will 
be visited again for the final evaluation.
Upon request of USDA, the evaluation company is also requested to assess Kampong Thom separately, 
examining the implementation and management of the SMP in Kampong Thom, and determine 
whether program targets and results were achieved in the province through quantitative analysis of key 
performance indicators.
The research agency or other entity is requested to provide the following resources and outputs:
13 Case and control schools selected in the baseline are attached in Annex 4. These were same schools visited as a part of the baseline 
survey.
9
• Conduct a detailed desk review and consultations with relevant staff at MoEYS and Plan 
International
• Develop survey methodology based on baseline and midline surveys and develop the qualitative 
assessment tools required
• Develop an inception report
• Undertake data collection
• Manage data entry, cleaning and analysis
• Draft final evaluation
• Final presentation and dissemination of findings
Timeline14: The duration of the assignment is from July to October. The specific timetable is shown 
in Table 1.
Table 1: Final Evaluation Planning Timeline
Activities July August September October
Inception phase
Field work
Data entry
Reporting
Presentation of final
results
Deliverable timelines: The main deliverables will be the following:
Deliverable Due Date Description
Inception Report 7 August 2017 Report should describe the following:
Understanding of the project based on project documents 
and literature review
Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan, 
control group selection. and field procedures
Quality assurance plan 
Communication protocol
Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, 
and timing)
Data collection tools
Data Collection 
Tools
7 August 2017 Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of 
data collection tools
Final Cleaned 
Data
15 September 
2017
Clean and final English versions of:
quantitative data sets in Microsoft-Excel and any other 
utilized format (SPSS, STATA, etc)
qualitative transcripts, field and interview notes, complete 
list of key informant interviews and FGDs in Microsoft￾Word document
Draft final 
evaluation 
report 
PowerPoint 
Presentation
Final evaluation 
report
15 October 2017 The report should be submitted in English addressing all the 
evaluation objectives and questions listed in the scope of 
work
15 October 2017 Presentation should include an abbreviated list of evaluation 
findings that can be presented to relevant internal and 
external stakeholders
31 October 2017 Report should include the following sections:
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms and abbreviations
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary (no longer than two pages)
• Background (Program description and purpose of 
baseline)
• Methodology and Implementation
• Methodology Limitations (strengths and weaknesses)
• Results and Findings (in accordance with theobjectives)
• Lessons Learned
14 Please note, the baseline survey and mid-term evaluations were conducted in March in 2014 and 2015 so comparability issues need 
10
to be assessed.
11
• Recommendations (for future similar project)
• Annex: Table of key program indicators from the PMP
with updated values in comparison to baseline values 
(for the midterm and final evaluations)
• Annex: Scope of Work for the evaluation
• Annex: Inception Report for the evaluation
• Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), survey(s), 
interview protocol(s), focus group discussion protocol(s)
4.4. FY2017-2019 Baseline survey
Purpose & Scope: A baseline survey15 will be conducted to establish background demographic and 
socioeconomic characteristics and benchmark information for outcome indicators and targets as 
specified in the results section as well as the performance monitoring plan. A key purpose of the baseline 
survey also includes validating project design assumptions and identifying threats to project 
implementation, providing the information necessary to ensure better implementation and maximise 
impacts. The baseline also examines additional outcomes of interest such as food security, nutrition, 
health, coping strategies, dietary diversity and livelihoods. Individual, household and community level 
surveys will be conducted, while also utilizing information from School Assessments and regular 
monitoring checklists.
The baseline survey will be conducted in all MGD supported provinces, including Siem Reap, Kampong 
Thom and Battambang. The baseline survey consists of a sample survey among beneficiaries in target 
schools and non-beneficiaries in control schools. WFP will not attempt to locate control schools within 
the areas of intervention, as this has historically been difficult given the widespread coverage of the 
programme in rural areas. In the past, this has resulted in control schools largely being located in peri￾urban areas, thus tending to be better off than the average rural school. Thus, control schools will be 
identified from the nearest unassisted provinces, with the independent evaluator, after a careful review, 
responsible for identifying them. This decision will hopefully provide more comparability amongst 
assisted and comparison schools, more effectively delineating the impact of the programme on literacy, 
health and nutrition.
As indicated above, a key component of the baseline survey will be school assessments, conducted at 
the end or start of every school year. These school assessments help identify gaps and set priorities for 
programming.
Preliminary Key Questions: The baseline serves as a benchmark for the programme activities and 
targets, providing the evidence-base against which it is possible to measure progress throughout the 
course of the project period as well as assess achievements and impact during the final evaluation. The 
survey is designed to address the following questions:
• What is the current status of key performance indicators such as literacy, retention, enrolment, 
attentiveness, attendance, food security, hunger, water and sanitation facilities and health and 
nutrition, taking into account that WFP has been running a school feeding programme in these 
areas for several years?
• What remaining progress must be made to achieve the objectives in literacy and health and 
nutrition as outlined by USDA?
• What issues or factors need to be further invested in to ensure that objectives are met?
• What further investments need to be made to ensure the programme is sustainable after USDA 
assistance has ceased?
Methodology: The evaluation team will design the baseline methodology during the inception phase, 
including the sampling methodology, sample size calculations, and, in coordination with WFP, 
identification of control schools. The baseline survey should employ quantitative and qualitative data 
collection methods conducted in parallel. Quantitative data should be collected via a cross-sectional 
survey of a sub-sample of SFP schools and beneficiaries. Extensive desk research should complement 
this process. Qualitative data should be collected through focus group discussions (FGD) and Key 
Informant Interviews (KIIs) and provided an independent source of information to triangulate and 
support the quantitative findings. A quasi-experimental design is preferred for the baseline and final 
evaluations. Probability, multi-stage/cluster sampling will be utilized for the survey-based portion of 
the baseline to select target schools and schools/ respondents. The survey modules utilized include a 
household and child questionnaire as well as school questionnaire (which were developed in accordance 
with corporate outcome indicators and guidelines from WFP and USDA). Overall, the baseline 
methodology should consider the following:
15 The baseline survey will be coupled with the end-line survey from the previous MGD grant, maximizing the efficient use of MGD 
funding.
12
Partnership with local research firms is encouraged in order to ensure that there is local knowledge 
including as a part of the evaluation team. This includes the use of local enumerators for any survey 
work, ensuring that culturally and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration teams 
have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries.
Adopt a program theory approach based on the results framework agreed with USDA. The evaluation 
team will review, verify, and elaborate if necessary, the theory of change preparing the framework for
the baseline survey. Specifically, this will include government capacity assessments, previous 
evaluations of WFP-Cambodia’s School Feeding Program, as well as all monitoring data;
Draw on the existing body of documented data, and triangulate this with information to be collected in 
the field using the quantitative, sampling methodology as well as appropriate qualitative information 
the adequacy of available CO monitoring data to inform the evaluation needs to be reviewed and the 
methodology adjusted depending on the findings;
Include: a desk review, semi-structured interviews and focus groups (to ensure that a cross section of 
stakeholders is able to participate so that a diversity of views is gathered) and observation during field 
visits. The selection of field visit sites will be based on objectively verifiable criteria and may include 
stratified sampling to ensure a representative selection. Field work should take approximately two 
weeks, however, the service provider is invited to indicate if there are circumstances that would dictate 
less or more time required. Exact timing of the field visits will be negotiated with the country office to 
ensure that there is no overlap with regular country office missions;
Timeline16: The duration of the assignment is from July to October. The specific timetable is shown 
in Table 2.
Table 1: Final Evaluation Planning Timeline
Activities July August September October 
Inception phase
Field work 
Data entry 
Reporting
Presentation of final 
results
Deliverable timelines: The main deliverables will be the following: 
Deliverable Due Date Description
Inception Report 7 August
2017
Report should describe the following:
Understanding of the project based on project documents and 
literature review
Finalized methodology including detailed sampling plan, control 
group selection. and field procedures
Quality assurance plan 
Communication protocol
Finalized timeline (activities, responsible party, outputs, and 
timing)
Data collection tools
Data Collection 
Tools
Final Cleaned 
Data
Draft final 
evaluation report 
PowerPoint 
Presentation
Final evaluation 
report
7 August 
2017
15
September 
2017
15 October 
2017
15 October 
2017
31 October 
2017
Electronic copies of all clean and final English-version of data 
collection tools
Clean and final English versions of:
quantitative data sets in Microsoft-Excel and any other utilized 
format (SPSS, STATA, etc)
qualitative transcripts, field and interview notes, complete list of 
key informant interviews and FGDs in Microsoft-Word document 
The report should be submitted in English addressing all the 
evaluation objectives and questions listed in the scope of work 
Presentation should include an abbreviated list of evaluation 
findings that can be presented to relevant internal and external 
stakeholders
Report should include the following sections:
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms and abbreviations
• Table of Contents
16 Please note, the baseline survey and mid-term evaluations were conducted in March in 2014 and 2015 so comparability issues need 
to be assessed.
12
• Executive Summary (no longer than two pages)
• Background (Program description and purpose of 
baseline)
• Methodology and Implementation
• Methodology Limitations (strengths and weaknesses)
• Results and Findings (in accordance with the objectives)
• Lessons Learned
• Recommendations (for future similar project)
• Annex: Table of key program indicators from the PMP 
with updated values in comparison to baseline values (for 
the midterm and final evaluations)
• Annex: Scope of Work for the evaluation
• Annex: Inception Report for the evaluation
• Annex: Survey Instruments: questionnaire(s), survey(s), 
interview protocol(s), focus group discussion protocol(s)
5. Organization of the Evaluation
5.1. Evaluation Conduct
The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close 
communication with the WFP evaluation manager. The team will be hired following agreement with 
WFP on its composition.
The independent evaluation consultants or consulting companies will conduct and report on the 
evaluation according to USDA and WFP standards:
• Evaluators must be financially and legally separate from the participant's organization;
• Evaluators must have personal and professional integrity.
• Evaluators must respect the right of institutions and individuals to provide information in 
confidence and ensure that sensitive data cannot be traced to its source. Evaluators must take 
care that those involved in evaluations have a chance to examine the statements attributed to 
them.
• Evaluators must be sensitive to beliefs, manners and customs of the social and cultural 
environments in which they work.
• In light of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, evaluators must be 
sensitive to and address issues of discrimination and gender inequality.
Evaluations sometimes uncover evidence of wrongdoing. Such cases must be reported discreetly to the 
appropriate investigative body. Also, the evaluators are not expected to evaluate the personal 
performance of individuals and must balance an evaluation of management functions with due 
consideration for this principle.
To ensure the independence of the studies and the evaluations the role of Evaluation Manager is 
distinguished from the role of the independent evaluation team. As a result, the Evaluation Manager 
cannot take the role of a Study and Evaluation Team member. The main functions and tasks expected 
from the Evaluation Manager, the Evaluation Team, the WFP COs, the OMB and the USDA FAD are 
described below.
5.2. Team composition and competencies
The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of the Evaluation Manager. The 
team will be hired by the company following agreement with OEV on its composition.
The evaluation team will comprise of a team leader and other team members as necessary to ensure a 
complementary mix of expertise in the technical areas covered by the evaluation. The size of the team 
should be devised by the selected evaluation company per the design of the evaluations themselves. The 
team is encouraged to be a mix of internationals and nationals, utilizing partnerships with local research 
institutes. This ensures that cultural and political sensitivities are addressed and that the enumeration 
teams have the local language expertise to elicit the needed information from beneficiaries.
The evaluation team leader will have strong evaluation skills and experience as well as leadership skills. 
At least one team member should be familiar with WFP’s FFE work and with the USDA monitoring and 
evaluation (M&E) policy. The team will be selected during a competitive bidding process in line with 
WFP’s regulations.
The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance 
of expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas:
• Institutional capacity development (with a focus on handover process, cost-efficiency analysis, 
supply chain management, logistics)
• School feeding, education, nutrition and food security
13
• Agro-economics/rural development
• Knowledge management
• Gender and protection expertise / good knowledge of gender issues within the country/regional 
context as well as understanding of UN system-wide and WFP commitments on gender.
All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience, and 
expertise or experience in the country or region.
All team members should have strong skills in oral and written English. Given that local counterparts 
and beneficiaries may have limited English, partnership with local organization/firm for field work in 
Khmer will be recommended.
Experience working or partnering with other institutions that have worked in Cambodia
The Team leader will have technical expertise in one of the technical areas listed above as well as 
expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience in leading 
similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership and communication skills, including a track record 
of excellent English writing and presentation skills.
Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) 
guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation 
team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, exit debriefing presentation and 
evaluation report in line with EQAS;
The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required 
and have a track record of written work on similar assignments.
Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document 
review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) 
contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s).
5.3. Security Considerations
Security clearance where required will be obtained through the Cambodia CO. As an ‘independent 
supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for ensuring the security 
of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational 
reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN Department 
of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel.
However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that:
The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges a 
security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc.
6. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The Cambodia Country Office management will be responsible for:
• Timely provision of comments and inputs on all deliverables. WFP COs will appoint an EM who will 
serve as the main contact person in the country office for the MGD evaluation, serving as the focal 
point for compilation of secondary information for the evaluation as well as handling the logistics 
for the evaluation team. The EM will review main quality assured deliverables and share these with 
the internal evaluation committee (see below), to solicit comments and inputs and to consolidate 
and return these to the service provider through the Regional Bureau. The CO EM will facilitate CO 
participation in teleconferences, briefings and debriefings relating to all deliverables and will also 
be responsible for inviting external stakeholders to attend dissemination events.
• An internal evaluation committee chaired by the CD/Deputy Country Director (DCD) will approve 
Terms of Reference, budget, evaluation team, inception and evaluation reports, which helps to 
maintain distance from influence by programme implementers.
• Acting as Key Informants and providing documentation on school meals programmes for baseline 
studies, and evaluations. Relevant country office staff, as required, will be available to act as Key 
Informants and provide the documentation and data sets required for production of the evaluations. 
The WFP CO MGD Focal Point will facilitate site visits and meetings for the evaluation mission. 
Specifically, the CO MGD Focal Point will facilitate contact details, communications and make the 
necessary contacts with relevant persons for the evaluation but the CO will not facilitate the logistics.
• Endorsing all deliverables (draft and final) before submitting these to the Evaluation Reference 
Group.
• Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials as required
• Endorsing all deliverables (draft and final) before submitting these to the USDA FAD through the 
WFP Washington Office. The WFP COs will pre-endorse all deliverables before transmitting these 
for final approval or comments to the USDA Food Assistance Division (FAD) through the WFP 
Washington Office.
14
• Provide management response to evaluation findings and recommendations for follow-up action 
and participate in debriefings and teleconferences to discuss study and evaluation findings.
The Regional Bureau will take responsibility to:
• Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate.
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the evaluation 
subject as relevant, as required.
• Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports
• Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the 
recommendations.
While the Regional Evaluation Officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other RB relevant 
technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or comment on evaluation 
products as appropriate.
The WFP Washington Office will be responsible for:
• Managing all communication with the USDA FAD relating to Performance Management including 
USDA FAD provision of comments on deliverables and organization of FAD participation in 
stakeholder discussions of evaluation findings and project-level follow-up;
USDA FAD
• Provide inputs and comment on all evaluation draft ToRs.
• Participate in an introduction teleconference with the selected independent evaluator prior to 
evaluation field work for the baseline and final evaluation.
• Participate in discussions of findings and recommendations that suggest changes in the project 
strategy, results frameworks and critical assumptions.
Headquarters: Some HQ divisions might, as relevant, be asked to discuss WFP strategies, policies or 
systems in their area of responsibility and to comment on the evaluation TOR and report.
The Office of Evaluation (OEV), through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the Evaluation 
Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is responsible for providing 
access to the outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports 
from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk function upon request.
7. Communication and budget
7.1. Communication
To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation 
team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. This will 
be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and 
between key stakeholders and by producing clear deliverables that are written in both English and 
Khmer:
The Evaluation Manager will submit all final deliverables to the WFP Evaluation Committee for 
approval. Upon approval of the final deliverables, the Evaluation Manager CO will forward them to the 
Evaluation Reference Group. All communication with USDA will be transmitted via WFP’s Washington 
Office including invitations to the FAD programme staff to participate in teleconferences to discuss CO 
management responses to evaluation findings and recommendations.
The service provider will deliver an evaluation report. USDA comments on final draft report will be 
taken into consideration by the evaluation team in addition to comments from external stakeholders in 
the evaluation reference group. The evaluation team will produce an excel file indicating all comments 
received and how these were addressed. Exit debriefings will follow all field visits. A final presentation 
on the overall findings will be delivered to the RBB and the CO.
A management response will be provided and the evaluation will be posted for the public.
15
Annex 2: Description of project activities
Source: USDA/WFP Commitment Letter for Agreement # FFE-442-2013/035-00. Signed 9 September 2013.
The following gives additional details of each of the 18 project activities. 
Building/Rehabilitation: Kitchens
WPP will use funds provided by FAS to build or rehabilitate kitchens in approximately 30 
schools per year. The activity will be car1ied out through non-governmental partners 
available on the ground with relevant expertise. Kitchens will be built or rehabilitated only 
in schools where there is a high demand and where they are likely to be maintained 
properly. This will be based on the school assessment which includes capacity of the 
community to contribute and their commitment (community and schools) in maintaining
the infrastructure. Local communities are expected to contribute building or rehabilitation 
materials.
Building/Rehabilitation: Latrines
WFP will use funds provided by FAS to build or rehabilitate pit and composted latrines in 
targeted schools. The activity will be carried out through non-governmental partners 
available on the ground with relevant expertise. Latrines will be built or rehabilitated only 
in schools where there is a high demand and where it is satisfactorily shown that schools 
are willing to maintain the latrines properly. This will be based on the school assessment 
which includes capacity of the community to contribute and their commitment 
(community and schools) in maintaining the infrastructure. Local communities are 
expected to contribute building or rehabilitation materials. There will be separate latrines 
for boys and girls which will increase sanitation and provide a cultural incentive to attend 
school.
Building/Rehabilitation: Warehouses and storerooms
WFP will use funds provided by FAS to build or rehabilitate warehouses and storerooms
in targeted schools. The activity will be carried out through non-governmental partners 
available on the ground with relevant expertise. Warehouses and storerooms will be built 
or rehabilitated only in schools where there is a high demand and where it is satisfactorily 
shown that schools are willing to maintain them properly. This will be based on the school 
assessment which includes capacity of the community to contribute and their commitment 
(community and schools) in maintaining the infrastructure. Local communities are 
expected to contribute building OT rehabilitation materials. A high standard of warehouses 
and storerooms ensures better food storage practices and less spoilage and loss of food.
Provide School Meals
WFP will provide a standard nutritionally-optimized breakfast consisting of 115 grams (g) 
rice, 15 g canned fish, 5 g vitamin A-fortified vegetable oil 15 g yellow split peas and 3 g 
iodized salt. The breakfast will be provided to pre-school children ad children in grades 1 
to 6 in 600 primary schools and to cooks and storekeepers in the poorest areas. The project 
will be implemented in collaboration with the Ministry of Education Youth, and Sports 
(MoEYS) and non-governmental partners. WFP will use FAS-donated rice, beans, and 
vegetable oil in the breakfast. WFP will use funds from other donors and contributions 
from local communities to provide other foods, which may include fish fresh vegetables, 
and pulses. If available, WFP will provide fortified rice to all the schools receiving school 
meals under this agreement. Food will be delivered using WFP1s extensive supply chain 
management expertise. WFP field monitors along with MoEYS and non-governmental 
partners will monitor distribution. Storekeepers will be responsible for storing and 
recording food commodities. Cooks will prepare breakfasts on school premises early in the 
morning. Breakfast will be served prior to the start of the school day throughout the school 
year from October until July. The food basket will provide 555 kilocalories (30 percent of
16
their daily calorie requirement), 31 percent of protein intake, 27 percent of fat intake, 19 
percent of iron intake and 9 percent of vitamin A. Local communities will contribute 
firewood and water for cooking.
Training: Teachers
The Education Strategic Plan (ESP) 2009-13 has prioritized, as one of its core 
breakthrough areas, institutional and capacity development of educational staff. This 
includes development of relevant legislative instruments and provision of technical 
training of education officers at all leve1s. Non-governmental partners, such as KAPE and 
PLAN International with cost sharing from WFP, will assist in rolling out activities related 
to teacher training and refresher training. Their participation will ensure sufficient 
coverage of target areas, particularly for temporary locally recruited teachers in remote 
areas and areas with teacher shortages. Activities will focus on improving the quality of 
education, especially with a view to increasing literacy results, through provision of 
specialized training to teachers related to improved child literacy (e.g. early grade reading 
skills to identify and support children with learning difficulties), village and home­based 
remedial support and tutoring (so-called 1 literacy coaching1), curriculum guidance (e.g. 
ensuring the inclusion of core elements necessary for improving child literacy skills), and 
provision of some school equipment and supplies (e.g. visual-aid material for literacy 
instruction). Training will benefit both teachers and schoolchildren leading to improved 
quality of literacy instruction.
Building/Rehabilitation: Wells and water stations/systems
WFP will use funds provided by FAS to build or rehabilitate wells and/or water stations in 
targeted schools. The activity will be carried out either through WFP 'food for work' 
projects by private companies sub-contracted by WFP or through non-governmental 
partners as appropriate, where there is a high demand and where it is satisfactorily shown 
that schools are willing to maintain the wells properly. Building materials will be 
contributed by the local community. Where it is not possible to build or rehabilitate wells_, 
WFP will provide water purifiers to schools where there is no source of drinking water and 
also advise children to bring their own bottles of water for drinking.
Capacity Building: Local, regional, national level
WFP will use funds provided by FAS to work with the MoEYS to: (1) develop a 
sustainability strategy for a national school feeding program; (2) develop policies and 
guidance for the implementation of a national school feeding program including a 
scholarship policy; and, (3) identify capacity development needs and provide technical 
assistance at various levels of government.
To develop a sustainability strategy and program design, WFP will hold a national school 
feeding (SF) sustainability workshop, bringing together all relevant SF stakeholders 
including government representatives and development partners, with the purpose of 
finalizing a clear vision, model and roadmap for a national SF program. The roadmap will 
lay out benchmarks and activities with the incremental steps needed to achieve handover 
to national ownership by 2019. In addition, annual SF reflection workshops will be held 
with the purpose of sharing experiences in the implementation of the agreed joint 
sustainability action plan. Study tours with MoEYS staff are envisaged to take place in 2013 
with the objective of learning from SF experiences within Cambodia and other countries in
the region such as Laos and Bhutan. WFP will strengthen collaboration of government 
institutions at national and sub-national levels to link SF with the National Social 
Protection Strategy, National Nutrition Strategy, and the sub­national governance reform 
program, such as the Commune/District Investment Plans. WFP will support MoEYS in 
the formulation of SF policies and guidance, including a primary school scholarship policy 
planned in the ESP for 2013 and a policy framework for the national school feeding 
program. WFP will support MoEYS in revision and formulation of new Child Friendly
17
School (CFS) policy and ESP ensuring appropriate reflection of national SF program. WFP 
will work with MoEYS to reinforce implementation of existing policies such as the school 
health policy. WFP will support and encourage the government to gradually increase 
contributions from the national budget (beyond the 2,000 metric tons in-kind rice plus 
associated costs currently provided to WFP programs).
WFP will assist MoEYS to identify capacity development needs and provide technical 
assistance to the Project Coordination Committee (PCC) and the School Feeding Task 
Force (SFTF) at the central level as well as SF committees at sub-national levels to improve 
their skills and expertise. WFP will develop an integrated SF monitoring framework 
including CFS and District Training and Monitoring Team (DTMT); set up a national 
database for monitoring and reporting for MoEYS at central and sub-national levels; and 
provide technical supp01t to PCC/SFTF and Provincial School Feeding Committee 
(PSFC)/District School Feeding Committee (DSFC) for regular monitoring of activities at 
school level. Local non-governmental partners will also conduct capacity building activities 
with local communities. MoEYS staff and local communities (members of the Local School 
Feeding Committee) will benefit from this training through greater knowledge of how to 
implement SF and greater engagement of the community.
Develop partnerships with farmer groups to supply food to schools
WFP will work with USAID HARVEST's project or other relevant non-government 
organizations on improving value-chains which connect commercial smallholder farmer 
producer groups to the market. WFP will use its local purchasing power and other donor 
funds to procure food commodities from these farmers. The quantity procured will be 
based on an in-depth assessment of food quality standards and other procurement issues. 
It will bring benefit to farmers by providing a stable market (school feeding) and will 
benefit schools and schoolchildren through more cost-effective and better access to food 
for SF. This may also provide important lessons leamed that will inform the design of the 
national SF program and act as a model for a decentralized, home-grown SF program.
WFP will use McGovern-Dole funding for agricultural skills training and meetings. WFP 
will also collaborate with PLAN international and/or CEDAC to pilot the activity for school 
year 2013-2014.
Distribution: hygiene materials
WFP will provide a package of hygiene materials including a yearly supply of soap, water 
purification filters, and bowls for hand washing for students. Supplies will be distributed 
at the beginning of the school year. One package will be provided to each school. WFP field 
monitors, non-governmental and ministry partners will monitor distributions. The hygiene 
package will benefit schoolchildren and teachers directly and will have benefits in the wider 
community through greater awareness of hygiene practices.
Distribution: kitchen utensils
At the beginning of the school year, WFP will provide a package of kitchen utensils 
including: cooking pots, serving pots, weighing scales and storage equipment (pallets) to 
an estimated 200 schools for 2013, and 150 schools for 2014 and 2015, that are most in 
need. WFP field monitors, non-governmental and ministry partners will monitor 
distribution.
Distribution: school supplies and materials
MoEYS is investing significant efforts in ensuring full coverage of textbooks for primary 
education. The MoEYS is committed to providing textbooks to every child in primary 
school for school year 2012-13. Based on assessed needs, non-governmental partners will 
provide library books, whereas WFP will provide school supplies including folders, hole-
18
punchers, calculators, whiteboards, and other non-food items to each USDA-supported 
school at the beginning of the school year.
Establish School Gardens
WFP will use funds provided by FAS to provide vegetable seeds for establishing gardens at 
the beginning of the school year, in collaboration with non-governmental and government 
partners, and in close collaboration with USAID's HARVEST program. The size of the 
garden support package will depend on a needs assessment (including the size of the 
school, sufficient availability of water, willingness and capacity of school to maintain the 
garden, and schools with limited support from other partners). WFP field monitors and 
non-governmental and ministry partners will monitor distributions of seeds. Fresh 
vegetables grown will be included in breakfast preparation to further improve 
micronutrient benefits to children.
Provide energy-saving stoves
WFP will sub-contract with the local non-governmental organization, Cambodia Center for 
Study and Development in Agriculture (CED AC) whose staff is well-experienced in stove 
building and has previously provided energy-saving stoves to WPP-assisted schools in 
other provinces across Cambodia. CED AC will identify providers of construction materials 
and services, who can then mobilize builders with the requisite technical skills in stove 
building. Technicians will can·y out school feasibility studies to check the feasibility of the 
location and also agree. on a construction schedule. Tree planting can also be incorporated 
into the program for future availability of firewood where it is required and feasible based 
on a needs assessment.
Raising awareness on the importance of education
WFP, in collaboration with non-governmental organizations and SF Committees will 
provide key messages on the value of education at THR food distribution events three times 
a year. Key messages will be provided during the training of provincial and district SF 
committees and other partners. Events will include focus group discussions including 
brainstorming with parents and children on the value of education and vision for the 
future. These discussions will raise key questions such as whether children will continue 
future study after completing primary education, what options they have beyond primary 
school and how they can achieve their goals. Additionally, key messages on the roles and 
responsibilities of parents in encouraging their children to study at home after school 
hours, as well as their participation and contribution to the education programmes, will be 
promoted.
Provide Take Home Rations
WFP will provide monthly take-home rations of 10 kg of rice to children in grades 4 6 at 
regular intervals during the school year, from the beginning of October until the end of 
July, in collaboration with the MoEYS and non-governmental partners. Distributions will 
take place at the end of December, the end of March, and at the end of July. Distributions 
will be carried out at cluster schools. This will allow targeted children from between one to 
five schools to be clustered together to receive food at one designated cluster 
school/distribution point. Food will be distributed by WFP field monitors and MoEYS or 
non-governmental partners who will check that the correct beneficiary is receiving the 
co1Tect allocation of food. Beneficiaries will include children who are categorized as 
belonging to 'ID Poor' 1 households (the poorest 15 percent of the population). Where ID 
Poor does not provide sufficient information, additional selection criteria may be applied 
to identify those most at1isk of dropping out. Girls will he prioritized in areas where there 
is a high gender gap. Ten kg of rice will provide five day's consumption for an average 
household and represents a regular value transfer to the household, thereby reducing
19
negative coping mechanisms as well as providing an economic incentive for children to 
attend school.
Training: Commodity Management
At the beginning of the school year, WFP will provide annual training to a group of core 
trainers (training of trainers) from School Feeding Task Force (SFTF) at central level, and 
Provincial and District SF Committees. The trained members of SFTF, provincial and 
district committees then provide training to 'Local SF Committees' in all WPP-assisted
schools providing school meals. Members of the Local SF Committee include school 
directors, storekeepers, cooks, parents and local authorities (commune chief and village 
chief). The training will include information on program implementation and management 
roles and responsibilities of the school and communities, how to fill in food record forms, 
how to manage food request forms, how to read waybills/receipts and receive food, how to 
manage the distribution cycle, how to prepare reports, and an explanation of the 'full-cost 
recovery' principle for any food losses. This training will increase the capacity of SF 
committees and local authorities in commodity management. It will also contribute to 
minimizing fiduciary risks and will increase transparency and accountability. 1n addition, 
regular follow-up on-site coaching will be provided during monitoring visits throughout 
the school year.
Training: Food Preparation and Storage Practices
WFP will train community cooks in food preparation using a standard recipe for yellow 
split peas and best practices from other schools. WFP will also train storekeepers in proper 
food storage including having pallets under each commodity, regular cleaning of 
warehouses, checking the roof and the window for rain protection, ensuring commodities 
are separated when stored correct food turnover involving first in first out or last in first 
out, and protection of food from pest infestation. Both first in first out (FIFO) and last in 
first out (UFO) methods will be used, where FIFO applies to commodities with long 
expiration dates, and LIFO for those commodities with short expiration dates (e.g. 
commodities with latest delivery to schools but will expire within a short period). Training 
will increase the capacity and knowledge of school feeding committees and will result in 
less spoilage and waste and better dietary practices. Regular follow-up on site coaching will 
be provided during monitoring visits throughout the school year. It will be administered 
jointly with '1Training: Commodity Management." WFP will also provide a regularfollow￾up and do on-site coaching during monitoring visits throughout the school year.
Training: Good health and nutrition practices
WPP, in collaboration with the School Health Department (SHD) within MoEYS and with 
non­governmental partners, will provide training and training material to Local SF 
Committees.
(equivalent of parent-teacher associations) on hygiene and nutrition. Training materials 
will include 'FRESH' posters (Focusing Resources on Effective School Health) which will 
be produced and delivered to schools and commw1ities for posting on public information 
boards. The posters will contain key messages on hygiene, nutrition, and the five keyways 
to achieve food safety. Two to three members of every Local SF Committee will be provided 
with training. The key topics wi11 be agreed upon between WFP and the School Health
Department and will be promoted by the Ministry of Health through its Health Promotion 
department.
Training: School administrators
WFP, in collaboration with non-governmental partners, will assist the Ministry of 
Education, Youth, and Sp011s (MoEYS) to roll out training or refresher training to school 
administrators. The refresher training will focus on overall school management including 
school development plans, creating safe school environments, school reporting systems,
20
tracking students and teacher attendance. Relevant materials for training will also be 
provided. Training will be conducted on an annual basis.
21
Annex 3: Evaluation Matrix
The following matrix has been utilised by the team members to focus questioning with respect to questions highlighted in the ToR.
McGovern-Dole Results Framework: Improved Literacy of School-Age Children (SO1)
Key Question 1: How appropriate is the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of 
information
Data 
Collection
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Relevance
Is McGovern-Dole-supported 
assistance appropriate to the needs 
of the food insecure population?
Attendance rate in targeted 
areas
Drop-out rate in targeted 
areas
Literacy rates in targeted 
areas (Reading capacity as 
per RF indicators)
WFP CO,
SFTP/MOEYS and 
cooperating partners 
M&E data and reports
Desk review Secondary data
triangulated with
quantitative analysis, 
including comparison 
between baseline and 
endline
Strong
Is there a difference between 
these rates for boys and girls?
Coherence
Is McGovern-Dole FFE programme
coherent with relevant stated 
national policies?
Mention/integration of SF in 
national development 
strategy documents
Compliance with MDGs (2, 3)
NSDP, ESP, ESSP Desk review Qualitative analysis –
secondary document 
review triangulated with 
key informant interviews
Strong
Is McGovern-Dole FFE programme 
coherent with other interventions of
WFP in Cambodia and with those of 
relevant humanitarian and
development partners?
Compliance with WFP 
Country strategy
Compliance with UNDAF 
outcomes
WFP Cambodia 
Country Strategy 
UNDAF for Cambodia 
2016-2018
Desk review Qualitative analysis –
secondary document 
review triangulated with 
key informant interviews
Strong
Is McGovern-Dole FFE programme
coherent with WFP strategies, 
policies and normative guidance?
Compliance with WFP 
Strategic Plan and School 
Feeding Strategy
WFP Strategic Plan 
2014-2017 (SO 3,4)
WFP School Feeding 
Policy 2013
Desk review Qualitative analysis –
secondary document 
review triangulated with 
key informant interviews
Strong
22
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of 
information
Data 
Collection
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Efficiency
Has the programme been sufficiently 
funded?
Budget data, budget 
revisions
Planned vs. actual budget 
and expenditure
WFP Financial and 
operational 
information
Desk review
Interviews with 
WFP Finance and 
other support
staff
Qualitative and 
quantitative analysis –
review of budget data 
and triangulation 
between multiple key 
informants.
Strong
Have the McGovern-Dole SF￾supported activities been undertaken 
and completed in a timely manner?
Food delivery data
School supplies & materials 
delivery data
WFP CO, MOEYS
and cooperating 
partners M&E data 
and reports
Desk review Quantitative analysis 
Qualitative analysis –
triangulation between 
multiple key
informants
Medium
Are appropriate human resources 
allocated to implementation?
HR data and organization 
chart in WFP CO, MOEYS, 
cooperating partners
WFP CO, MOEYS
and cooperating 
partners M&E data 
and reports
Desk review Qualitative analysis –
WFP HR information 
triangulated with key
informant interviews.
Medium
How efficient are the arrangements for 
monitoring implementation?
Presence of sufficient 
programme monitoring data 
at both output & outcome
levels
WFP CO M&E data 
and reports
CPs reports
Desk review Qualitative analysis –
triangulation between 
multiple key
informants
Medium
What were the roles and institutional 
strengths/weaknesses of the WFP CO, 
government ministries, cooperating 
partners and beneficiary groups in 
McGovern-Dole FFE programme 
implementation?
Establishment of SF units 
and coordination committees 
at central and decentralized 
levels
WFP CO and 
SFTF/MOEYS
Desk review 
Meetings with 
key informants in 
WFP CO,
MoEYS, PoEs,
DoEs, CPs
Qualitative analysis –
triangulation between 
multiple key 
informants
Medium
Are the monitoring systems in place 
adequate to show impact over a longer 
period?
Analysis produced by WFP 
CO
WFP CO M&E data 
and reports, VAM 
surveys
Desk review Qualitative analysis –
triangulation between 
multiple key 
informants + review of 
what monit-oring data
is collected.
Medium
23
Key Question 1: How appropriate is the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources 
of information
Data 
Collection
Methods
Data Analysis Methods Evidence 
quality
Effectiveness
To what extent have SF activities 
improved student attendance, student 
attentiveness, quality of literacy 
instruction, and contributed to improved 
literacy of school-age children
Attendance rate 
Drop-out rate 
Promotion rate 
Results of EGR tests
Is there a difference between
these rates for boys and 
girls?
WFP CO M&E
data and reports 
MOEYS statistics 
(EMIS)
CPs surveys and 
reports
Desk review 
Field visits
Quantitative analysis -
Comparison between 
baseline and endline 
Qualitative analysis –
Secondary data review and 
triangulation between 
multiple key informants
Medium
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation? (continued)
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Effectiveness (continued)
Are the criteria for targeting 
appropriate?
How has targeting been done? 
Adequate evidence of inclusion of 
education rates, poverty rates, etc.
Number of revisions of CFSVA or 
similar surveys and changes 
introduced in SF targeting 
accordingly
MOEYS statistics 
(EMIS)
WFP MERVAM
surveys and reports
Desk review
Meetings with WFP 
CO and MOEYS staff
Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between 
baseline and 
endline 
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key
informants
Medium
Are the outputs levels sufficient? No. of beneficiaries receiving food 
and non-food items vs. planned. Is 
there a difference between boys and
girls?
WFP CO M&E data 
and reports
SPRs
Desk review Quantitative 
analysis
Medium
Tonnage of food distributed vs. plans
No. of school supplies & materials 
distributed vs. planned
24
No. of schools assisted vs. planned
How effective is UN inter￾agency coordination in meeting 
the education needs in the 
targeted implementation areas?
Number and type of joint initiatives 
to implement the "essential package" 
in WFP assisted schools
Joint work plans with 
UN sister agencies
Desk review
Meetings with 
cooperating partners
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key
informants
Medium
Sustainability
Is there an exit strategy 
outlining the timing, allocation 
of responsibilities on handover 
to the government and/or other 
agencies?
WFP 2013 SF Policy Goals
Number of delivery models nationally 
owned
Education NCI
MOEYS policy and 
strategy documents 
MOEYS/WFP SF
Roadmap
Desk review 
Meetings with donors
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key 
informants and 
secondary 
document 
review.
Strong
To what extent are the 
programme activities and local 
structures likely to be sustained 
after the completion of donor￾funding?
Existence of a SF line in the MOEYS 
budget
Number of sustainable delivery 
models in place
Number and type of initiatives taken 
by PTAs and community at large to 
support SF activities
MOEYS policy and 
strategy documents 
Key government 
informants at central 
and decentralized 
levels
Desk review
Meetings with key 
informants in WFP 
CO, MOEYS, PoEs,
DoEs
Focus group meetings 
with programme
participants
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key 
informants
Medium
25
Key Question 3: Why and how has the operation produced the observed results?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of information Data Collection 
Methods
Data
Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Internally (factors within WFP's control)
To what extent 
has there been 
effective 
cooperation & 
coordination in 
the design and 
implementation 
of the SF 
activities 
between WFP, 
government, 
cooperating 
partners and 
beneficiary
communities?
Perception of 
management 
strengths/difficulties 
by WFP staff, 
government staff, and 
cooperating partners 
LoU, MoU, FLA, etc. 
Number of meetings 
from a Programme 
coordination 
committee
WFP staff, government staff, cooperating 
partners, programme participants
Interviews with 
implementing partners 
(WFP staff, government 
staff at national and 
decentralised levels, and 
cooperating partners) 
Focus group meetings with 
programme participants
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key 
informants
Medium
Externally (factors outside WFP's control)
To what extent Food insecurity, EMIS, Commune Database (CDB) on poverty, Meetings with key Qualitative Medium
do the criteria poverty, low CFSVA informants in WFP CO, analysis –
for targeting educational, nutrition MOEYS, PoEs, DoEs triangulation
influence and gender indicators between
results? multiple key
informants
To what extent Teacher/pupils ratio, WFP CO data, EMIS Meetings with key Qualitative Medium
does the school infrastructure informants in WFP CO, analysis –
environment of and equipment MOEYS, PoEs, DoEs triangulation
targeted between
schools multiple key
influence informants
results?
26
McGovern-Dole Results Framework: Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices (SO2)
Key Question 1: How appropriate is the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data 
Analysis
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Relevance
To what extent are the 
objectives, targeting, 
choice of activities and 
transfer modalities 
appropriate to the needs 
of the population?
Poverty rates, food security rates, 
combined with education 
indicators.
Reduction in health-related 
absences
Have the needs of both boys and 
girls been taken into 
consideration?
WFP CO, SFTP/MOEYS and
cooperating partners M&E 
data and reports
Desk review Review of 
WFP
assessment 
information 
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key
informants
Strong
Coherence
Is McGovern-Dole FFE 
programme coherent with 
relevant stated national 
policies?
Compliance with stated aims and 
direction of relevant government 
policies (food security, nutrition, 
school health etc.).
Government policies on 
school feeding, nutrition, 
school health, safety nets etc.
Desk review
Key informant 
interviews with 
Government personnel
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key
informants
Strong
Is McGovern-Dole FFE 
programme coherent with 
other interventions of 
WFP in Cambodia and 
with those of relevant 
humanitarian and
development partners?
Compliance with stated aims and 
direction of relevant policies of 
other development actors such as 
UN agencies and NGOs.
UNDAF for Cambodia 2016-
2018
Other policies and strategies 
of other development actors.
Desk review
Key informant 
interviews with non￾WFP development 
actors
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key 
informants
Strong
Is McGovern-Dole FFE 
programme coherent with 
WFP strategies, policies 
and normative guidance?
Compliance with stated aims and 
direction of relevant WFP policies 
and strategies including corporate 
guidance, and regional strategies 
as appropriate.
Review of relevant WFP 
policies e.g. School Feeding 
Policy, Safety nets Policy, 
Gender Policy, Nutrition 
Policy etc.
Desk review
Key informant 
interviews with WFP 
Regional Bureau 
personnel and HQ staff
as appropriate
Qualitative 
analysis –
triangulation 
between 
multiple key 
informants
Strong
27
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Efficiency
Has the programme been 
sufficiently funded?
Budget data, budget revisions
Planned vs. actual budget and 
expenditure
WFP Financial and 
operational 
information
Desk review
Interviews with WFP 
Finance and other 
support staff
Quantitative review 
of budget data 
triangulated with 
qualitative 
information from 
multiple key
informants
Strong
How much of overall 
funding has been spent on 
direct programme costs 
compared with indirect 
costs?
Budget data, budget revisions
Planned vs. actual budget and 
expenditure
WFP Financial and 
operational 
information
Desk review
Interviews with WFP 
Finance and other 
support staff
Qualitative and 
quantitative analysis
Medium
Have the McGovern-Dole 
SF-supported activities been 
undertaken and completed 
in a timely manner?
Food delivery data
Non-food delivery information 
(seeds, inputs for school gardens 
etc.).
WFP CO, MOEYS
and cooperating 
partners M&E data 
and reports
Desk review 
Key informant
interviews with school
personnel, parents,
implementing 
partners, and WFP
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
Are appropriate human 
resources allocated to 
implementation?
HR data and organization chart in 
WFP CO, MOEYS, cooperating 
partners
WFP CO, MOEYS
and cooperating 
partners M&E data 
and reports
Desk review 
Key informant
interviews with school
personnel, parents, 
implementing
partners, and WFP
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
28
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator
Main Sources 
of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Efficiency
How efficient are the 
arrangements for monitoring 
implementation?
Presence of sufficient programme
monitoring data at both output and 
outcome levels
WFP CO M&E
data and reports 
CPs reports
Desk review
Key informant 
interviews with school 
personnel, parents, 
implementing partners,
and WFP
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
What were the roles and 
institutional strengths/ 
weaknesses of the WFP CO, 
government ministries, 
cooperating partners and 
beneficiary groups in
McGovern-Dole FFE 
programme implementation?
Establishment of SF units and 
coordination committees at central 
and decentralized levels
WFP CO and 
SFTF/MOEYS
Desk review 
Key informant
interviews with school
personnel, parents, 
implementing partners, 
and WFP
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
Are the monitoring systems 
in place adequate to show 
impact over a longer period?
Presence of outcome data. 
Analysis produced by WFP CO
WFP CO M&E
data and 
VERVAM
reports
Desk review Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple
key informants
Medium
Effectiveness
Are the outputs levels 
sufficient?
No. of beneficiaries receiving food and 
non-food items vs. planned. Is there a 
difference between boys and girls?
Tonnage of food distributed vs. plans 
Number of school gardens established 
vs planned
Number of teachers trained 
No. of cooks trained vs planned
No. of storekeepers trained vs planned
No. of schools assisted vs. planned
WFP CO M&E
data and reports 
WFP SPRs
Desk review Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline
Strong
29
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator
Main Sources 
of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Effectiveness
Is there a difference in the 
effectiveness of SMP vs 
SMP+THR?
Education indicators (as per SO1) 
Food consumption score 
Household Dietary Diversity Score 
Individual Dietary Diversity Score 
Coping Strategies Index 
Household Hunger Scale
Is there a difference between boys and
girls?
School 
Assessment 
Teacher 
Assessment 
Household 
Questionnaire
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
Analysis
Comparison 
between 
intervention 
schools
Medium
How effective has the 
programme been at reducing 
health-related absences?
Number of health-related absences
Is there a difference between boys and 
girls?
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline
and endline
Medium
How effective has the 
programme been at 
improving knowledge of 
health and hygiene practices?
Percent of schools with soap and water 
at handwashing • stations commonly 
used by students
Number/ percent of schools using 
improved sanitation facilities (latrines)
Is there a difference between boys and 
girls?
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline 
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
How effective has the 
programme been at 
increasing knowledge of safe 
food preparation and storage 
practices?
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
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline 
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple
key informants
Medium
30
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator
Main Sources 
of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Effectiveness
How effective has the 
programme been at 
increasing knowledge of 
nutrition?
The percentage of students and parents 
who can identify at least • one local 
source of information on proper diets 
and nutrition. Is there a difference 
between boys and girls?
The percentage of cooks and 
storekeepers that have a passing • grade 
on good nutrition and dietary practices
Household 
Questionnaire
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple
key informants
Medium
How effective has the 
programme been at 
increasing access to 
preventive health services?
Percentage of children dewormed 
within the past 6 months. Is there a 
difference between boys and girls?
The number of target schools with at 
least one month supply of soap (hand 
and dish soap)
Household 
Questionnaire
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline
Medium
Number of students receiving daily 
school meals with
micronutrient fortified commodities. Is 
there a difference between boys and
girls?
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
How effective has the 
programme been at 
increasing access to clean 
water and sanitation services?
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
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison
between baseline 
and endline
Medium
The number of target schools that have 
latrines of sufficient quality that are in 
good repair
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple
key informants
31
Key Question 2: What are the results of the operation?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator
Main Sources 
of 
information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Effectiveness
How effective has the 
programme been at 
increasing access to requisite 
food preparation and storage 
tools and equipment?
Number of functioning kitchens 
Number of kitchen using fuel efficient 
stoves
No. of dedicated food storerooms 
Number of food storerooms using 
appropriate food storage techniques
School 
Assessment
Quantitative surveys Quantitative 
analysis -
Comparison 
between baseline 
and endline 
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple
key informants
Medium
Sustainability
To what extent are the results 
and benefits derived from 
WFP’s interventions likely to 
endure?
MoEYS Handover (Roadmap)
Actions undertaken by PTC, parents 
and other stakeholders
WFP CO, 
SFTP/MOEYS
and cooperating 
partners M&E 
data and reports
Desk review
Meetings with key 
informants in WFP CO, 
MOEYS, PoEs, DoEs,
committee members,
other parents
Qualitative analysis
– triangulation 
between multiple 
key informants
Medium
32
Key Question 3: Why and how has the operation produced the observed results?
Sub Question Measure/Indicator Main Sources 
of information
Data Collection 
Methods
Data Analysis 
Methods
Evidence 
quality
Internally (factors within WFP's control)
What internal factors have Positive or negative external issues WFP staff, Interviews and FGDs Qualitative analysis Medium
contributed to the success or mentioned during interviews or government staff, with WFP personnel, – triangulation
otherwise of the FFE FGDs cooperating implementing partners between multiple
programme? partners, and programme key informants
programme participants
participants
What internal problems and Number of internal WFP staff, Interviews and FGDs Qualitative analysis Medium
constraints have been faced problems/constraints which have government staff, with WFP personnel, – triangulation
during the implementation of been appropriately addressed vs. cooperating implementing partners between multiple
the response and how did the Number of ongoing partners, and programme key informants
operation deal with these? problems/constraints programme participants
participants
Externally (factors outside WFP's control)
What external factors have Positive or negative external issues WFP staff, Interviews and FGDs Qualitative analysis Medium
contributed to the success or mentioned during interviews or government staff, with WFP personnel, – triangulation
otherwise of the FFE FGDs cooperating implementing partners between multiple
programme? partners, and programme key informants
programme participants
participants
What external problems and Number of external WFP staff, Interviews and FGDs Qualitative analysis Medium
constraints have been faced problems/constraints which have government staff, with WFP personnel, – triangulation
during the implementation of been appropriately addressed vs. cooperating implementing partners between multiple
the response and how did the Number of ongoing partners, and programme key informants
operation deal with these? problems/constraints programme participants
participants
33
Annex 4: Documents included in the secondary data review
Document Type Comment / Titles
Assessment Reports
Ministry of Planning – Socio-Economic Survey 2014
Ministry of Planning – Estimation of Malnutrition in 
Cambodia 2013
School Assessment Study Report, 2015-2016
School Assessment Study Questionnaire, 2015-2016
2015-2016 El Nino Assessment
Country Office Strategic Documents
WFP Cambodia Country Brief – June 2017
Evaluations/ Reviews
Evaluations/ reviews of past or on-going operation
Final Report OpEv
Cambodia CP 200202
– June 2014
2014 FFE Baseline Report + Annexes
2015 FFE Midline Report + Annexes
Government Documents
MoEYS Strategic Plan 2014-2018
National Social Protection Policy Framework 2016-2025
National Strategic Development Plan 2014-2018
Ministry of Planning – Implementation Manual for the 
identification of poor households – for piloting – Dec 2015
Education Annual Operational Plan (AOP) AOPs for 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017
Budget for 2015
National Cash Scholarship Programme 2015 Anukret 34 Scholarship 
MoE Cash Scholarship Manual
Education Statistics 
(English version)
& Indicators 2013/2014, 2014/2015, 201 Datasets for 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16
Education Strategic Plan 2014-2018
New National Reading Standards and Continuous 
Assessment System
Tools; benchmarks for 
grades 1, 2 and 3
MoEYS guidance documents (in Khmer)
Food safety regulations for SMP; on school 
preparation; on primary school SSC;
safe food booklet
Cambodia Socioeconomic Survey, 2014, National Institute 
of Statistics, Ministry of Planning
34
Small-Area Estimation of Poverty and Malnutrition in
Cambodia, 2013
National Capacity Index
Various reports and
data
National Social Protection Strategy for Poor and
Vulnerable (NSPS 2016-2020)
Child Friendly School Policy (CFS)
Maps
Programme Maps 2011-2017
Target Areas map, 2016-2017
Commune level poverty incidence, stunting and
underweight maps, 2013
Monitoring & Reporting
M&E Plan MGD PMP
Baseline Survey Report for USDA, 2014
Midline Survey for USDA, 2015
Semi-annual Programme reports (for 2014)
Food Distribution and Post-Distribution Monitoring
Reports
January 2016
PDM Tool – survey questionnaire
Annual School Feeding Workshop reports For 2014, 2015, 2016
and 2017
Actual and Planned beneficiaries by activity and district/ 
location by year
Male vs. Female beneficiaries by activity and district/ 
location by year
Beneficiaries by age group
Actual and Planned tonnage distributed by activity by year
Commodity type by activity
Operational Documents
Organogram for WFP Cambodia
Partners
Annual, semi-annual or quarterly reports from cooperating
partners
List of partners (Government, NGOs, UN agencies) by
location/ activity/ role/ tonnage handled
Field level agreements (FLAs), Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs)
From 2013-2016
From July 2016
FLA WFP/Plan International
FLA WFP/World Education
35
Project Documents
Project document (including Logical Framework in Annex)
Project Agreement: FFE-442-2013/035-00
Fully executed commitment letter -
FFE-442-2013/035-00
FFE-442-2013/035-00 Amendment Request Letter & 
memo
FFE-442-2013/035-00 Amendment Summary
Project Agreement: FFE-442-2016/015-00
Country Programme Document 2011 Cambodia CP 200202 for EB approv
Budget Revisions Cambodia CP 200202 BR 908
Note for the record (NFR) from Programme Review 
Committee meeting (for original operation and budget
revisions if any)
Intervention/Project Plan (breakdown of beneficiary 
figures and food requirements by region/activity/month
and partners)
FFP and MGD Indicators and Definitions (Aug.2016)
Resource Mobilisation
Resource Situation as at 12 March 2017
Contribution statistics by month
Resource mobilization strategy
NFRs Donor meetings
Standard Project Reports
Cambodia CP200202 SPRs CP SPR 2014 / 2015 /
2016
WFP Education Documents
School Feeding Roadmap between WFP and MoEYS 
(signed in May 2015)
WFP Policies and strategies
WFP Strategic Plan 2017-2021
WFP School Feeding Policy (2009)
WFP Revised School Feeding Policy (2013)
WFP Gender Policy (2015-2020)
WFP Nutrition Policy (2012)
WFP Draft Nutrition Policy (2017-2021)
WFP Cash and Voucher Policy (2008) and update (2013)
WFP Cash and Vouchers Manual 2009
WFP Update on Safety Net Policy (2012)
WFP Home-Grown School Feeding Framework
WFP Policy on Building Resilience for Food Security and 
Nutrition (2015)
36
Annex 5: Original methodology for selection of case and control schools (2014 
baseline)
The 2014 baseline survey for the USDA McGovern-Dole programme used 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).
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 McGovern-Dole school feeding programme coverage is large, covering 863 schools in three 
provinces: Kampong Thom, Siem Reap and Battambang.
USDA McGovern-Dole 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 
evaluation. This resulted in a sampling frame composed of 531 schools, spanning five districts in 
Battambang and nine districts of Siem Reap province. Kampong Thom was excluded.
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:
• Be located near or in the same district as the target schools, and have similar geographic conditions;
• Similar socioeconomic characteristics, infrastructure, and climate condition; and
• 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 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.
Some of the comparison schools were later found to have school feeding interventions by other agencies 
and therefore the comparison group is neither a representative, nor clean group (nointervention).
37
Annex 6: List of 2017 endline survey case and control schools
2017 ENDLINE SURVEY CASE SCHOOLS
School ID School Name Province
1 2040104003 Dach Proat BTB
2 2040111007 Svay Chrum BTB
3 2040206017 Hun Sen Khnach Romeas BTB
4 2040301019 Lovea BTB
5 2040309023 Boeung Samrong BTB
6 2040407031 Dangkor Pen BTB
7 2040509047 Boeung Sangker Lech BTB
8 2040602011 Ta Hen BTB
9 2040609013 Ta Hen (Kdol leu) BTB
10 2040801069 Damnaksuth BTB
11 2040803066 Samnang Preah Srey BTB
12 2090101001 Chul Seima BTB
13 2090201002 Chul Kiri BTB
14 2090203037 Svay Sar BTB
15 2090207036 Boeung O Cheang BTB
16 2090306012 Lumphat BTB
17 2090401004 Hun Sen O Anluok BTB
18 2090504035 Phoum Kandal BTB
19 2090601007 Kamprang Chas BTB
20 2090607030 Kampong Chamlang Krom BTB
21 2090607038 Kampong Lei Krom BTB
22 2100105021 Tuol Chrey BTB
23 2100208007 Damnak Ksan BTB
24 2100209008 O Da BTB
25 2100210023 Damnak Beng BTB
26 2100211013 Spean Tumneap BTB
27 2100305015 Samaki BTB
28 2100306018 O Ta Sok BTB
29 2130106001 Boeung Chhnas BTB
30 2130307024 Prey Sinh BTB
31 2130402007 Kouk Poun BTB
32 2130404009 Tuol Mates BTB
33 2130408025 Boeung Raing BTB
34 2130411012 Samrong BTB
35 2130601015 Kauk Trom BTB
36 2140104004 Prek Ta Ven BTB
37 2140105005 Prek Chik BTB
38 2140303008 Chraing Khpuos BTB
38
39 2140404012 Tuol Koki BTB
40 2140404013 Prey Ampoan BTB
41 2140504017 Russey Kraing BTB
42 17030102002 Khnar SRP
43 17030201025 Tuol Kruos SRP
44 17030302024 Mebonn SRP
45 17030305007 Ta Koh SRP
46 17030604012 Sras Kvav SRP
47 17030604027 Ta Pen SRP
48 17040107001 Anlung Samnar SRP
49 17040209006 Wat Kandal SRP
50 17040510016 Khnar Thnung SRP
51 17040516020 Kilometer Ta Chhim SRP
52 17040603022 Trapaing Veng SRP
53 17040707030 Kbal Kduoch SRP
54 17040907071 Chup Tnot SRP
55 17040910077 Sop Mong SRP
56 17041001038 Chamreun Rath SRP
57 17041002039 Phoum Boeung SRP
58 17041003040 Spean Touch SRP
59 17041106046 Damrei Chhlang SRP
60 17041107047 Kanseng SRP
61 17041211052 Lovea SRP
62 17060403030 Lork Ta Ma SRP
63 17060405011 Prasat Khnar SRP
64 17060603013 Damnak Kchas SRP
65 17060717028 Sela Rumduol SRP
66 17060806029 Prey Longeang SRP
67 17060903019 Sranal SRP
68 17061003023 Hun Sen Ta An SRP
69 17061007025 Teuk Chum SRP
70 17070207066 Prasat Char SRP
71 17070209004 Peam SRP
72 17070307006 Kdei Run SRP
73 17070501011 Khnat SRP
74 17070507012 Wat Prasat SRP
75 17070803025 Trakiet SRP
76 17071006027 Ta Tork SRP
77 17071010030 Chambak He SRP
78 17071106032 Prasat SRP
79 17071109033 Pradak SRP
39
80 17071507048 Akthipadei SRP
81 17090201005 Bakorng SRP
82 17090508019 Pongror SRP
83 17090704025 Chea Sman SRP
84 17090807030 Wat Roluos SRP
85 17090901031 Kaun Sat SRP
86 17090905034 Suong SRP
87 17100103005 Thlork Andaung SRP
88 17100302015 Mouk Neak SRP
89 17100308018 Nokor Krao SRP
90 17100402020 Wat Svay SRP
91 17100901029 Po Banteay Chey SRP
92 17100902030 Phnom Krom SRP
93 17101307051 Bangkoang SRP
94 17110114045 Prasat Sanloang SRP
95 17110203005 Samaki SRP
96 17110208008 Komrou Srok SRP
97 17110315044 Kauk Chan SRP
98 17110511023 Thnal Chek SRP
99 17110601024 Thlat SRP
100 17110604025 Kauk Sangker SRP
101 17110702030 Trapaing Khnar Po SRP
102 17110803033 Kaul SRP
103 17110807052 Popel Kandal SRP
104 17111001039 Boeung Ngot SRP
105 17111002063 Punleuvichea Chup Sman SRP
106 17111004041 Phkar Rumchek SRP
107 17111005050 Champei SRP
108 17111008042 Boeung Vean SRP
109 17130107025 Sre Robang SRP
110 17130201012 Kantuot SRP
111 17130202005 Khnar Krao SRP
112 17130305006 Anlung thom SRP
113 17130501014 Ta Siem SRP
114 17140103001 Prasat SRP
115 17140105017 Vean SRP
116 17140309020 Khnar Phtaul SRP
117 17140311022 Trapaing Krasaing SRP
118 17140404015 Russey Tauch SRP
40
ENDLINE SURVEY CONTROL SCHOOLS
School ID School Name Province
1 2010201018 Kanteu 2 BTB
2 2010416011 Svay Prakeap BTB
3 2010504038 Thngor BTB
4 2010602022 Kampeuv BTB
5 2010704057 Chak Angkam BTB
6 2010711058 Chirork BTB
7 2010802031 Ta Kream BTB
8 2010805034 Ta Ngen BTB
9 2010806035 Prey Phdao BTB
10 2010809043 Pheakdei BTB
11 17070710053 Roka SRP
12 17070802024 Mouk Pen SRP
13 17090307038 Srei Vibol Ker SRP
14 17090308045 Meta Kakruna Popel SRP
15 17090706026 Kampong Thkov SRP
16 17090902042 Boeung Thom SRP
17 17100207007 Svay Dangkum SRP
18 17100209009 Hun Sen Kruos SRP
19 17100210010 Chea Sim Komar Angkor SRP
20 17100214014 Kesaram SRP
21 17100403021 Wat Damnak SRP
22 17100405022 Chunlung SRP
23 17100506041 Samaki Sahakum SRP
24 17101002034 Thnal SRP
25 17110401015 Wat Sdei SRP
41
Annex 7: School assessment
School Assessment 
Questionnaire SY 2015-
2016
for Education 
Programme
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Date: ………………… Start time: ……… End time: 2. Interviewer name:............................................................... Tel:
3. Interviewee name: ………………… …………… 4. Sex: ○M ○F
5. Interviewee is:
○School director/Deputy Director ○School 
Administrator ○ Head Teacher
6. Interviewee Tel:
…………………………………………………………………
7. Province:
…………………………………………………………
…………
11. School name:
……………………………………………………………
8. District:
…………………………………………………………
…………
12. School code:
………………………………………………………………
9. Commune:
…………………………………………………………
………
13. School type:
○ SMP alone ○ SMP+THR ○ THR alone
○ Control
10. Village:
…………………………………………………………
…
Please provide information on school mapping
14. Number of primary-school-age (6-11) children in the school’s catchment area during this school year, 
2016-2017
*confirm with school census record
*the number of eligible students in catchment area may be more or less than the actual number of enrolled students
Total: Female:
………… …………
……… ………
14.a. Number of students aged 6 to 11 years in this school.
*confirm with school records together with interviewee
Total: Female:
………… …………
……… ………
14.b. Number of students aged over 11 years in this school during school year (2016-2017)
*refer to document review (to be done by 2 enumerators after interview)
Total: Female:
………… …………
……… ………
14.c. Total Number of school days during school year 2016-2017
*refer only to students are present in school
Number of
day:
14.d
RECORD IN SEPARATE 
SHEET
Total number of school days missed by all student during school year 
(2016-2017)
*refer to document review (to be done by 2 enumerators after interview)
*refer to Nov 2016 – July 2017
Total: Female:
15. Total Number of school days last July this school year (July, 2017) Number of day:
*refer to document review (to be done by 2 enumerators after interview) a. Total: b. Fem
Number of
adlea:y:
16. Total number of school days missed by all students last July, this school year (July, 2017) RECORD 
IN 
SEPARAT
E SHEET
42
17. Number of students in this school year, 2016-2017 by grade and gender
17.a. Grade 17.b. Number of enrolled student 17.c.
Numbe 
r of 
promote 
d
student
17.d.
Number of 
repeated 
student
17.e. Number of 
dropped out
student
Total Female Total Female To 
tal
Fe
ma 
le
Total Female
1
2
3
4
5
6
18. Disability Data information
1
2
3
4
5
6
Improved literacy of school-age children 
19. Has your school conducted the national standard test of
reading comprehension for grade 6 students in this school year, 
2016-2017?
○ Yes ○ No (skip to Q20) ○ N/A (skip to 
Q20) 
19.a. Have you received the results of the above test? ○ Yes ○ No (skip to Q20) 
19.b. Number of students tested Total: ………………… Female: …………………
19.c. Number of students passed Total: ………………… Female: …………………
II. IMPROVED QUALITY OF LITERACY INSTRUCTION
20. Number of teachers and contractual teachers for grade 1-6 in 
this school year, 2016-2017
(exclude school director, even though s/he also taught)
Total teachers from grade 1-6: Female: …………………
…………………
21. Number of contractual teacher if any Total: ………………… Female: …………………
22. Number of full time equivalent teaching staff in this school 
year, 2016-2017
(Include school director if s/he also taught)
(can be administrator that can teach sometime)
3.a. Total teachers from grade 1-6: Female: …………………
…………………
23. Does the school have attendance sheets/ books in this school 
year, 2016-2017? (Please observe or ask school director to show 
it)
23.1. Number of classroom that have attendance sheets/books 
in this school year, 2016-2017?
○ Yes ○ No
…………………………….classrooms
24. Total number of studying days for this school year, 2016-2017
(preparation days of teacher) ………………… days
25. Attendance of grade 1-6 Teachers in this school year Nov 2016- July 2017 (LOGIC: check with Q20)
25.a. Teacher
(one teacher per line)
25.b. Sex
(1. M and 2. F)
25.c. Number of teaching days 25.d. Number of absent days
1
2
3
4
43
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26. Does the school have:
(Multiple answers)
□ School development plan
□ Safe school environment (school gate, fence, and fence around 
pond (if applicable) at a minimum. Additional features may include 
slope/ ramp for disabled students, and playground)
□ Record and reporting system
□ Don’t have any above
27. Number of teachers using the national literacy curriculum
and the related instructional materials last school year. a. Total: b. Female:
III. IMPROVED SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE (Please observe and check with relevant people)
28. Number of Grade 1-6 classrooms available in use in this
school year, 2016-2017 ………………… classroom(s)
29. How many Grade 1-6 classrooms have sufficient literacy 
instructional materials for effective instruction in this school year, 
2016-2017?
Note for enumerator:
- Alphabet poster (reading related material)
- Numeric (mathematics related material)
- Picture with description (ie. Human structure, animal)
- Science related poster
(observe the class)
………………… classroom(s)
30. Did the school receive school materials or learning package in 
this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A
31. Did the school receive stationery package in this school year, 
2016-2017? (Folders, hole-punchers, calculators, whiteboards,
and other non-food items…) ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A
32-39. USE OBSERVATION SHEET 
IV. INCREASED ENGAGEMENT OF LOCAL AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
40. Does the school have a Local School Feeding Committee 
(LSFC), or School Support Committee (SSCs)? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 41) 
40.a. Is it functioning and contributing to the school? ○ Yes ○ No ○ N/A
40.b. Number of parents who are members of LSFC, or SSCs Total: ………………… Female: …………………
40.c. Has there been any training for LSFC/SSC on the
importance of education? ○ Yes ○ No
44
40.d. How many times were awareness-raising 
events/trainings conducted per school year?
○ 1 time
○ 2 times
○ More than 2 times
○ None (Skip to Q 41) 
40.e. When were awareness-raising events/trainings 
conducted?
(Multiple answers)
□ At beginning of the school year
□ At village meeting
□ Other, specify ………………
41. Are there public-private partnerships formed in this school? 
(eg: farmer association HGSF) ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 42) 
41.a. If yes, how many members? 41.a.1. Number of groups: ………….
41.a.2. Total: …………… Female: ……………
42. How much did community/ parents contribute to the school 
in this school year, 2016-2017?
42.a. In cash............................................................................... USD/ year
42.b. In kind ...............................................................................USD/ year
V. INCREASED USE OF HEALTH DIETARY PRACTICES
43. Does the school have soap and water at a hand washing 
station in this school year, 2016-2017? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 45) 
43.a. Did students use hand washing station? How often? ○ Yes, always
○ Yes, often
○ Yes, sometimes
○ Yes, rarely
○ Did not use
○ Don’t know
44. How long does the school have current soap supply in 
stock (hand and/or dish soap)?
○ Less than 1 week ○ 1 month to 3 months
○ 1-2 weeks ○ 4 months to 6 months
○ 2-3 weeks ○ Whole school year
○ 3-4 weeks ○ No soap
44.a. Who provided soaps for hand washing to school?
(Multiple answers)
□ PB budget □ Other NGOs
□ WFP/PLAN □ Companies
□ Community □ Other, specify …………………
□ Charity persons
44.b. How frequently does the school buy or receive soap? ○ Weekly ○ Every 1-3 months
○ Every 2-3 weeks ○ Every 4-6 months
○ Every 3-4 weeks ○ Annually
○ Monthly ○ Never
45. Did the school receive kitchen utensil packages? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q V.3.c) 
45.a. If yes, who provided kitchen utensil packages?
(Multiple answers)
□ PB budget □ Other NGOs
□ WFP/PLAN □ Companies
□ Community □ Other, specify …………………
□ Charity persons
45.b. If yes, what are they? And How many? □ Cooking pots:…… □ Knife:……..
□ Serving pots:……... □ Spoon and Plat:……..
□ Cutting board:……. □ Cooking equipment:…….
□ Storage equipment:……. □ Other, specify …………………
45.c. If no, why? (IF CONTROL SCHOOL, NOT APPLICABLE)
………………………………………………………………………
45.d. Do schools arrange meals distribution directly from
cooking pot?
○ Yes ○ No
45.e. Do schools arrange meals distribution by class by stainless
steel pots
○ Yes ○ No
45.f. Do schools arrange meals distribution by class by plastic
pots
○ Yes ○ No
45
45.g. In July 2017, what types of plate do children use and what 
percentage? (Multiple answers) ( 0 if none)
□ Ceramic:……...% □ stainless steel............ %
□ plastic:………...% □ plastic bags................ %
46. Did the school receive hygiene packages for a yearly
supply?
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q V.5) 
46.a. If yes, who provided hygiene packages for yearly 
supply?
(Multiple answers)
□ PB budget □ Other NGOs
□ WFP/PLAN □ Companies
□ Community □ Other, specify …………………
□ Charity persons
46.b. If yes, what are they?
Note: Don’t read answers 
(Multiple answers)
□ Soap □ Toothpastes and brushes
□ Water filters □ Hand towel
□ Bowls □ Nail cutter
□ Combs □ toilet brushes
□ long brooms □ Other, specify …………………
47 Did the school receive the training on food preparation and
storage practices in the last year? ○ Yes ○ No
48. What did the school implement for food preparation and 
storage practices?
Note: Don’t read answers 
(Multiple answers)
□ Clean cooking area
□ Store food at the appropriate temperatures (not in plastic pan, petrol 
tank)
□ Cover cooked food and store in safe place
□ Wash hand before cooking
□ Other, specify …………………
49. Do teachers/ stakeholders know about proper food 
storage? (Meat, vegetable, cooked meal, etc.) ○ Yes ○ No
50. Did the school receive the training on good health and
nutrition practices? ○ Yes ○ No
51. Do you know what the 3 food groups are?
Note: Don’t read answers 
(Multiple answers)
□ Energy (Carbohydrates. Ex: rice, sugar, potato, oil)
□ Building (Protein. Ex: meat, fish, peanuts, eggs)
□ Protective foods (Vitamins & minerals. Ex: green leaves, pumpkin, 
banana, mango)
Solid waste disposal
52. Does the school have bins or other equipment for
managing solid waste?
○ Yes ○ No
53. Is solid waste collected daily and safely disposed of? ○ Yes ○ No
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROGRAM
54.15.Is there any support programme being implemented
/implemented in this school year, 2016-2017?
1. Yes 2. No (skip to 2.16)
54.15.a. If yes, what are they? o 1.Building (Construction, rehabilitation, repair)
o 2. Material for Study/ Office supply
o 3.Morning meal program or meal program
o 4. Others (specify)…………………………...
54.16. Has this school ever been received any support 
programme in the last school year, 2015-2016?
1. Yes 2. No
54.16. a. If yes, what are they? o 1.Building (Construction, rehabilitation, repair)
o 2. Material for Study/ Office supply
o 3.Morning meal program or meal program
o Others (specify)…………………………...
46
School Assessment Questionnaire SY 2016-2017 
for Education Programme
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Date: ………………… Start time: ……… End time: 2. Interviewer name: ............................................................... Tel:
3. Interviewee name: ………………… …………… 4. Sex: ○M ○F
5. Interviewee is:
○School director/Deputy Director ○School Administrator ○ Head
Teacher
6. Interviewee Tel:
…………………………………………………………………
7. Province:
……………………………………………………………………
11. School name:
……………………………………………………………
8. District:
……………………………………………………………………
12. School code:
………………………………………………………………
9. Commune:
…………………………………………………………………
13. School type:
○ SMP alone
○ Control
○ SMP+THR ○ THR alone
10.
……………………………………………………………
Village:
III. IMPROVED SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURE (Please observe and check with relevant people)
32. Does the school have latrines? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 33) 
32.a. Number of latrines in the school grounds
( 0 if no non-functioning or functioning latrine) 
32.a.1. Functioning: ………………… 32.a.2
functioning:
……………
Non￾32.b. Number of latrines rehabilitated or constructed in
this school year, 2016-2017
( 0 if no latrine rehabilitated or constructed and skip 
to Q III.5.c)
32.b.1. Rehabilitated:……….
32.b.2. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN/World Education  Other, specify
32.b.3. Constructed:………...
32.b.4. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN/World Education  Other, specify
32.c. Are the functioning latrines separated for teachers
and students?
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32e) 
32.d. If 5c yes, how many functioning latrines for 
teachers?
Number:…………………
32.e. Are the functioning latrines for students separated
for boy and girl students? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32.g) ○ N/A
32.f. If 5e yes, how many? 32.f.1. Functioning latrines for boy students:……………
32.f.2. Functioning latrines for girl students:……………
32.g. Functioning latrines non-separated Number:…………………
32.h. Dose the schools have suitable latrine for students
with disability for accessing in your schools
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 32.i) 
32.h.1. If yes, how many latrine for students with
disability?
Functioning latrines for disable students:………………….
32.h.2. Facilities of latrine for students with disability
(Multiple answers)
□ Suitable size for students with disability
□ Slop for students with disability
□ Handle for students with disability
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
□ Don’t have any above
32.i. What are the current conditions of functioning 
latrines?
(skip if all latrines are non-functioning Q 32j) 
(Multiple answers)
□ Clean and well maintained
□ Dirty, not well maintained
□ Broken but still usable
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
32.j. What are the current conditions of non-functioning
latrines? (skip if all latrines are functioning Q 32.k)
□ Door is broken
□ Commode is broken
OBSERVATION FORM
47
(Multiple answers)
□ Pit latrines is broken or full
□ Washbasins are broken
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
32.k. How do you manage and maintain the latrines?
(Multiple answers)
□ Train students and take turn to clean latrines sometimes
□ Keep soap/hand washing facilities within or near the toilets sometimes
□ Lock latrines during school vacation
□ Ensure washbasin is full of water
□ Propose users to leave shoes outside of latrine stalls
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
33. Does the school have kitchen? (Ask kitchen key) ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 34) 
33.a. Number of kitchens rehabilitated or constructed 
in this school year, 2016-2017
( 0 if no kitchen rehabilitated or constructed and skip 
to Q 33.b)
33.a.1. Rehabilitated:……...
33.a.2. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN
 Other, specify
33.a.3. Constructed:………
33.a.4. Supported by:  WFP/PLAN
 Other, specify
33.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the 
kitchen?
(Multiple answers)
□ Good condition
□ Lacking kitchen utensils
□ Clean cooking and eating equipment
□ Leaking roofs
□ Flooded during rainy season
□ Using rocks as stove
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
34. Does the school have energy-saving stoves? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q III.8) 
34.a. Number of energy-saving stoves rehabilitated or 
constructed in last school year, 2015-2016
( 0 if no energy-saving stove rehabilitated or 
constructed and kip to Q III.7.b)
34.a.1. Rehabilitated:…………………..
34.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
34.a.3. Constructed:………………
34.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
34.b. If yes, what is the current condition of the energy￾saving stoves?
(single answer)
○ Good condition and function well
○ Poor condition but still work
○ Broken, not functioning
○ Other, specify: ……………………………
35. Does the school have a storeroom (or place to store 
food)?
○ Yes ○ No, please specify where the food stored:
………………………………………………………… (and, skip to Q 
36) 
35.a. Number of storerooms (for food) rehabilitated or 
constructed this school year, 2016-2017
( 0 if no storeroom rehabilitated or constructed and 
Skip to Q 35.b)
35.a.1. Rehabilitated:…………………
35.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
35.a.3. Constructed:…………………
35.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
35.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the 
storerooms?
(Multiple answers)
□ Well cleaned
□ Floor is dry
□ Pallets for food storage
□ Door is locked well
□ Security guard at night time/ during school vacation
□ Foods are stored in order
□ Leaking roofs
□ Broken windows/door
□ Damaged walls
□ No walls
□ Food was stored off ground
□ Storeroom had ventilation
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
36. Does the school have drilled wells/water stations?
(Drinkable water)
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 37) 
48
36.a. Number of drilled wells/water stations 
rehabilitated or constructed in this school year, 2016-2017 
( 0 if no drilled wells/water station rehabilitated or 
constructed and kip to Q 36.b)
36a.1. Rehabilitated:………………
36.a.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
36.a.3. Constructed:………………
36.a.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other, specify
36.b. Number of functioning drilled wells or water 
station installed on the school grounds?
(0 if doesn’t have and skip to Q III.9.d)
36.b.1 Functioning drilled well: …………………
36.b.2. Functioning water station: …………………
36.b.3. Other, specify:………………………………:
………………………
36.c. What are the current conditions of the functioning 
drilled wells/ water station?
(Multiple answers)
□ Functioning well year-round
□ Water is used for human consumption
□ Platform is clean
□ System to clean the wells
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
36.d. Number of non-functioning drilled wells or water 
station installed on the school grounds?
(0 if doesn’t have and skip to Q III.10)
36.d.1. Non-functioning drilled well: …………………
36.d.2. Non- Functioning water station: ……………
36.d.3. Other, Specify: ……………………………: ………
36.e. What are the current conditions of the non￾functioning drilled wells/ water station?
(Multiple answers)
□ Functioning only during rainy season
□ Water is used for animals only
□ Arsenic (poisonous)
□ Hand pump/ rain water station was broken
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
37. Does the school have year-round access to a clean and 
safe water source?
○ Yes (whole school year)
○ No (some months not available)
○ No (no water)
38. Does the school have hand washing station in the
school?
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 39) 
11.a. If yes, how many hand washing station in the 
school?
38.a.1. Fix hand washing station:……………..
38.a.1.1. Single Student: …………
38.a.1.2. Multiple Student: …………
38.a.2. Mobile hand washing station:……………..
38.a.2.1. Single Student: …………
38.a.2.2. Multiple Student: …………
38.b. If yes, what are the current conditions of the hand 
washing station?
Description Fix hand washing
station
Mobile hand
washing station
38.b.1. Good condition 
& function well year￾round
38.b.2. Good condition 
& function well only
during rainy season
38.b.3. Poor condition
but still work year round
38.b.4. Poor condition 
but still work only
during rainy season
38.b.5. Broken, not
functioning
38.b.6. Other, specify ………… …………
38.c. Number of hand washing stations rehabilitated or 
constructed in this school year, 2016-2017
( 0 if no hand washing station rehabilitated or
constructed and kip to Q III.12)
38.c.1. Rehabilitated:..38c.2. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other,specify
38.c.3. Constructed:…38.c.4. Supported by: ○ WFP/PLAN ○ Other,specify
39. Does the school have vegetable gardens? ○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 40) 
39.a. Are vegetable gardens rehabilitated or established i
this school year, 2016-2017?
○ Yes ○ No (If no, skip to Q 40) 
49
39.b. If yes, what were the purposes for establishing the
gardens?
□ Practicing life skills □ Supplementing SMP recipe □ Both
39.c. How many hours a week were children mentored on
school gardens?
○ 1 – 2 hours ○ 3 – 5 hours ○ > 5 hours
39.d. How did schools get vegetable seed? □ Purchased using PB □ Purchased using School Improvement Grant
□ Donated by PLAN □ Donated by WFP
39.e. Which months did you grow vegetable in the 
gardens in this school year, 2016-2017? (Multiple
answers)
□Oct □Nov □Dec □Jan □Feb □Mar □Apr □May
□Jun □Jul □Aug □Sep □Don’t grow vegetable
39.f. How did you manage and maintain the vegetable 
garden?
(Multiple answers)
□ Children are mentored by trained teachers and community
□ Children from grade to grade are assigned to each plot of land
□ Prevent animals from entering school compound by repairing schools’ 
fence once per year
□ Other, specify: ……………………………
50
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
Annex 8: Teachers questionnaire
School Assessment Questionnaire for Education Programme (Teacher)
USDA
McGovern 
Dole
1.1. Date: 1.2. Enumerator Name:
1.3. School name:
1.5. District:
1.7. Village:
1.8. Teacher Name
1.8.1. Contact Number:
2. IMPROVED STUDENT ATTENTIVENESS
2.1. Number of absent students in your class on 9th August
1.4. Province:
1.6. Commune:
1.9. Teaching Grade:
Grade 2 , Grade 4 , Grade 6 
ALL INTERVIEWS TO BE DONE ABOUT MORNING SHIFT
a. Total: b. Female:
2.3. Total Number of students in your class
2.4 Percentage of students in your class eat breakfast at school 
(school provided)
Short-term hunger
a. Total: b. Female:
2.5. Please estimate the number of children being hungry during 
classes and frequency of this happening
(Daily + Sometimes = Total)
2.5.1. Does it vary by season?
2.5.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students come to 
school hungry (
2.6. Please estimate the number of children who are inattentive 
(sleepy, inactive) during classes and frequency of this happening 
(Daily + Sometimes = Total)
2.6.1. Does it vary by season?
2.6.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students are 
inattentive
2.7. Please estimate the number of children who are attentive or very 
attentive during class/instruction
a. Total:
a. Daily:
1. Yes:  2. No: 
Month:
a. Total:
a. Daily:
1. Yes:
Month:
a. Total:
a. Daily:
b. Female:
b. Sometimes:
b. Female:
b. Sometimes:
2. No:
b. Female:
b. Sometimes:
2.7.1. Does it vary by season?
2.7.2. If yes, please specify the month when most students are 
attentive
Signature of the 
teacher:
1. Yes Month:
51
2. No
52
Annex 9: Household questionnaire 
Household Survey Questionnaire
McGovern-Dole School Feeding and Take-home Rations 
Endline/Baseline Survey for McGovern-Dole
My name is ……………. and I work for ……………….. (name) and my colleague is ………………….. and works for ................We are part of
a team carrying out a survey to gather information on the Impact of WFP’s interventions in this commune. We would like to ask
you some questions about your family. The interview usually takes around 1 hour to complete. Any information that you provide
will be kept strictly confidential and will not be shown to other people. This is voluntary and you can choose not to answer any or 
all of the questions if you want. However, we hope that you will participate since your views are important.
Do you have any questions? May we begin now Yes⎕↓ (go to the following questions)No ⎕ →Refused
Outcome of interview 1. Completed 2. Partially completed 3. Interview postponed 4. Others
SECTION AA – BASIC QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION, QUALITY CONTROL AND DATA ENTRY
QUESTIONNAIRE INFORMATION
AA01.Questionnaire Number:
AA02. Location:
Name: 
Code:
Province
__________
__________
District
__________
__________
Commune
___________
__________
Village
___________
___________
AA03. Date: |____|____| / |____| ___ | / 2017(Day/Month /Year)
AA04. Start time End time
AA05. Name of enumerator ______________________
QUALITY CONTROL
AA06. Name of team leader ______________________
AA07. Date of checking: |____|____| / |____| ___ | / 2017(Day/Month /Year)
AA08. Remark:
MAIN RESPONDENT WILL BE THE HOUSEHOLD HEAD (OR ADULT MALE OR FEMALE);ANSWERS FOR 
SOME MODULE WILL BE TAKEN FROM THE MOTHER OR MAIN FEMALE OF THE HOUSEHOLD AND 
SCHOOL GOING CHILD (WHO HAVE BEEN SELECTED FROM SCHOOL FOR HOUSEHOLD SURVEY).
INTERVIEWER MUST RECORD WHICH MODULE IS ANSWERED BY WHICH RESPONDENT.
53
SECTION AB – BASIC INFORMATION OF INTERVIEWEE
AB01. Name of FIRST interviewee
AB02. Gender of interviewee (circle) 1 = Male 2 = Female
AB03 Relationship to children Refer to Codelist – A03
AB04. Phone number (if any) | | | | | | | | | | |
AB05. Name of interviewee (Mother/Main Female) Can be the same as AB01 if the same respondent
AB06. Gender of interviewee (circle) 1 = Male 2 = Female
AB07 Relationship to children Refer to Codelist – A03
AB08. Phone number (if any) | | | | | | | | | | |
AB09. Sample type (circle) 1= Treatment 2= Control
AB10. Name of child (sample selection)
AB11. Type of benefit received (For treatment only) 1 = SMP+THR 2 = THR 3 = SMP
AB12. Name of primary school
AB12a. Code of primary school | | | | | | | | | | | | |
53
PART I: Respondent: The Household head or an adult who knows educational information of all school-age children in the household
SECTION A: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION (All household members who currently live and eat at the household including the 
respondent)
INTERVIEW: RECORD SINGLE ANSWER PER COLUMN PER ROW
ID
Code
Name Relationship 
to household 
head
(See Code 
below)
Sex
1. Male 
2. 
Female
Age 
(years)
Under 10
– all
singe
Marital Status
1. Single
2. Married
3. Widow/ 
widower
4. Divorced/ 
separated
5. Desert
Age at 
First 
Marriage
Can [Name] read and 
write?
1. Can read and write
2. Can sign only
3. Can read only
4. Cannot read and 
write
Education
(highest 
class 
completed)
(See Code 
below)
Currently 
attending 
school?
1. Yes
2. No (skip 
to A12a)
If yes, is this school 
included in the same 
selection? (The 
interviewer will ask 
the name of the 
school, and then fill 
this answer by 
corroborating the 
name with the list 
provided to him/her 
of sample schools) 
Yes
No
Current two
main 
occupations
1st 2nd
A01 A02 A03
A04
A05 A06 A07 A08 A09 A10 A11 A12
a
A12
b
01 HHH
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
54
Code of A03.
Relationship to 
household head
Code of A09. Education 
(highest class
completed)
Code of A12a-A12b. Occupation
1. Household head
2. Husband/wife
3. Son/daughter
4. Brother/Sister
5. Father/mother
6. Uncle/aunt
7. Father/mother- in-law
8. Grandson/daughter
9. Niece/nephew
10. Cousin
11. Other relatives
12. Permanent servant
13. Other non-relatives
14. Son /Daughter-in￾law
15. Grandfather/mother
99. Never attended school
98. Still in grade 1
97. Preschool class (general)
1. Completed grade1
.
.
.
12. Completed grade12
14. Vocational trainings
16. BA/BSc pass
18. MA/MSc and above
1.Farming activities 
2.Pastoral activities 
3.Fishing/ activities
4.Agricultural labour (daily wage) 
5.Non-agricultural labour (daily wage)
6.Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith/hair cutter/ 
cobbler/carpenter/mason/plumber/electrician/motor 
mechanic
7.Government officer
8.Private sector employee/worker (monthly / bi-monthly 
salary)
9. NGO worker 
10.Driver
11. Other salaried worker
12. Doctor/engineer/ 
lawyer
13. Teacher
14. Religious worker
15. Midwife/nurse 
16.Food processing
17. Handicrafts 
18.Sand harvester
19. Charcoal production 
20.Brewing
21. Petty trader/ Vendor
22.Business/shop 
23.Medium/ large scale trader 
24.Contractor
25.Student 
26.Housewife 
27.No occupation
Exchange Rate&Gold price
1 USD = 4,000 Riels
1 Thai Baht = 132 Riels 
Gold (kilo) = 160 USD/Chi
55
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent.
SECTION B1: EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN (Children aged 6-11 years old OR anyone in Grades 1-
6)
TO BE FILLED FOR ALL HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS who are 6-11 years old, or in Grades 1-6 (Please copy I.D. code from family list in 
SECTION A carefully)
ID
Code
At what age (in 
years) did
[NAME] start 
school?
(write 999 and 
skip to B1.10a if 
never attended 
school)
Can [Name] 
read or write 
a simple 
sentence?
1. Yes
2. No
If [NAME] is currently attending school If not currently 
attending school
If [NAME] never 
attended school
Highest 
completed 
grade
# of days 
attended 
school last 
week / 
Last week 
of school 
year
Did [NAME]
receive any 
external (non￾household) 
support for this 
school year? If 
yes, name the 
most important 
(See Code
below, allow
multiple)
Can you give 2 
important 
reasons why 
[NAME] attend 
this school
(See Code below)
Do you plan 
on enrolling 
[NAME] in
school next 
year?
1. Yes
2. No
Reason for 
stopping school 
(name up to 2 
reasons)
(See Code 
below)
Can you give 2 main 
reasons why [NAME] 
never attended 
school? (See Code 
below)
1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd
B1.1 B1.2 B1.3 B1.4 B1.5 B1.6 B1.7a B1.7b B1.8 B1.9a B1.9b B1.10a B1.10b
Code of B1.6. Name 
of external support
Code of B1.7a-B1.7b. Reasons of attend school Code of B1.9/1.10a-B1.9/1.10b. Reasons for stopping/never attending 
school
1. Financial 
2.Food
3.Other in-kind
4. No support at all
1.Good teachers 
2.Parents’encouragement
3.The child is very devoted to studies 
4.Meal is available at school
5. The teachers teach very well and help my child in studying 
6.Boarding facilities in the school
7.Good academic performance of the child
8.The school has very good facilities (classrooms, toilets, drinking 
water etc.)
9.Take home rations
11. I want my child to get an education
12. The school is located near to my house
10.Other
1.The child doesn’t want to study
2. The child did not do well in school and dropped out
3. No suitable school available/school is too far
4. No teacher/Supplies
5. Cannot afford the cost of schooling due to poverty
6. The child must engage in paid work to contribute to household income
7. The child must help with household chores (taking care of children/elderly
8. The child is disable and not eligible to attend a regular school
9. The child has been suffering from long term illness (over 3 months)
10. No meal is offered at school
11. Already completed desired schooling
12. The child got married and dropped out of school
13. Going to school is not safe for the child (e.g. risk of being harassed on way to 
school)
14. Other (specify)
56
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
SECTION B2: EDUCATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN
(Continue)
B2.1. Now we will ask you if you have considered the following factors when you made 
a decision about your child’s schooling (ask about the sample child).
1. Very important
2. Imporant
3. Not important
4. I did not consider this factor
INTERVIEWER: USE SHOWCARDS
Reasons Description Answer
B2.1.1. The school is close to my house
B2.1.2. Good quality of education at the school
B2.1.3. Good quality of infrastructure at the school (e.g. classroom, 
toilets, drinking water)
B2.1.4. Good future career/livelihood prospect of the child if s/he 
finishes the school -
B2.1.5. My child need to do household chore rather than going to school
(e.g. taking care of siblings/elderly at home)
B2.1.6. Scholarships received for continuing school
B2.1.7. Hot breakfast at school (school feeding program)
B2.1.8.
B2.1.9. Costs of schooling (e.g. fees, uniforms and books)
B2.1.10. Concern about security of the child when traveling to school 
(e.g. personal security risks as a result of ethnic conflict, civil 
disturbances, physical violence (harassment, rape, corporal punishment
at school
B2.1.11. Long term illness/disability of the child
B2.1.12. Others (please specify)
B2.2. Please identify 3 benefits of primary education? 1.
*Do not read the options first. Record the answers. (Please _________________
probe as much as possible) ________
My child will learn to read and write 2.
Primary education will make my child a good human being _________________
Primary education will help him/her to continue studying in upper _______
classes 3.
Primary education will provide my child with valuable life skills _________________
Primary education will help to get a good job ________
Primary education will help him/her to be good farmer
Primary education will help my child to become a better father/mother
when they are adult
Primary education will open up more opportunities in the future
Others (specify)
98. Don’t know
99. No benefit
57
B2.3. How does your child travel to primary school (the most
often)? _________________
_________________
1. Foot __
2. Bicycle
3. Any carts
4. Motorcycle
5. Koyun
6.Others (specify)
B2.4. How long does it take to go to school from home if the
child walks? _________________
_________________
1. Less than 15min __
2. 15min to 30 min
3.30min to 45min
4. 45min to 1hr
5. More than 1 hr
B2.5 How much does it cost to go to school (one way) if the
child uses public transport (most often)? _________________
_________________
**If respondent never uses public transport, identify the __
most common public transport in this area.
In USD
(99 = N/A if the school is too close to use a public transport)
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
SECTION C1 – HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Now I would like to know about income earned by household members in the last 12 
months (Respondent: main adult or HHH).
Member ID Income In the past 12 months, how Which months? How much was earned
Code (from activity many months was income List months in from this activity? (total
section A) (see earned from this activity? below col of 12 month, in US
codes (see code Dollar)
below) below)
C1.1 C1.2 C1.3 C1.4 C1.5
Total
58
1. Farming activities
2. Pastoral activities (pig, cow, chicken)
3. Fishing/ activities
4. Agricultural labour
5. Non-agricultural labour
6. Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith/ 
cutter/cobbler/carpenter/mason 
plumber/electrician/motor mechanic
7. Government officer
8. Private sector employee
9. NGO worker
10. Driver
11. Other salaried worker
12. Doctor/engineer/lawyer
13. Teacher
14. Religious worker
hair
15. Midwife/nurse
16. Food processing
17. Handicrafts
18. Sand harvester
19. Charcoal production
20. Brewing
21. Pretty trader
22. Business/shop
23. Medium/ 
large scale trader
24. Contractor
1 = January
2 = February
3 = March
4 = April
5 = May
6 = June
7 = July
8 = August
9 = September
10 = October
11 = November
12 = December
In the last 12 months, how much did your household members receive from the following activities
Activity C1.6 Annual Cash Income (in US
C1.6.1. Agricultural product sale
C1.6.2. Animal sale
C1.6.3. Animal product sale (milk, eggs…)
C1.6.4. THR sale
C1.6.5 total
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
SECTION C1 – HOUSEHOLD INCOME (continue)
In the last 12 months (from August 2016-July 2017) did your household receive any income/assistance from 
the following sources, in addition to your salary/household production sales?
Description
Estimated Earning
C1.7. Income 
in Cash
C1.8.
Cash
Non￾1.Remittance from foreign country
2.Remittance within home country
3.Rice and cash from WFP (THR)
4. Assistance (cash or kind) from International
5. Assistance from government
6. Interest earning/periodic payment received from collective
7. Interest earning from Credit (money lent to others)
8. Rice and cash from others
9. total
C.2 Describe the main materials used in the house: (INTERVIEWER TO OBSERVE AND RECORD 
BELOW)
2
Wall
RECORD CODE ________________________
[1] Hay/straw/jute stick/palm 
leaf/plastic
[2] Bamboo
59
3
Roof
RECORD CODE ________________________
[3] Mud
[4] Taly/tiles
[5] Tin
[6] Cement/brick /rod
4
Floor
RECORD CODE
[7] Wood
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
SECTION C2 – HOUSEHOLD ASSTES
Please list # of the following assets owned by the household (m2= 0.0001 ha, Ar= 0.01 
ha, Kong=0.09 ha, 1Rai = 0.16 ha)
Productive Assets Non-Productive Assets
C2.1
Assets
C2.2
1=Yes 
2= No
C2.2
# of
assets
C2.1
Assets
C2.2
1=Yes 
2= No
C2.2
# of assets 
owned
01. Up land (in ha) 18. Television
02. Rice land (in 19. Radio
03. Rice miller 20. Bicycle
04. Hand hammer 21. Motorbike
05. Plough 22. Car
06. Hoe 23. Cell phone
07. Axe 24. Bed
08. Cart 25. Table
09. Hand tractor 26. Chair
10. Tractor 27. Metal cooking pot
11. Water pump 28. Water collecting bin
12. Sewing machine 29. Water storage bin
13. Buffalo 30. Jewelry
14. Cow 31. Gold
15. Pig
16. Chicken Others (specify)
__________________
17. Cash savings (in 
USD) 32. Total
18. Generator
Others
___________
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
MODULE D: HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURES ON EDUCATION
Now I would like to ask you aboutthe expensesrelated to education. Please tell me how much your household 
spent on each of the listed items in last one day/month/year? (All children in the household)
D1.
Serial
D2. Items D3. Amount
(US Dollar)
D4. Frequency of
expense (see code)
Codes
[1] Daily
60
1. Admissions / Registration [2] Monthly
[3] Quaterly
[4] Yearly
[5] One time
2. Materials and books
3. Extra Tuition fees
4. Travel to/from School
5. Food, snacks, water at school
6. Uniforms
7. Other expenses related to
education
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. 
SECTION E1 – FOOD AND SMALL NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES
How much did your household approximately spend on the following items in the last 30 days?
*Record as 0 if none; if bought product for whole year: divide by 12
Items
Approximate value in 
US Dollars (in cash) 
Not include your own
product
Approximate 
value in US Dollars 
(in credit)
E1.a E1.b E1.c
E1.1 Paddy / Rice
E1.2 Other cereals & staples
E1.3 Pulses/beans/nuts
E1.4 Vegetables
E1.5 Fruits
E1.6 Meat, fish, eggs
E1.7 Cooking oil
E1.8 Other food items
E1.9 Firewood /cooking fuel
E1.10 Energy (e.g., battery, gas)
E1.11 Cigarettes/Alcohol
E1.12 Drinking water
E1.13 Personal care (e.g. soap, toothpaste, razor, sanitary
napkins, hair cut)
E1.14 Communication (cell phone, phone card)
E1.15 Total
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent. 
SECTION E2 – NON-FOOD EXPENDITURES
How much did your household approximately spend on the following items in the last 6 months?
Items
Approximate value 
in US Dollars in cash) 
Not include your own
product
Approximate 
value in US 
Dollars (in
credit)
E2.a E2.b E2.c
E2.1 Healthcare for adults and child. More than 5years old
E2.2 Healthcare for children Less than 5 years old
E2.3 Transportation (maintenance and repair, gasoline and diesel for
own transportation, moving fee)
E2.4 Clothing and footwear
E2.5 Debt repayment
61
E2.6 Sending remittances
E2.7 House construction/maintenance including electricity & water
E2.8 Shop/trade/commerce
E2.9 Farming (seeds, fertilizers, labor costs…), Livestock breeding
(vaccines, fodder…)
E2.10 Fish breeding, fishing
E2.11 Celebrations/social events/donation
E2.13 Total
E3.1 Have you ever encountered difficulties covering the 
expense?
1. Yes, usually
2. Yes, sometimes
3. No, never
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent.
SECTION F1 – REDUCED COPING STRATEGIES INDEX
During the last 7 days, how many days did your household have to employ one of the 
following strategies to cope with a lack of food or money to buy it? (READ OUT EACH 
STRATEGY)
Frequency
(# of days from 0 to 
7)
F1.1 Relied on less preferred, less expensive food | |
F1.2 Borrowed food or relied on help from friends or relatives | |
F1.3 Reduced the number of meals eaten per day | |
F1 4 Reduced portion size of meals | |
F1.5 Reduction in the quantities consumed by adults/mothers for young children | |
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent.
SECTION F2 – LIVELIHOOD COPING STRATEGIES (SHOWCARD)
F.2. In the past 30 days, have there been times where you did not have enough food 
or enough money to buy food?
1= Yes  CONTINUE
2= No  SKIP TO F3
IF YES: In the past 30 days, did you do any of the following things in order to get 
food or money to buy food? 1= Yes
2 = No
F2.1 Sold household goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, television, jewelry, 
clothes, utensils etc.) | |
F2.2 Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing machine,
wheelbarrow, bicycle, ploughing tools, seeds etc.) | |
F2.3 Reduced essential non-food expenditures such as education, 
healthcare, etc. | |
F2.4 Spent savings | |
F2.5 Borrowed money / food from a formal lender / bank or informal
sources | |
F2.6 Sold house or land | |
F2.7 Withdrew children from school | |
F2.8 Illegal income activities (theft, prostitution, etc.) | |
F2.9 Sent an adult household member to sought work elsewhere
(regardless of the usual seasonal migration) | |
F2.10 Begged | |
62
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the respondent.
SECTION F3 – HOUSEHOLD HUNGER SCALE
F3.1In the past 30 days, was there ever no food to eat of any kind in 
your house because of lack of resources to get food?
0 = No (Skip to F3.2)
1 = Yes
F3.1a How often did this happen in the past 30 days?
1 = Rarely (1–2 times)
2 = Sometimes (3–10 times)
3 = Often (more than 10 times)
F3.2 In the past 30 days, did you or any household member go to sleep 
at night hungry because there was not enough food?
0 = No (Skip to F3.3)
1 = Yes
F3.2a How often did this happen in the past 30 days?
1 = Rarely (1–2 times)
2 = Sometimes (3–10 times)
3 = Often (more than10 times)
F3.3 In the past 30 days, did you or any household member go a whole 
day and night without eating anything at all because there was not
enough food?
0 = No (Skip to Section G) 
1 = Yes
F3.3a How often did this happen in the past 30 days? 1 = Rarely (1–2 times)
2 = Sometimes (3–10 times)
3 = Often (more than 10 times)
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
MODULE G: BENEFITS OF SCHOOL FEEDING
Benefits of the child
G1. How many days in the last month did your 
child attend MORNING SESSIONS in school?
Insert number of days_____________
(answer should be less than 30 days)
IF 0 = SKIP TO G3
G2. Did your child receive a meal everyday during 
each of these sessions?
1 = yes
2 = No
G3. Does your child bring part of the food from 1 = Yes, always
school to share with the other members of the 2 = Most days, 3-4 days per week
household when he/she received SMP? 3 = Sometimes, 1-2 days per week
(SHOWCARD) 4 = Rarely
5 = Never
G4. Does school feeding benefit your child? 1 = Child gets food
(Record all mentioned, Showcard) 2 = Child is more active/attentive
3 = Child is learning better
4 = Child is healthier
5 = Child has more opportunity
6 = Students’ shirking of school using excuses of
illness reduced
Other
7 = No, it does not benefit my child
G5. Does school feeding benefit the Households 1 = No benefit
(Record all mentioned) (showcard) 2 = School feeding saves time for parents
3 = School feeding saves food/money for
household
4 = School feeding saves time for household
skipping morning cookng
Other
63
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
SECTION H: OTHER EFFECTS OF SCHOOL FEEDING
H01.When your children go to school, does 
anyone in your household save time?
1. Yes
2.No (Skip to H02)
H01a.If yes, who? 1. Men
2. Women; 3. Both
H01b. If yes, from which activity? (More
than 1 answer)
1. Preparing food; 2. Taking care of children
3. Both; 4. Other
H01c. If yes, how much time do you save? (Hours per day)
H01d. If yes, how do you use this time? 
(You can choose maximum 2 
activities)
1 = Household chores 
2 = Rest/Leisure
3 = Income-earning activity 
4 = Farm/livestock work
5 = Child care
6 = Other
1st___________________________________
2nd___________________________________
H02.When your children attends school, is 
it time consuming for anyone in your
household?
1. Yes
2.No (Skip to Module J)
H02a.If yes, who? 1. Men; 2. Women; 3. Both
H02b. If yes, from which activity must 
be done? (choose 2 activities)
1. Taking the child to school
2. Helping the child with the home work
3. Meeting with the teachers/school staff
4. Preparing school material 
(books/clothes)
5. Doing tasks that are usually done by 
the child
6. Others
1st___________________________________
2nd___________________________________
H02c.If yes, how much time do you
consume? (Hours per day)
Respondent will be HHH (or adult male or female). Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
MODULE I: PARENTS/COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN THE SCHOOL FEEDING PROGRAM
I1. Are you a member of the PTA (Parent Teacher 
Association)?
1 = yes
2 = No
I2. Are you a member of the School Feeding Committee
(SFC)?
1 = yes
2 = No
I3. Are you a member of the School Management
Committee (SMC)?
1 = yes
2 = No
I4. Are you a member of the Mothers’ Committee (MC)? 1 = yes
2 = No
I5. How many times did you visit the school last year
(excluding bringing the child to school)?
# of times
64
Part-2: Respondent will be mother or main female of the household.
Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the respondent.
PART 2: RESPONDENT: The main female member of the household or an adult who was involved in the 
household food preparation and present and ate food together with the household membersin the past week 
(starting from yesterday)
SECTION K1 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 1(Yesterday)
K1.1 K1.2 K1.3
# of
meal
Frequency
This # compared
to usual time over 
the last 6 months
Quantity eaten per meal
compared to usual time 
over the last 6 months
Codes for K1.2 & K1.3: 1= Less 2= Same 3= more
01. How many meals were eaten by adults 
(aged >=15) living in your household 
yesterday? (e.g. breakfast, lunch, dinner,
supper)
02. How many meals were eaten by children 
(aged less than 15) living in your household
yesterday?
Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of 
the respondent.
SECTION K2 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 2
Please tell me how many days in the past week (beginning from yesterday) your household has eaten 
the following foods and what was the source of these foods (includes meals prepared or bought by 
household and food taken away from home by all or most of household members such as having food at
restaurant, wedding party etc. and NOT including school meals eaten by the child at school).
Record “0” for items not eaten over the last 7 days. 
Record “99” for second source if only one source.
NB: If less than 15g of fish or meat shared by household, 
record as Condiments
codes for K2.2 & K2.3
1= Own production 6= Exchange of items
for food
2= Fishing, hunting, 7= Received as gift gathering
3= Purchase 8= Food aid as part of 
the SMP /THR
4= Borrowed 9= Other (specify)
5= Exchange of
labour for food
K2.0. Food items K2.1. # of days eaten 
over the last 7 days
K2.2. Main source
(Majority of the 
source)
K2.3. Second source
01. Rice Maximum 7
02. Maize
03. Bread
04. Cassava
05. Sweet potato, potato, 
yam
06. Bean, groundnut, 
other pulse
07. Fish
08. Other aquatic animal 
(frog…)
09. Meat (beef, pork, 
chicken)
10. Wild meat
11. Egg
65
12. Vegetable (incl. leafy)
13. Fruit
14. Sugar/sweet
15. Vegetable oil, animal
fat
16. Milk product
17.Prahok
18. Condiments or
seasoning
Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of 
the respondent.
SECTION K3: DIETARY DIVERSITY
For Control Group only
K3.1. Do your children have breakfast every day?
1. Yes
2. No
K3.1a. If yes, what does [SAMPLED CHILD] usually eat for breakfast? 
SHOWCARD
1=rice; 2 = bread
3= fresh fish; 4=dried fish 
5=meat; 6=vegetables 
7=porridge; 8=noodles
9 = sweet desserts; 10 = others (specify) 
(allow for multiple)
For Treatment Group only (SMP or SMP+THR)
K3.2. During July this year, did SAMPLED CHILD] have breakfast when 
it was not offered at the school?
1. Yes
2. No
K3.2a. If yes, what did SAMPLED CHILD] eat? SHOWCARD 1=rice; 2 = bread
3= fresh fish; 4=dried fish 
5=meat; 6=vegetables 
7=porridge; 8=noodles
9 = sweet desserts; 10 = others (specify) 
(allow for multiple)
Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code of the 
respondent.
Benefit Received (for treatment group only, and if you are asking control group please skip to section 
M)
(Complete below table if respondent receive benefit from WFP) – CASE ONLY
[Respondent: Head of the household or mother of the child who was picked in school
(1th-4thgrade) through the random sampling process]
K3.3. How many years have you received school meals or THRs? (# of years) (0 if none)
K3.3a. SMP K3.3b. THR______________________
K3.3b. How many time do you receive THR from November 2016 to July 2017?
………………………..times
[Only if they receive THR]
How 
many 
household 
members 
benefits 
from 
THR? (#)
Quantity of food received 
each time (taking into 
account THR only) (in kg)
Who 
do you 
share 
your 
THR
with?
(See 
Code 
below)
Do 
you 
sell 
any of 
your 
THR?
(See 
Code 
below)
If you 
sell 
your 
THR,
what 
do you 
use 
that 
money 
for?
(See 
Code 
below)
Do you 
use 
iodized 
salt for 
your 
family?
1. Yes
2. No
If yes, 
do you 
have it 
now?
1. Yes
2. No
Do you 
use 
vitamin 
A
fortified 
oil for 
your 
family?
1. Yes
2. No
If yes, 
do 
you 
have it 
now?
1. Yes
2. No
Rice Oil Beans
66
K3.4 K3.5a K3.5b K3.5c K3.6 K3.7 K3.8 K3.9 K3.10 K3.11 K3.12
Code of K3.6. Who do you share your 
THR?
Code of K3.7. 
Do you sell 
any of your
THR?
Code of K3.8. If you sell your THR, what 
do you use that money for?
1. Other household members
2. Family outside the household
3. Friends/neighbours/other
4. I don’t share my THR
1. Yes, usually
2. Yes,
sometimes
3. No, never
1. To buy food 5. To invest in a
2. To buy other productive activity 
household/personal 6. To meet education 
items expenditures
3. To buy clothes 7. Other
4. To meet health
related expenditures
Respondent will be HHH or mother. Please write the ID code of the respondent. 
SECTION L: CHILD HEALTH
Respondent: head of household, or mother, referring to child who was picked in school 
by random sampling process
We would now like to know health status and illnesses
ID code 
(Copy from 
SECTION A)
Age 
(in 
years)
Has the child been 
dewormed in the 
past 6 months?
1. Yes, at school
2. Yes, at the health 
center
3. Yes, bought it
4. No
Has the child 
suffered from any 
illness in the last 2 
weeks? (2 weeks of 
the last school year 
if interview during 
the vacation)
99. No illness
How many days in the last two 
weeks ((2 weeks of the last 
school year if interview during 
the vacation) has the child 
been unable to attend school 
due to illness?
(number of days)
1. Diarrhea
2. Vomiting
3. Fever
4. Cough
5. Measles
6. Other
L01 L02 L03 L04 L05
Respondent will be mother of the child. Please write the ID code of the respondent.
[The following questions are to be answered by Mother of the child selected through 
the sampling process or head of household]
L1. Have you ever heard of night blindness (local term)? 1.Yes
2. No
L2. Does any of your children have difficulty seeing in dim light (For instance 
at dusk or in a dark place)?
1.Yes
2. No
L3. Have you ever received a vitamin A capsule like this one for your child? 1.Yes
2. No (Skip to L5)
L4. If yes, how many months ago did your child take the last capsule?
1. Less than 6 months
2. More than 6 months
98. Don’t know
L5. What kind of toilet facility does your household use? (showcard)
1. Flush latrine/toilet with water 2. Traditional pit latrine 3. Partly open 
pit (no roof or wall) 4. River/pond side 5. Bush/open field
6. Other (specify)
L6. What is the household’s main source of drinking water? (showcard)
67
1. Pond/river/canal 2. Open ring well 3. Closed ring well 4. Openspring
5. Hand pump 6. Tapped water 7. Rain water 8. Bought 
water
9. Hand dug (no ring) 10. Other
L7. Can you say three important health or hygiene practices? (don’t read 
the answer)
1.Bathing 2. Hand washing 3.Wound care 4.Clean toilets
5. Clean water 6. Clean food before cooking 7. Eating healthy food
8. Don’t know 9. Others
1.
2.
3.
L8. Can you tell me your main source of information on good health practices?
(don’t read the answer) (choose only one answer)
1. Poster 2. TV 3. Radio 4. Health center 5. School 6. Don’t 
know
7. Other
Respondent will be mother or main female of the household. Please write the ID code 
of the respondent.
MODULE M: MORBIDITY
(Questions to be asked about members aged 6-11 years OR anyone in Grades 1-6:
M1. M2. First Name M3. Has M4. M5. How M6. How Illness Code:
ID (Please bring all [NAME] What many days many days 1= Fever
members from suffered did in the last 1 has 2= Cough or colds
Module A from any [NAME] month [NAME] 3= difficulty in breathing
between 6 and illness in the suffer [NAME] been 4= Diarrhoea
11 yrs old or in last 1 from? suffered unable to 5=
Grades 1-6) month? (if from this go to Fever with chills like malaria
school is illness? (if school? 6=Worm
closed, refer school is (if school is 7= Skin infections
to the closed, refer closed, 8=Stomach-ache
whole to the refer to the 9= Measles
month of whole whole Others(Specify)
August) month of month of
August) August)
68
Part-3: Respondent will be the school going child (the sample child) of the household.
Respondent will be the school going child. Please write the ID code of the respondent. 
SECTION N3 – FOOD CONSUMPTION PART 3 (DIETARY DIVERSITY)
Please tell us the number of meals that you ate yesterday during day and night and even you eat outside. 
Please start with morning meal.
N3.1. Please, insert day of week (see codes below):
1- Monday 2- Tuesday 3- Wednesday 4- Thursday 5- Friday 6- Saturday 7-
Sunday
Was the food they ate part of SMP or THR?
N3.2. Id code of child (from SECTIONA01):
Source N3.3a.
Breakfast
1. Yes
2. No
N3.3b.
Snack
1. Yes
2. No
N3.3c.
Lunch
1. Yes
2. No
N3.3d.
Snack
1. Yes
2. No
N3.3e.
Dinner
1. Yes
2. No
N3.2a. Did the child eat this 
yesterday? (If No, Skip
N3.2.1 & N3.2.2)
N3.2.1. it was not part of
SMP or THR
N3.2.2. It was part of SMP or
THR
After finishing answering the above question, please fill info about group of food depending on the above 
answer. For group of food that is not mentioned please ask the question:
N3.4 Did the child eat this kind of food yesterday? 
Code
1. Yes (it was not part of SMP or THR)
2. Yes (it was part of SMP or THR)
3. Yes (Both SMP and THR)
4. Yes (SMP/THR and Family food)
4. No
98. Don’t know
Food Group Description N3.4
N3.4.1. Cereals Corn/maize, rice, wheat or any other grains or foods made from 
these (e.g., bread, noodles, porridge or other grain products or 
pastes or other locally available grains)
N3.4.2. Vitamin a rich
vegetables and tubers
Pumpkin, carrots or sweet potatoes that are orange inside +
other locally available vitamin-A rich vegetables, yellow 
vegetable
N3.4.3. White tubers and 
roots
White potatoes, white sweet potatoes, taro, white yams, white 
cassava, or other foods made from roots
N3.4.4. Dark green leafy 
vegetable
Dark green/leafy vegetables, including wild ones + locally
available vitamin-A rich leaves such as amaranth, cassava leaves, 
kale, spinach etc.
N3.4.5. Other vegetable Other vegetables (e.g. tomato, onion, eggplant...), including wild
N3.4.6. Vitamin A rich fruits Ripe mangoes, cantaloupe, ripe papaya, other orange or yellow
N3.4.7. Other fruits Other fruits, bananas, including wild fruits
N3.4.8. Organ meat (ironic) Liver, kidney, heart or other organ meats or blood-based foods
N3.4.9. Flesh meats Beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit, dog, wild game, chicken, duck, or
N3.4.10. Eggs Chicken, duck, guinea hen or any other egg
N3.4.11. Fish Fresh or dried fish or smoke fish, seafood or shellfish, snail, frog
69
N3.4.12. Legumes, nuts, and Beans, peas, lentils, tofu, nuts, seeds or foods made from these
N3.4.13. Milk and milk Milk, cheese, yogurt or other milk products
N3.4.14. Oils and fats Oil, fats or butter added to food or used for cooking
N3.4.15. Sweets Sugar, honey, sweetened condensed milk, sweetened soda or 
sugary foods such as chocolates, candies, cookies and cakes
N3.4.16. Spices, 
condiments, beverages
Spices (black pepper, salt, chili powder), condiments (soy sauce, 
hot sauce), coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages OR local product:
Respondent will be the school going child. Please write the ID code of the respondent.
Benefit Received (for treatment group only)
[Only if they receive SMP] Answer
N3.5. Do you eat all your school meal every school day (morning sessions)? 
(The respondent is the child that eats hot meal at school)
1. Yes
2. No. It’s not available every day during morning sessions
3. No, it’s not offered to me
4. No, I don’t like it
5. No, I don’t have time to eat
6. No, I’m not hungry
7. No, I like to take some of it home to my family
8. Other…………………
N3.6. How often do you bring home your school meal (not THR) to your 
family) when you receive it?
1. Everyday
2. 3-4 days a week
3. 1-2 days a week
4. Rarely
5. Never
70
Annex 10: Selection of respondents for quantitative surveys
Respondents for school surveys were primarily principals, administrators or teachers 
who are aware of both school infrastructure and supplies as well as student records.
For the teacher survey, up to three teachers will be selected from each school when possible. 
These will be the teacher of Grades 2, 4 and 6. This is designed to capture outcomes of each of 
the three types of interventions, i.e. Grade 2 (SMP), Grade 4 (SMP + THR), and Grade 6 
(THR).
The ET is however aware that there needs to be some level of flexibility of the number of 
teachers interviewed per school. Smaller schools are known to have only one or two teachers 
in total so selection of teachers by grade will not always be possible. A gender balance of 
interviewees will be maintained as far as possible.
Selection of households: within each selected school, lists of SMP, SMP + THR and THR 
beneficiaries with children in Grades 1-6 will be eligible for selection. Using beneficiary lists, 
systematic random sampling was conducted by programme type to select children/ 
households for inclusion.
Six households from each school will be selected from these lists at random (where possible) 
and be interviewed for the evaluation. The same process will be used for case and control 
schools, and for both the endline and new baseline surveys.
In total, 1,536 households will be surveyed. This is six children from each of the 152 case 
schools, and six children from each of the 104 control schools (79 for the new baseline, and 25 
control schools from the endline).
Schools visited will be selected via a purposive sampling of the three modalities of school 
feeding implemented by WFP with support from the McGovern-Dole FFE programme. Each 
school visit requests a minimum of two hours, which means each survey team will do one 
school visit each day and six household interviews selected from each school. The final 
programme of meetings and itinerary will be arranged and managed in cooperation with the 
CO and Siem Reap sub-0ffice.
The same data collection tools were used for both the quantitative surveys: endline and 
baseline. The quantitative data are designed to highlight changes in the programme’s activity, 
output and outcome indicators as per the performance monitoring plan. Within the evaluation 
criteria, the quantitative information is best suited to address elements pertaining to efficiency 
and effectiveness of operations.
71
Annex 11: List of agencies
No. Description
1 USDA 2
2 Government: CARD, ministries, provincials, districts, and
communes
85
3 NGO: SAG, WE, KAP, PLAN, and PSE 19
4 UN: WFP, UNICEF, FAO, and WB 23
5 Embassy: German, Australia, USA. And Japan 6
6 Teachers 15
7 Parents of Household Visited 4
8 Students (grade 1-6) in 6 primary schools visited 49
Total 203 (81 females)
72
Annex 12: Key informant semi-structured interviewed guides 
Interviews with Province and District Level Government Officials
Prior school visits, in each province it will be necessary to request two meetings, one with the 
Province Education administration, the other with the District Education Office.
Province Education Office
The meeting at province level is likely to be more a courtesy visit than a substantial meeting. 
It can nevertheless be an opportunity for ET members to ask questions about:
• The role of the province administration within the McGovern-Dole FFE process;
• An appreciation about the partnership between the province administration and WFP 
regarding MDG FFE activities;
• An appraisal of the programme outcomes;
• Evidences in support to this assessment.
District Education Office
The head of district office staff, the district officer in charge of primary education, one district 
office staff in charge of school feeding activities (focal point) should participate in the meeting, 
which should be organized according to two sequences:
• One presentation by district officers of the general educational context of the district, 
and challenges, with an emphasis on primary education.
• One Q&A session.
The following questions are provided as a framework for the Q&A session:
1. What is the total primary school age population in the district (gender 
disaggregated)?
2. What is the total number of children enrolled at school in the district for the 
present school year (gender disaggregated)?
3. How many primary schools, private and public, are there in the district?
4. How many primary schools benefit from a school feeding programme?
5. According to you, is there a need for school feeding in this district? If yes, for what 
reasons?
6. According to you, what is the overall goal of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme? 
Is it targeted at education, health and nutrition, social/family support?
7. Is there a body/system at district level where partners (representative of diverse 
district offices, NGOs, WFP Field Office, other UN agencies, private sector, etc.) 
discuss education issues, school feeding included?
8. When did the McGovern-Dole FFE programme start in the district? Is it still 
ongoing?
9. What are/have been programme modalities? Can you provide operational details 
about programme implementation?
10. Have you been involved in the design of the McGovern-Dole FFE programme 
prior to its launching in the district?
11. Did you benefit from a specific SF training? How long was it, and given by whom? 
12.What is your exact role/duty within the McGovern-Dole FFE process?
13. Are you in charge of reporting on SF activity? If yes, what are the topics covered 
by your reports, the rate of submission of reports, and to whom do you report?
14. Are you facing difficulties to complete your duty regarding SF?
15. Do you think you would need some refresher training? If yes, on what topics? 
16.According to you, to what extent is the McGovern-Dole FFE programme 
successful? What is the major benefit for the children?
17.Can you provide objective evidences in support of your assessment?
18. Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest?
Question Remarks
73
In addition to the meeting with district education office staff, the ET will collect data from the 
3 (4 whenever possible) previous school years showing enrolment, attendance, drop-out, per 
primary school grade, disaggregated by gender. Where possible, it will be wise to send a 
message to the District Education Officer prior to the school visit so that he/she has the time 
to collect the data and is ready to provide them upon ET arrival.
Interviews with Parents
The questionnaire below presents a set of questions that could be asked at school level during 
focus group discussions with representatives of the schoolchildren, PTA and individual 
parents. Based on the SABER approach17 and although covering a broader scope, these 
questions will serve the main purpose of assessing the community participation and 
ownership in schools where the McGovern-Dole FFE programme is implemented.
To prevent possible bias, it will be made clear since the beginning that the head teacher and 
teachers do not attend the meeting with parents. The interview format will follow a standard 
introduction of the team and explanation of the evaluation purpose. The team’s independence, 
neutrality and confidentially of responses will be noted, as well as the approximate time (40-
50 minutes) of the meeting/interview.
1. When did school feeding activities start in this school?
2. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school?
3. Have you been consulted before the launching of the SF activity in the 
school? By whom?
4. Have you been involved in deciding which commodities are provided?
5. Is there a LSFC in the school?
6. Who participate in the LSFC?
7. How many women are members of the LSFC?
8. What kind of activities do LSFC members must conduct each day? Please 
describe a typical SF day.
9. When and by whom is the food delivered to the school? Has it always been 
done in due time?
10. How does the transporter know the exact quantity of food he should 
deliver to the school?
11. Who does the unloading of the truck?
12.Are representatives of the LSFC present during truck unloading? 
13.Who controls the quantity of food delivered and signs the waybill? 
14.Where is the food stored?
15. Who is responsible for food storage?
16.Is there a book to keep record of food storage and daily distribution? Who 
is responsible for it?
17. Do parents contribute some additional food in-kind or cash resources for 
the food of the children?
18. What other contribution do parents make to the SF activity, if any? 
19.According to you, to what extent is the programme successful? What is the 
major benefit for the children and their family?
20. Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest?
17 Systems Approach for Better Education Results
Question Remarks
74
Interviews with Teachers
The meeting with parents will be followed by a separate meeting with the head teacher and 
teachers that will focus on the following main areas:
• Role and responsibility of the head teacher and teachers in the day-to-day SF operation 
within the school;
• Record keeping and reporting;
• Qualitative and quantitative assessment of SF outcomes and impact.
1. Since when have you been head director/teacher in this school?
2. According to you, why is there school feeding in this school?
3. Who (which institution) presented the school feeding programme to you?
4. Have you been involved in the design of the SF activity?
5. Did you benefit from a SF training? How long was it, and given by whom?
6. What is your exact role/duty related to SF activity at the school?
7. Have you been provided with SF monitoring tools? If yes, by whom (which 
institution)?
8. Are you in charge of reporting on SF activity? If yes, what are the topics 
covered by your reports, the rate of submission of reports, and to whom do you 
report?
9. Are you facing difficulties to complete your duty regarding SF?
10. Do you think you would need some refresher training? If yes, on what 
topics?
11. According to you, to what extent is the SF programme successful? What is 
the major benefit for the children?
12.Is there a need for improvement? What would you suggest?
Question Remarks
75
Annex 13: Additional information on participation in education in 
Cambodia
During the period 2013-2016 the net enrolment rate (NER) has been higher in the three 
provinces where the USDA McGovern-Dole FFE programme is implemented compared to the 
NER countrywide. Although the NER in these provinces reached a high level during the school 
year 2013/14 (more than 98 percent), figures indicate an overall decreasing trend since that 
year, which justifies continued effort to reach the targeted 100 percent rate.
Net primary school enrolment rate in USDA supported provinces, by gender 
(2013-2016)
2015/2016
91.2
93.9
93.2
94.3 94.5 94.2 94.2
95.6
96.8
98.5 98.1 98.5Battamban Kampong Thom Siemreap
Whole Kingdom
Battamban
Kampong Thom
Siemreap
Whole Kingdom
Battamban
Kampong Thom
Siemreap
Whole Kingdom
76
Annex 14: Additional information on key government strategies and 
policies
Rectangular Strategy III
The RS III (2014-2018) states that the next 5 years will require a greater emphasis on the 
development of human capital, which is at the core of Cambodia’s future competitive 
advantage. Three cross-cutting multi-sector strategies focus primarily on poverty reduction: 
The National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable (2011-2015), and recently 
National Social Protection Policy Frameworks (2016-2025) and the National Strategy for Food 
Security and Nutrition (NSFSN - 2014-2018).
The Royal Government of Cambodia has now developed a National Social Protection Policy 
Framework (2016-2025), encompassing both social assistance and social insurance measures, 
which will serve as the basis for reducing and preventing poverty, vulnerability and inequality, 
as well as strengthening human resource development in the country.
NSFSN is a coordination framework combining multi-sectoral activities to enhance food 
security and nutrition in reducing child and maternal malnutrition and enhancing human and 
economic development. The SMP and THR activities are aligning and in coherence with the 
three objectives of NSFSN (2014-2018). Under objective 2 of the strategy, which has five areas 
of intervention as follows: 1) scale up nutritious services and nutrition education, although 
this action focused on mother and child nutrition under 2 years, but in line with the support 
of malnutrition and human capacity development of children; 2) improve domestic water 
supply, sanitation, and hygiene, the McGovern-Dole program on school health and hygiene is 
will coherence with this activity area; 3) expand fortification of food; 4) increase the 
availability and appropriate use of nutritious food; and 5) link social protection instruments 
to food supplies. These five areas demonstrated that the current implementation of the WFP/ 
McGovern-Dole’s project is well aligned and supports to the Government of Cambodia policy 
and strategy.
The RS III states that the next 5 years will require a greater emphasis on the development of 
human capital, which is at the core of Cambodia’s future competitive advantage. Three cross￾cutting multi-sector strategies focus primarily on poverty reduction:
 National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable (2011-2015)
 National Social Protection Policy Frameworks (2016-2025)
 National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition (2014-2018).
National Social Protection Strategy for the Poor and Vulnerable
The NSPS (2009 – 2013) was developed during increased food prices and the economic crisis 
that have had a negative impact on the poor and further widened social disparities, which 
resulted in significant social and economic development losses. Social protection is a key 
priority of the Rectangular Strategy, and the National Strategic Development Plan (NSDP). At 
the Cambodia Development Cooperation Forum (CDCF) in December 2008 the RGC 
mandated the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) to undertake scoping 
and mapping exercise to determine the nature of existing social safety nets in Cambodia, and 
to identify policy, institutional and capacity gaps for developing a more systematic and 
integrated social safety net system.
The NSPS sets the framework for a sustainable and comprehensive social protection system 
for all citizens over the long term, comprising social security mechanisms for the formal sector 
together with the provision of improved social safety nets for the informal sector. The strategy 
gives priority to the development of effective and affordable social safety nets targeted to the 
poor and vulnerable with complementary social welfare services for special vulnerable groups. 
The objectives of NSPS were addressing: 1) Basic needs of the population in situations of 
emergency and crisis; 2) Poverty and vulnerability of children and mothers; 3) Seasonal un-
77
and underemployment and livelihood opportunities; and 4) Affordable health care for the 
poor. The implementation of the NSPS was focusing on the following Social Protection 
interventions:
- Cash transfers (with a focus on addressing child and maternal malnutrition),
- Public Works Programs, and
Education (school feeding and cash scholarship) and Child Labour.
National Social Protection Policy Frameworks
The Council for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) is responsible for formulating the 
government’s roadmap for agricultural and rural development, including dissemination of the 
NSPS. So far, it has been difficult for CARD to mobilize government and line agencies’ 
ownership of the NSPS. Despite the dissemination of the NSPS at national and subnational 
levels, awareness of social protection is still low. 18 The limited means of the government and 
a tight national budget impede CARD’s ability to execute its mission. 19, 20
National Food Security and Nutrition Strategy
Under the objective 2 of the strategy, which has five areas of intervention as follows: 1) scale 
up nutritious services and nutrition education, although this action focused on mother and 
child nutrition under 2 years, but in line with the support of malnutrition and human capacity 
development of children; 2) improve domestic water supply, sanitation, and hygiene, the 
McGovern-Dole program on school health and hygiene is will coherence with this activity area;
3) expand fortification of food; 4) increase the availability and appropriate use of nutritious 
food; and link social protection instruments to food supplies. These five areas demonstrated 
that the current implementation of the WFP/ McGovern-Dole’s project is well aligned and 
supports the Government of Cambodia policy and strategy.
Social accountability framework
Information on budgets and expenditures. It is important for citizens to know what funds are 
made available, especially in financially constrained situations. Budget information is
currently available for communes and for schools, and some already posted the information 
on their office walls for the public. This information needs to be compiled and presented in a 
format that citizens can use and understand. It needs to be aligned with expenditure 
information (how these budgets were spent) at the end of each year.
Information on targets. Targets (e.g. the Cambodian Millennium Development Goals or a 
Ministry’s program goals) are established to improve performance. Tracking performance 
against targets is useful so government knows how it is doing at the local level. This 
information is already in the public domain but not communicated thoroughly at the local 
level. For instance: ‒ In primary education, the key outcome targets include: The Primary Net 
Enrolment Rate (96%), and the ECE enrolment of 5 year olds (50%); while service targets are 
Pupil to Teacher Ratio (45 pupils) and survival rate from Grade 1 to Grade 6 (75%).
Information on performance achieved: Citizens need information on the performance of their 
service agencies – annual outcomes and outputs of schools, health centers and 
commune/districts. The Government has already produced a “commune profile” (that 
includes a rich variety of development data) available in the commune database.4 I-SAF
18 UNDP. 2015. Adaptive Social Protection in Cambodia. Strategy Paper.
19 Ibid.
20 Similar constraints regarding implementation gaps and resource constraints were underlined by a Senior Fellow from the 
Cambodian Institute for Cooperation and Peace at Japan’s Institute of International Affairs’ workshop. See Vannarith Chheang, 
2014: Social Protection in Cambodia.
78
activities will promote the compilation and dissemination of information on a pre-agreed set 
of key performance indicators (similar to the targets.
Rectangular Strategy IV
Rectangular Strategy Phase IV consisted of four rectangles. The WFP/McGovern Dole 
is strongly linked and aligned with Rectangle IV.
Rectangle IV: Capacity Building and Human Resource Development. In this rectangle, 
there are four sides for the strategic intervention.
• Side 1: Strengthening and Enhancing Education, Science and Technology, and 
Technical Training. The Royal Government will continue implementing the 
Education Strategic Plan focusing on equal opportunities for all Cambodian 
children and youth to have access to basic education, both formal and informal, and
improving the quality of education in responding to the country’s development 
needs.
• Side 2: Promotion of Health and Nutrition. The Royal Government will focus on 
enhancing awareness about hygiene and improving sanitary conditions among the 
population and aimed at maintaining good health and reducing prevalence and 
spread of diseases.
• Side 3: Development of Social Protection System. The Royal Government will 
introduce the food assistance program for the poor, food for work program, 
protection programs to enable poor children to go to school and programs to 
support the vulnerable; and
• Side 4: Enhanced Implementation of Population Policy and Gender Equity. In this side, 
the RGC will continue to strengthen the quality of people, improve the status of women who 
are the backbone of national economy and society, and to transform youth to become an 
important driving force for development in every sector. The RGC has achieved remarkable 
progress in the past legislation including enhancing the quality and living conditions of 
the people as reflected in significant improvement in social and economic indicators in 
education, technical and vocational training, health and employment.
79
Annex 15: Additional information on the decentralization and 
deconcentration strategy of the Royal Government of Cambodia
Source: Niazi, T. H, 2011. Deconcentration and decentralization reforms in Cambodia: Recommendations for an institutional 
framework. Mandaluyong City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank, 2011.
Under the decentralization and deconcentration (D&D) strategy of the government, provincial 
and district level authorities will coordinate public administrative activities within their own 
territories in the hope that it will promote the development and provision of public services to 
respond to the needs of citizens. At the commune level, commune councils will take up more 
important roles in planning, budgeting, undertaking local development and providing basic 
public services. Commune councils will also perform their own functions as defined in the law 
and agency functions. These reforms to management systems within the provincial, district 
and commune level administrations have the following two strategic goals:
• First: to strengthen and expand local democracy;
• Second: to promote local development and to reduce poverty.
The reform will therefore be developed based on the following important principles:
• Democratic representation: the reforms will strengthen the roles of councils at provincial, 
district and commune administrations to be established in accordance with the principles 
of democracy by expanding their powers, duties, responsibilities and resources.
• Participation of the people: the reform will introduce systems and procedures as ensure 
that people, especially women, vulnerable groups and indigenous minorities can 
participate in decision-making at provincial, district and commune levels.
• Public sector accountability: Reform will strengthen accountability at all levels of 
administration and facilitate citizens' oversight of the administrative and financial affairs 
of those administrations. - Effectiveness: Reform will bring public services closer to users 
by allowing citizens to participate in planning and monitoring public services in order to 
meet local needs and priorities. The reform will also improve administration and 
coordination, strengthen the management capacity of provinces, districts and communes 
in order to promote the quality of services and expand the delivery of public services.
• Focusing on poverty reduction: the reform will strengthen local capacity in using resources 
to support poverty reduction activities, especially vulnerable groups, indigenous minorities 
and women and children in order to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of 
Cambodia.
Commune Councils have been in full operation since 2015. They have prepared and 
implemented commune plans and budgets were allocated by the central government for their 
development activity within their communities. Although the organic law gives authority to 
communes to have access to their own sources of revenues, communes have so far received 
revenue from only one source, i.e. the transfer of national budget through the Commune Fund. 
Furthermore, the capacity of the commune is low, inter-commune cooperation has not yet 
been put in place, management systems and structures at provincial level for provision of 
support and control legality of local administration has not been strengthened.
The rollout of the school feeding program is aligned with the current strategic framework for 
D&D because SMP and THR was established according to the D&D strategic framework 
process and D&D has been:
• Creating institutions at provincial, district and commune levels that will promote citizens' 
participation, respond to local needs and allow local authorities to make decisions and 
choices related to the local development in a way that is accountable for their decisions and 
actions.
• Ensure the delivery of services and infrastructures and poverty reduction.
• Ensuring that the above two components interact with each other regularly.
80
Annex 16: Additional information on WFP’s relevant policies and 
corporate guidance
WFP Revised School Feeding Policy (2013)
Objectives:
• To provide a safety net for food-insecure households through income transfers;
• To support children’s education through enhanced learning ability and access to 
the education system;
• To enhance children’s nutrition by reducing micronutrient deficiencies;
• To strengthen national capacity for school feeding through policy support and 
technical assistance;
• To develop links between school feeding and local agricultural production where 
possible and feasible.
81
Annex 17: Other agencies working in the FFE programme schools
Kitchen 
Rehabilitation
Store room
rehabilitation
Drill wells/
water 
stations
Handwashing 
stations
School 
gardens
Literacy￾related 
activities
MoEYS
Programme 
Budget
MoEYS
Programme 
Budget
MoEYS
Programme 
Budget
MoEYS Programme 
Budget
MoEYS
Programme 
Budget
MoEYS
Programme 
Budget
WFP/PLAN WFP/PLAN WFP/PLAN WFP/PLAN WFP/PLAN WFP/PLAN
CFC
MoEYS School 
Improvement 
Grant
MoEYS
School 
Improvement
Grant
MoEYS School 
Improvement 
Grant
MoEYS School 
Improvement 
Grant
Books for 
Asia
Community 
budget CFC World Vision World Vision Contributions 
from students
Room to 
Read
World Vision World Vision PODA
Organization
Sanitation and 
Health
Organization
Get from high 
school
Tonle Sap 
Cambodia Clinic GHP Donor from Korea Community
Clean water 
Cambodia
Tem Young 
University BST
Hahovtukai 
organization Child Rights Fund Child Training 
Organization
Muslim Aid USAID SOV
World Vision Ministry of 
Education SBB
Krousa 
Thmey Kakibe Hookung
Cambodia
Habitat
Buddhist
community Dong Dukor
Community 
money
Chou Muk Matiser
Child Rights 
Fund Sa Art Cambodia MGP
BORIBO SPB FH
H.E Im 
Chhunlim BORIBO Teacher’s 
private funds
Matiser
Kakibe
H.E Hun 
Maneth
Get from
Korea
Yazatiyirik
Buddhist
community
SPB
BORIBO
82
Annex 18: Additional information on the alignment of the FFE 
programme with other development actors
The 2013 WFP Revised School Feeding Policy confirmed that WFP would continue to ensure 
that elements of the ‘Essential Package’ are provided, particularly though working closely with 
UN sister agencies21. However, in 2011, UNICEF reoriented its support to Cambodia on two 
key areas (capacity development and system strengthening at national level) and is no more 
delivering services at school level. Consequently, direct collaboration between WFP and 
UNICEF is now very limited and almost non-existent at community level. The ET note 
however, that WFP’s school feeding activities have been integrated in the checklist used for 
monitoring UNICEF’s Child-Friendly School (CFS) Programme that has been a national 
education policy since 2007.
The collaboration between the RGoC and WFP has been formalized through the Country 
Programme Action Plan (CPAP) signed by the two parties in July 2011. This CPAP was 
followed by a Letter of Agreement (LoA) between WFP and MoEYS, and separate Field Level 
Agreements (FLAs) with the Provincial departments of Education, Youth and Sport (PoEYS) 
where the CP's education component is implemented. These FLAs establish the monitoring, 
reporting responsibilities, accountabilities and technical supervision as well as the modalities 
for distribution of WFP food and cash commodities. Each FLA defines the obligations of 
PoEYS and WFP in the provision of services and assistance in accordance with the objective 
of the education component of the WFP CP 200202. Since 2011, a School Feeding Programme 
Coordination Committee (PCC) and a School Feeding Task Force (SFTF) have been 
established at central MoEYS as well as school feeding committees at provincial, district and 
school levels. The FLA signed in October 201322 between WFP, PoEYS in Kampong Thom, 
Battambang and Siem Reap provinces, and Plan International Cambodia covers all WFP 
school feeding activities in the three provinces encompassing, but without mentioning, the 
USDA McGovern-Dole FFE programme.
21 The Essential Package includes the following interventions: promotion of girls’ education, potable water and latrines, 
health and nutrition education, deworming, HIV and AIDS education, psycho-social support, malaria prevention, 
fuel-efficient stoves and school gardens. 22 An amendment on 16th December 2015 extended the duration of the agreement to June 2016.
83
Annex 19: Additional information on the household survey respondents
The household survey was conducted with 840 households – 304 households in Battambang 
and 536 households in Siem Reap. The majority of the survey respondents (96.3%) were the 
head of the household or the wife/husband of the head of the household. Most respondents 
were male (60.4%) and most (82.1%) were married.
The average household size was 5.4 members, with no significant difference between the 
household size of USDA-supported and non-USDA supported households.
Approximately a half the surveyed heads of household had only reached primary level 
schooling, with a further one quarter, never attending school at all. Approximately one third 
of heads of household reported being unable to read or write.
Only half the surveyed households have improved water sources and around 60% of 
households used improved toilet facilities at home.
Most households have two sources of income, primarily farming activities and agricultural 
labour (daily wage). Overall, the average annual household income of surveyed households 
was approximately USD 2900, with households from SMP+THR schools average around 
USD2500 per year. This verifies the WFP strategy of targeting on the basis of poverty.
Demographic information of surveyed households
HH
size DR* Males 
(%)
Females 
(%)
HH Head Marital status
(%)**
S M W S/D
All USDA supported 
schools 5.4 1.4 46.3 53.7 2.5 81.2 14.6 1.59
SMP + THR 5.2 1.4 46.7 53.3 1.9 83.4 13.0 1.35
THR only 5.5 1.4 45.9 54.1 3.0 79.25 15.9 1.80
Comparison schools 5.4 1.1 48.5 51.5 2.2 85.5 8 2.90
*Dependency ratio: Number of children and elderly: number of adults
**Single/married/widowed/separated or divorced
Education and literacy of heads of households
• Education and literacy information of heads of household of surveyed households
Highest class completed (%) Literacy (%)
Never Primary Secondary High 
school
or
above
Can 
read 
and
write
Can 
sign 
only
Can 
read 
only
Cannot 
read or 
write
All USDA
supported 
schools
24.66% 55.77% 13.57% 5.45% 56.42% 2.81% 6.18% 34.59%
SMP + THR 28.89% 58.03% 9.03% 4.04% 51.15% 2.60% 7.68% 38.57%
THR only 21.18% 53.91% 17.31% 6.61% 60.77% 2.98% 4.94% 31.32%
Comparison
schools 23.08% 56.15% 12.31% 8.46% 60.77% 0.00% 7.69% 31.54%
84
Education of school aged children within surveyed households
Number of
school aged 
children in HH
Age started 
school
Average percent of 
school aged children
attending school
All USDA supported schools 2.0 6.2 97.7%
SMP + THR 1.9 6.2 97.9%
THR only 2.1 6.2 97.6%
Comparison schools 1.9 6.1 97.2%
Almost all surveyed children in households of school age go to school. The exceptions are 1 
control HH (0.72% of Control HH), 1 THR HH (0.25% of THR HH) and 2 SMP+THR HH 
(0.54% of SMP+THR HH).
Reasons for non-attendance of school aged children (drop-out):
• SMP+THR (n=2): 1. The child didn’t want to study, and 2. The child didn’t do well 
in school and dropped out
• THR only (n=1): The school was too far away
• Comparison school (n=1): The travel to school was unsafe for the child/they could 
not afford the cost of schooling
Reasons for school aged children never attending school:
• SMP+THR (n=1): The child is disabled and not eligible to attend a regular school, 
and they don’t want to study.
• THR only (n=1): The child has been suffering from a long-term illness, they don’t 
want to study, and the parents cannot afford the cost of schooling.
• Comparison school (n=1): The child is disabled, they don’t want to study, and they 
must engage in paid work to contribute to the household
Reasons that parents elected to send children to the surveyed schools:
• Parents from the USDA supported schools reported that the main reason children 
attend to the targeted schools is because it is near their home (45.4%) and they want 
their children to get an education (40%). Less than 20% of parents (17.9%) 
mentioned the quality of the teachers.
• Parents at comparison schools gave the same responds but a lesser proportion 
(25.4%) said that they want their children to get an education, 62% if parents 
selected that school because it is near their home, and 18% of parents mentioned 
the quality of teaching.
85
Household water and sanitation facilities
• Sources of drinking water and toilet facilities of surveyed households
Sources of drinking water
(%) Toilet facilities (%)
Improved23 Unimproved24
Flush 
toilet/latrine 
with water
Traditional
pit toilet/ 
partly
open pit
Bush/open 
field/river/ 
pond site
All USDA supported
schools 54.35 45.65 64.18 1.36 34.46
SMP + THR 53.91 46.09 57.15 0.89 41.95
THR only 54.73 45.27 70.27 1.76 27.97
Household livelihood data
• Summary of livelihood data
Number of livelihood 
sources of head of 
household
Number of income 
generating activities in 
household
All USDA supported schools 1.96 1.953
SMP + THR 1.95 1.888
THR only 1.95 2.010
Comparison schools 1.95 1.993
• Main livelihood of household head
All USDA
supported
schools
SMP + 
THR THR only
Comparison 
schools
Farming activities 49.2 63.1 37.1 40.6
Agricultural labour (daily wage) 8.6 2.7 13.7 6.5
Housewife 8.5 8.2 8.8 9.4
Petty trader/ Vendor 7.3 5.1 9.1 5.1
Fishing/ activities 1.8 0.6 2.8 6.5
Non-agricultural labour (daily wage) 4.4 4.0 4.7 2.9
Medium/large scale trader 0.9 0.3 1.3 5.1
No occupation 4.9 5.1 4.7 3.6
23 Improved drinking water sources include piped water into dwelling or yard, public tap or standpipe, tube-well or borehole, 
protected dug well, protected spring and rainwater and bottled water (but only when water for cooking and water for personal 
hygiene are also improved). In the case of Cambodia, bottled water is an unimproved source. 2 Unimproved water sources are bottled water, surface water, tanker-truck, cart with tank/drum, unprotected dug well, and 
unprotected spring.
86
• Main livelihood of non-breadwinner
All USDA
supported schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Farming activities 30.7 39.4 23.2 23.2
Housewife 15.2 14.6 15.8 22.5
Student 12.8 14.8 11.1 5.1
No occupation 9.1 9.4 8.8 12.3
Petty trader/ Vendor 7.5 4.9 9.7 7.2
Agricultural labour (daily wage) 6.9 2.5 10.7 2.2
Tailor/potter/blacksmith/goldsmith
/hair cutter/cobbler 1.5 1.2 1.7 5.1
Household income and expenditure
• Household income by source
Annual income 
from work
Annual 
income from 
sales
Annual 
income from 
remittance
Total annual 
average 
household 
income
(USD)
All USDA supported 
schools 2078.2 459.5 209.9 2747.6
SMP + THR 1758.7 502.5 213.5 2474.7
THR only 2400.5 415.2 212.7 3028.4
Comparison schools 3224.6 343.8 118.9 3687.3
Average 2,027.6 754.8 129.7 2,912.1
• Household expenditure
Household 
income / day 
(USD)
Household 
expenditure / 
day (USD)
Household 
expenditure/ day 
(USD) (no credit)
% of 
expenditure 
on food
All USDA supported 
schools 6.449 16.957 12.255 41.7%
SMP + THR 5.349 14.226 10.402 39.8%
THR only 7.402 19.321 13.859 43.3%
Comparison schools 9.160 24.390 18.113 44.2%
87
Overall comparison of baseline/midline and endline USDA supported
households
Baseline Midline Endline
HH size (weighted) 5.5 5.4 5.4
Dependency ratio 1.1 1.3 1.4
Head of household Males (%) 76.5 82.5 46.3
Females (%) 23.5 17.5 53.7
Marital status of head of 
household
Single 1 2 2.5
Married 82.1 85.8 81.2
Widowed 14.3 11 14.6
Separated or divorced 2.6 1.2 1.6
Education of head of 
household
Never attended school 37.5 29.2 24.7
Primary 50.6 57.9 55.8
Secondary 17.8 9.1 13.6
High school + 6.2 3.7 5.45
Literacy of head of 
household
Can read and write 66.4 54 56.4
Can sign only 1.4 1.1 2.8
Can read only 5.4 6.2 6.2
Cannot read or write 26.8 38.6 34.6
Household water sources Improved water sources 65.6 45.2 54.4
Unimproved water sources 33.4 54.8 45.65
Household sanitation 
facilities
Toilet – flush or with water 52.4 33.9 64.2
Toilet – traditional pit 2.4 3.13 1.4
Toilet - open spaces 44.8 62.2 34.5
88
Annex 20: Additional findings for Results Framework 1 – Improved 
literacy of school aged children
• Planned vs. actual beneficiaries between SY 2013/14-2015/16
Activities Beneficiaries Planned Actual
SMP
Boys 239,310 233,755
Girls 220,896 229,748
Cooks 3,222 1,699
Storekeepers 1,800 1,190
THR Boys 16,128 17,748
Girls 20,535 22,959
• Achievements in provision of school meals and take-home rations
Target Baseline Midline Endline
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
111,320 THRs
B: 49,652
G: 61,668
441,600 THRs
B: 198,720
G: 242,880
Number of students 
(boys/girls) benefitting 
from a take home ration
20,368 students;
Boys: 9,166, Girls:
11,209
0
16,721 students
B: 7,236
G: 9,485
38,451
students, B: 
17,303, G:
21,148
Quantity of commodities 
(tons) provided for take 
home rations provided to
students (boys/girls)
Rice: 3,300 tons
Boys: 1,485
Girls: 1,815
0
Rice:1.074.1, B:
457.7 tons
G: 616.4 tons
Rice: 4416,
Oil: 112, YSP:
108
Number of students 
(boys/girls), cooks and 
storekeepers benefitting 
from school meal 
(breakfast)
204,536 students;
Boys: 104,313, Girls:
100,223
0
Total students: 
198,814
B: 99,912
G: 98,902
Cooks: 
Store Ks:
Total 
students: 
251,886
B: 127,135
G: 124,751
Cooks: 1218
Store Ks: 596
Number of daily school 
meals (breakfast) 
provided to students 
(boys/girls)
57,449,049 daily 
school meal 
(breakfast); Boys: 
29,299,015 daily 
school meal 
(breakfast); Girls: 
28,150,034 daily 
school meal
(breakfast)
0
25,653,332 daily 
school meals
B: 12,936,666 G:
12,716,666
72,437,980
daily school 
meals
B: 36,943,370
G: 35,494,610
Quantity of commodities 
(tons) provided for 
school meals provided to 
students (boys/girls), 
storekeepers and cook
Rice: 7,186 tons; YSP: 
849 tons; Oil: 283 
tons
0
Rice: 3199.4
tons; YSP: 384.8
tons; Oil: 125.3 
tons
Rice: 6,098
tons; YSP: 680 
tons;
Oil: 195 tons
Students (boys): Rice: 
3,319 tons; YSP: 433
tons; Oil: 144 tons
0
Students (boys): 
Rice: 1466.2
tons; YSP: 194.1
tons; Oil: 63.2 
tons
Students 
(boys): Rice: 
2,889 tons;
YSP: 347 tons;
Oil: 99 tons
89
Students (girls): 
Rice: 3,189 tons;
YSP: 416 tons;
Oil: 139 tons
0
Students (girls): 
Rice: 1441.2
tons; YSP: 190.8
tons; Oil: 62.1 
tons
Students 
(girls): Rice: 
2,776 tons;
YSP: 333 tons;
Oil: 96 tons
Storekeepers: Rice: 
243 tons; (12%
female)
0 Rice: 115.8 tons Rice: 178 tons
Cooks: Rice: 435
tons; (70% female) 0 Rice: 176.2 tons Rice: 255 tons
• Achievements in rehabilitation and construction of school infrastructure
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Number of latrines at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed 201 latrines 0 111 429
Number of kitchens at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed 90 kitchens 0 36 175
Number of energy-saving stoves at 
target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed
450 stoves 0 160 397
Number of storerooms at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed 90 storerooms 0 31 110
Number of school gardens at target 
schools rehabilitated or constructed
600 school 
gardens 0 552 596
Number drilled wells/water stations at 
target schools rehabilitated or
constructed
120 drilled 
wells/water
stations
0 49 120
Number of students benefitting from 
the rehabilitated or constructed latrines 63,000 students 0 12,650 49,580
Number of students benefitting from 
the rehabilitated or constructed 
kitchens
27,000 students 0 11,652 44,143
Number of students benefitting from 
the rehabilitated or constructed energy￾saving stoves
135,000 students 0 42,117 101,453
Number of students benefitting from
the rehabilitated or constructed 
storerooms
27,000 students 0 7,479 25,097
Number of students benefitting from 
the rehabilitated or constructed school 
gardens
199,375 students 0 104,977 190,720
Number of students benefitting from 
the rehabilitated or constructed drilled
wells/water stations
36,000 students 0 11,784 26,248
90
• Additional information on school gardens
Description All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP
Only
SMP
+ 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Schools with school gardens 61% 100% 85% 36% 42%
Vegetable garden rehabilitate 
or establish for 2016-2017
86% 100% 87% 81% 100%
Purpose for establishing garden:
- Practicing life skills 34% 0% 15% 88% 90%
- Supplementing SMP
recipe 10% 25% 12% 0% 0%
- Both 56% 75% 73% 12% 10%
No. of hours a week which children were mentored on school gardens
- 1-2 71% 100% 68% 71% 80%
- 3-5 16% 0% 15% 24% 20%
- > 5 13% 0% 17% 6% 0%
Sources of vegetable seed supplies
- Purchased using PB 40 75 29 59 60
- Purchased using
School Improvement 
Grant
58 25 83 6 0
- Donated by PLAN 10 25 7 12 20
- Donated by WFP 18 0 22 12 0
- The contribution 
from student 5 0 0 18 10
- Get from high school 2 0 0 6 0
- Community 3 0 0 12 10
- Each student group
solved by themselves 3 0 0 12 10
- BST organization 2 0 2 0 0
- CHILD TRAINING
Organization 3 25 0 6 0
- SOV Organization 2 0 0 6 0
- SBB Organization 2 0 0 6 0
- HOOKUNG
Organization 0 0 0 0 0
- DONG DUKOR
Organization 2 0 2 0 0
- MATISER
organization 0 0 0 0 0
- SIG 0 0 0 0 0
- MGP 0 0 0 0 0
- FH 2 0 2 0 0
- Teachers` money 2 0 0 6 10
91
Description All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP
Only
SMP
+ 
THR
THR
Only
Comparison 
schools
Months of growing vegetables in the gardens in this school year, 2016-2017
- Oct 3 0 5 0 10
- Nov 69 50 86 82 50
- Dec 53 0 56 59 40
- Jan 48 75 49 41 70
- Feb 60 25 59 71 50
- Mar 52 0 54 59 30
- Apr 60 75 61 53 50
- May 31 25 34 24 10
- Jun 24 0 22 35 10
- Jul 68 50 68 71 50
- Aug 60 25 66 53 40
- Sept 2 0 2 0 0
How did you manage and maintain the vegetable garden?
- Children are mentored by trained teachers and community 84 100 88 71 100
- Children from grade to grade are assigned to each plot of
land 84 50 83 94 60
- Prevent animals from entering school compounds by
repairing schools’ fence once per year 82 100 83 76 40
- Child council group 2 0 0 6 0
• The Food Security and Nutrition Section in CARD has established a pool ofmaster 
and teacher trainers (40 master trainers at national level, 60 teachers’ trainers at 
subnational level) to deliver training to the school committees and teachers in their 
schools;
• MAFF and the General Directorate of Agriculture through the Provincial 
Departments of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (PDAFF) have delivered 
agronomic and agricultural technologies related to school vegetable gardens to the 
WFP target schools as requested by Plan International. The school vegetable 
garden activities were also part of close coordination and collaboration among 
agriculture, education, health, rural development and social protection.
92
• T-tests for perc. of children perceived as hungry or inattentive by teacher(α=0.05)
% of hungry children % of attentive children
SMP+THR THR SMP+THR THR
Average 0.2169 0.2886 0.1183 0.1450
Standard deviation 0.247 0.273 0.100 0.121
Sample size 174 172 174 172
Difference -0.072 -0.027
Hypothesis on differences 0 0
Degrees of freedom 340 330
t-statistic -2.56443 -2.23740
p-value 0.00538 0.01296
93
Annex 21: Information on the new partnership between WFP and World 
Education for supporting literacy activities in USDA supported schools
In recent years, WFP has collaborated with the MoEYS to design an integrated 
approach to early-grade reading (EGR) instruction. For the 2017-2019 phase of the 
FFE programme, WFP will partner with World Education and KAPE to roll out literacy 
instruction for teachers and support the literacy objective of the FFE programme.
• The MoEYS endorsed the benchmarks as National Reading Standards for Grades1 
and 2, then printed and distributed 22,900 copies to relevant teachers nationwide.
• In 2015-2016 standards for Grade 3 have been developed and will be soon 
formalized.
• At the request of MoEYS and to ensure high- quality rollout, World Education 
oriented 41 central staff across relevant departments, trained nearly 400 school 
teachers, and is providing continuous technical support to the MoEYS at all levels 
to ensure educators are using the National Reading Standards effectively.
• In 2016, World Education collaborated with a small committee of leaders fromthe 
Primary Education Department (PED), Teacher Training Department (TTD), and 
Curriculum Development Department (CED) to integrate training on the standards 
into the Provincial Teacher Training Colleges (PTTCs).
• Under the umbrella of the WFP and USDA multi-year (FY 2017, 2018, 2019) 
agreement, in December 2016 World Education and WFP signed a partnership 
agreement through which World Education will implement the literacy component 
of the school feeding programme in Siem Reap, Kampong Thom and Battambang 
provinces. Activities will cover training of school administrators, teachers, 
promotion of literacy, capacity building. One of the focus will be to ensure the 
effective use of the new national benchmarks for EGR and EGR pedagogy in grades 
1, 2 and 3.
• World Education will also carry out the relevant monitoring and evaluation 
including baseline, midline and endline of literacy components.
94
Annex 22: T-tests on survey data – RF1
• School principal survey question: 30. Did the school receive school materials or 
learning package in this school year, 2016-2017? T-test, unequal variances
Q30 - SMP+THR Q30 - THR
Mean 96.67 82.46
Variance 327.68 1472.43
Observations 60 57
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 79
t Stat 2.5403
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0065
t Critical one-tail 1.6644
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0130
t Critical two-tail 1.9905
• School principal survey question: 31. Did the school receive stationery package in 
this school year, 2016-2017? (Folders, hole-punchers, calculators, whiteboards, and 
other non-food items…). T-test, unequal variances
Q31 - SMP+THR Q31 - THR
Mean 95.00 78.95
Variance 483.055 1691.73
Observations 60 57
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 85
t Stat 2.6134
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0053
t Critical one-tail 1.662
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.01060
t Critical two-tail 1.9882
• School teacher survey indicator: Percent of students identified as “hungry” 
(sometimes or always) during class. T-test, unequal variances
Perc students identified 
"hungry" - SMP+THR
as Perc students 
"hungry" - THR
identified as
Mean 0.22 0.29
Variance 0.06 0.07
Observations 174 172
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 340
t Stat -2.5644
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0054
t Critical one-tail 1.6493
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0108
t Critical two-tail 1.9670
95
• School teacher survey indicator: Percent of students identified as “inattentive” 
(sometimes or always) during class. T-test, unequal variances
Perc students identified 
"inattentive" - SMP+THR
as Perc students identified 
"inattentive" - THR
as
Mean 0.12 0.14
Variance 0.01 0.01
Observations 174 172
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 330
t Stat -2.2374
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0130
t Critical one-tail 1.6495
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0259
t Critical two-tail 1.9672
• School teacher survey indicator: Percent of girl students identified as “hungry” 
(sometimes or always) during class. T-test, unequal variances
Perc girl students identified 
"hungry" - SMP+THR
as Perc girl students identified as 
"hungry" - THR
Mean 0.21 0.27
Variance 0.07 0.08
Observations 172 172
Hypothesized Mean
Difference 0
df 342
t Stat -1.8543
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0323
t Critical one-tail 1.6493
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0646
t Critical two-tail 1.9669
• School teacher survey indicator: Percent of girl students identified as “inattentive” 
(sometimes or always) during class. T-test, unequal variances
Perc girl students identified 
"inattentive" - SMP+THR
as Perc girl students identified 
"inattentive" - THR
as
Mean 0.08 0.11
Variance 0.02 0.01
Observations 172 172
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0
df 342
t Stat -2.1678
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0154
t Critical one-tail 1.6493
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0309
t Critical two-tail 1.9669
96
• School principal survey indicator: Perc. Of students who passed the national 
standard reading comprehension test. T-test, unequal variances, to tests 
differences in both sets SMP+THR vs. THR, and THR vs Comparison schools.
%passed -
SMP+THR
%passed -
THR
%passed -
Comparison School
%passed
- THR
Mean 0.78 0.91 0.82 0.91
Variance 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.03
Observations 33 45 10 45
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 0
df 46 13
t Stat -2.2687 -1.4824
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0140 0.0810
t Critical one-tail 1.6787 1.7709
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0280 0.1621
t Critical two-tail 2.01290 2.1604
• School principal survey indicator: Perc. Of boy students who passed the national 
standard reading comprehension test. T-test, unequal variances, to tests 
differences in both sets SMP+THR vs. THR, and THR vs Comparison schools.
%passed (boys)
- SMP+THR
%passed 
(boys) - THR
%passed ( 
comparison
boys) 
school
- %passed 
(boys) - THR
Mean 0.79 0.88 0.81 0.88
Variance 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04
Observations 31 43 11 43
Hypothesized 
Mean Difference 0 0
df 51 16
t Stat -1.6354 -1.1439
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0541 0.1348
t Critical one-tail 1.6753 1.7459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1081 0.2695
t Critical two-tail 2.0076 2.1199
• School principal survey indicator: Perc. Of girl students who passed the national 
standard reading comprehension test. T-test, unequal variances, to tests 
differences in both sets SMP+THR vs. THR, and THR vs Comparison schools.
%passed (girls)
- SMP+THR
%passed 
(girls) - THR
%passed ( 
comparison
girls) 
school
- %passed 
(girls) - THR
Mean 0.78 0.93 0.88 0.93
Variance 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.03
Observations 31 43 13 43
Hypothesized
Mean Difference 0 0
df 40 15
t Stat -2.3042 -0.6527
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0132 0.2619
t Critical one-tail 1.6839 1.7531
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0265 0.5238
t Critical two-tail 2.0211 2.1314
97
Annex 23: Additional findings on literacy testing
• Results of the national reading comprehension test for grade 6 students at endline
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP
only
SMP
+ 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Total schools sampled (n) 118 4 55 59 24
Number of schools where the national 
standard test of reading 
comprehension for grade 6 students 
was conducted in this school year,
2016-2017 (n)
85 3 33 49 15
Number of schools that have received 
results (n) 78 3 29 46 15
(Average) number of students tested 
(n) 3,055 61 726 2,268 569
(Average) number of girls tested (n)
1,552 29 345 1,178 292
51% 47.5% 47.5% 51.9% 51.3%
Number students that passed
(% of all students who sat test)
2661 39 540 2,082 490
87.% 63.9% 74.4% 91.7% 86.1%
Number girls that passed
(% of girls passing out of all girls who 
sat test)
1381 19 264 1098 233
89% 65.5% 76.5% 93.2% 80%
Additional results from the 2016 MoEYS EQAD Literacy test
“Significant student achievement gaps persist, with rural students still at 
disadvantage. Students had problems in acquiring some basic aspects of reading 
comprehension, such as identifying the aim of text, adverbs of questions, and 
synonyms, while in writing apology letter writing, dictation, and permission form 
completion were problematic. In mathematics, geometry, measurement, and number 
proved to be difficult. Of these results, rural students, especially those from lowsocio￾economic background (SES), performed even worse, with more than half of them still 
at below basic and basic proficiency levels. These results call for timely and effective 
actions and approaches to close the student achievement gaps as a way to ensure 
equitable growth in the country.”
98
Annex 24: Additional findings for Results Framework 2: Increased use 
of health and dietary practices
• Outcome results – re use of health and dietary practices, compare to baseline and midline
Target Baseline Midline Endline
Percent of schools with soap and water at a 
hand washing station commonly used by
students
85 percent of 
schools 63.5% 79.8% 80%
Number of schools using the available 
(improved) sanitary facility (latrine) 863 Schools 801 800 851
Percent of schools in target communities 
that store food off the ground
100 percent 
school 86.4% 86.1% 76%
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% 83.1% 71%
• Results of training for parents on health and hygiene practices
Percent who can identify 
three important health or
hygiene practices
Percent who can identify at 
least one health information
source
Treatment 86.77% 91.87%
SMP+THR 81.67% 89.26%
Female 83.50% 90.21%
Male 74.64% 85.60%
THR 91.18% 94.13%
Female 91.52% 92.67%
Male 90.41% 97.54%
Comparison 0.00% 2.17%
Female 0.00% 1.02%
Male 0.00% 5.00%
• School water, latrine and store rooms
All USDA
supported 
schools
SMP + 
THR
THR
only
Comparison 
schools
Access to water and sanitation facilities
Schools with no water source 24% 20% 28% 25%
Schools with latrines 100% 100% 100% 100%
Schools with all latrines functional 67% 77% 56% 71%
Schools with at least one functional latrine 99% 100% 98% 100%
Improved food storage equipment
Schools that have dedicated food
storeroom 43% 75% 9% 8%
Source: Endline survey
^Source: SBK school assessment report (2017)
99
Percentage of children who have been dewormed in the past 6 months by provider and 
type of intervention
Dewormed 
at school
Dewormed 
at the 
health
centre
Dewormed on 
household means 
(bought it)
Not 
dewormed
All USDA supported
schools 57.9% 7.2% 5.5% 29.4%
SMP+THR 62.7% 7.6% 2.8% 26.9%
THR 53.8% 6.8% 7.9% 31.5%
100
Annex 25: T-tests on survey data – RF2
• Household survey indicator. L7FIN. Percent of parents in target communities who 
can identify at least three important health/hygiene practices. T-test, unequal 
variances.
L7FIN SMP+THR L7FIN THR
Mean 0.82 0.92
Variance 0.15 0.07
Observations 356 346
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 641
t Stat -3.9353
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6472
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0001
t Critical two-tail 1.9637
• Household survey indicator. Percent of parents in target communities who can 
identify at least one local source of information on good health practices (e.g. health 
center). T-test, unequal variances.
L8B SMP+THR L8B THR
Mean 0.89 0.94
Variance 0.10 0.05
Observations 356 346
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 660
t Stat -2.3698
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0090
t Critical one-tail 1.6472
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0181
t Critical two-tail 1.9636
• Household survey indicator. Number of missing days due to illness in the last 
month. z-Test: Two Sample for Means: Girls vs. boys. Unweighted.
Girls Boys
Mean 1.169565 1.672043
Known Variance 4 8
Observations 230 186
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
z -2.04452
P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.020451
z Critical one-tail 1.644854
P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.040902
z Critical two-tail 1.959964
101
Annex 26: Additional findings: Household level food security and 
nutrition
Figure 1: Household consumption coping strategies
• Household diet
USDA
supported 
schools
SMP+THR THR Comparison 
schools
G1.1 Maize, porridge, rice, pasta, bread 8.9 8.9 8.8 9.3
G1.2 Cassava,
tubers, plantains
sweet potato, potato, 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6
G2. Beans, peas, ground nuts, cashews… 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.1
G3. Vegetables, green leaves 5.4 5.2 5.6 5.7
G4. Fruits 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.1
G5. Beef, pork, poultry, eggs, fish 9.9 9.6 10.2 10.1
G6. Milk and diaries 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8
G7. Sugar and sugar products 3.9 3.5 4.2 4.0
G8. Oils, fat 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.2
G9. Tea, condiments, spices, fish powder 9.5 9.1 9.8 10.2
• Reported dietary pattern of school children
SMP+THR THR Only Comparison schools
Starchy staples 
Dark green leafy vegetables
Vitamin A rich fruits and vegetables
Other fruits and vegetables
Organ meat
Meat and fish
Eggs 
Legumes, nuts and seeds
Milk and milk products
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
SMP + THR THR Ony Comparison schools
Relied on less preferred and less expensive foods 
Borrowed food or relied on help from friends andrelatives
Reduced portion size
Reduced the quantities consumed by adults /mother for 
young children
Reduced numnber of meals eaten per day
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of households reporting using each coping strategy (%)
102
Percentage of children reporting consumption of each food group
Food Groups SMP + THR THR Only Comparison
Schools
B M E B M E B M E
Milk and milk products 0 1.7 8.8 0 5.1 12.1 0.7 15.3 14.5
Legumes, nuts and seeds 2.6 37.4 8.4 0.8 25.3 8.6 1.5 7.6 9.4
Eggs 7.7 31.1 39.7 11.6 40.3 40.5 3.2 16.9 40.6
Meat and fish 94.9 95 90.3 94.6 96.6 86.5 97.1 98 85.5
Organ meat 0 3 16.3 0.8 3.8 14.2 1.5 4.1 13.8
Other fruits and vegetables 17.9 51 75.3 13.2 49.8 76.6 14 51.7 68.1
Vitamin A rich fruits and
vegetables
5.1 33.4 52.2 3.1 34.8 56.7 2.9 40.2 56.5
Dark green leafy vegetables 41 76.2 60.6 51.2 81.8 61.2 54.4 85.6 59.4
Starchy staples 97.4 100 55.7 100 100 61.9 100 100 76.4
103
Annex 27: Benefits of school feeding as reported by parents
Households perceived school feeding to result in children being healthier (reported by 68.7% 
of parents). In nearly half of cases, parents report that the child learns better, while almost one 
third of them specify that school meals increase child attentiveness and his or her 
opportunities in life. In a quarter of households, beneficiary children are more willing to go to 
school and reduce the use of illness as an excuse to avoid school attendance.
• Benefits of school feeding for the child, as perceived by parents, by type of 
intervention
Child: Gets 
food Healthier Learning 
better
More
active/ 
attentive
Has more 
opportunities
Illness 
reduced
No 
benefit
SMP+THR 85.9 68.7 49.3 32.5 30.5 24.4 1.2
• Benefits of school feeding for the household, as perceived by parents, by type of 
intervention
School feeding 
saves food/money 
for household
School 
feeding saves 
time for
parents
School feeding saves 
time for household 
skipping morning
cooking
No 
benefit
SMP+THR 86.3 70.6 66.1 4.2
The majority of parents (86.3%) of children attending schools where meals are served, said 
that his helps them save money or food for the household. This is coherent with self-reported 
expenditure data. Many (39.8%) of SMP+THR children’s household expenditures are utilized 
for food, while this percentage reaches 43.3% for THR only children’s household and 44.2% 
for households of children in comparison schools.
Effects of school feeding in terms of household members’ time saved or
consumed
• Effects of school feeding in terms of household members’ time saved
% HH that saved 
time by children 
being in school
Sex of household 
members who save this
time
Average 
number of 
hours saved M F Both
All USDA
supported 
schools
59.4% 1.2% 23.5% 34.7% 2.2
SMP+THR 56.9% 1.2% 22.1% 33.6% 2.1
THR 61.5% 1.2% 24.7% 35.6% 2.3
Comparison
schools 44.2% 0.7% 9.4% 34.1% 1.7
• Percentage of parents reporting to save time from each activity, as an effect of 
school attendance
Preparing food Taking care of children Both
All USDA supported schools 27.2% 27.2% 27.2%
SMP+THR 31.0% 31.0% 31.0%
THR 23.9% 23.9% 23.9%
Comparison 19.6% 19.6% 19.6%
104
• Percentage of parents reporting to use saved time for each activity
Household 
chores
Income￾earning
activity
Farm/livestock 
work
Child care Rest/Leisure
All USDA
supported
schools 26.7% 13.9% 9.8% 4.7% 1.6%
SMP+THR 25.8% 9.6% 12.8% 4.3% 1.5%
THR 27.5% 17.5% 7.1% 5.0% 1.7%
Comparison 20.7% 10.1% 4.3% 2.2% 2.5%
• Effects of school feeding in terms of household members’ time consumed
Percent of 
households 
where time is 
consumed by 
having 
children go to
school
Sex of household
members who 
consume this time
Average number of 
hours consumed
Men Women
Both
All USDA
supported 
schools 5.9% 0.1% 3.3% 2.4%
0.2
SMP+THR 4.9% 0.0% 3.1% 1.8% 0.2
THR 6.7% 0.2% 3.5% 3.0% 0.2
Comparison 2.9% 0.0% 0.7% 2.2% 0.1
105
Annex 28: Additional information on the WFP feedback mechanism
The introduction of this complaint mechanism aligns well with the Government’s 
Social Accountability Framework described earlier. The Framework aims to strengthen 
transparency and citizens’ access to, and demand for, public information and budgets, 
with the aim of empowering citizens with information on what they are entitled to by 
law or regulation. More information on the Social Accountability Framework can be 
found in Annex 13.
From rollout (November 2014) until August 2017, there had been over 1,840 calls 
received. However, most were people calling in to test the system and listen to the 
programme, not making real complaints. Out of the 1,840 calls, WFP identified six
complaints related to the programme.
• Feedback received through the phone-based system
Activities Description Action taken
THR
Discrimination: wrong target selection of 
beneficiaries- food scholarship was 
provided to children from better off
families while orphans do not receive.
Conducted a meeting with 
PDoEYS/DoEYS, school and 
community to discuss the issue.
WFP should provide cash support to 
those who are assisting in food 
scholarship programme at school. He
hopes WFP will consider this proposal.
Informed school to clarify to relevant 
community.
WFP should increase its coverage and 
support more poor children; whose 
families are unable to support their 
studies. Right now, there are too many
children falling through the cracks.
Meeting with PDoEYS on beneficiary 
selection and quota allocationwhether 
it matched the need or not and ways to 
improve it.
Concern over targeting: A women called 
with questions as to why her child (in 
grade 7) was not eligible for take home
rations
Informed DoEYS and school to clarify 
the issue to relevant person.
Complaint on not receiving cash ration 
for quarter 3: a caller reported that in his 
school did not receive cash ration for 
quarter 3 yet while other districtsalready
got it.
WFP AO worked with relevant DoEYS 
to review the implementation status.
School 
meals
Complaint on teacher stealing rice: a man 
called to report that he saw two teachers 
steal one bag of rice, more than 10 can￾fishes, 2 tin of vegetable oils
Conducted a meeting to assess the case 
at school level (WFP AO, PLAN, 
DoEYS and local authorities). Report
is available for this investigation case.
Source: WFP Cambodia
106
Annex 29: Additional information on WFP’s Platforms for Real-time 
Information Systems (PRISM)
Source: An extract from the WFP PRISM Factsheet
Background
Platforms for Real-time Information Systems (PRISM) was born out of a Cambodia country 
office innovation project aimed at visualizing, via a mapping platform, current WFP 
programmes in real time (i.e. track food stocks, water tank installation, etc.). Since its 
development in 2015, it has grown into a suite of tools for government ministries to streamline 
decision-making, thereby providing a complete solution for data needs, from collection to 
visualization.
Challenges
Data collection and management is challenging, and in Cambodia, this is no exception. 
Information is fragmented, walled within Ministries databases that make it difficult for 
information to be used for planning and decision-making. These inefficiencies in data sharing 
hamper planning for response mechanisms for service delivery.
PRISM: life-changing decision-making
PRISM provides smart, responsive information and service delivery systems that build the 
foundation for shock resistant social safety nets. By developing technologies for data 
collection, management and analysis, PRISM aids government and relevant stakeholders in 
improving resource allocation and therefore community level resilience across Cambodia.
To achieve this, WPF is a) Working with government to improve decision support systems; b) 
Facilitating social protection and emergency response service delivery mechanisms by 
integrating them into government information management systems; c) building capacity of 
national sub-national officials in streamlining reporting streams and supporting decentralized 
information flows; d) advocating for improved data policies.
PRISM Tools
PRISM is powered by the following tools: 1) Resource Map, 2) map-based 
platforms and 3) the Hub.
• Resource Map is a data collection and management application available on mobile 
Android devices and the web. It allows governments and stakeholders to collect data in 
real time for auto reporting and alerting, thereby creating efficiencies for communication 
and planning, informing prioritization for response and service delivery.
• Data collection, management and reporting is integral to government decision making, but 
its visualization makes this data actionable. PRISM’s map-based platforms sort data into 
indicators, then create layers that allow decision makers to visualize the situation on the 
ground. These platforms are tailored to Government Ministry needs, so that they can 
access data either in times of need or for relevant day to day programming.
• Finally, the Hub, a critical tool in providing the flexibility to share data amongst
stakeholders, ensures sources of information (18 and growing) are connected through a 
user-friendly web-based application. By connecting different data collection tools 
(applications such as Kobo Toolbox, ONA, etc.) and government databases (Ministry of 
Planning’s IDPoor database, Ministry of Education Youth and Sports and National 
Committee of Disaster Management), PRISM allows government to identify, for example, 
vulnerable households receiving social assistance, so that rapid response in case of an 
emergency becomes more efficient, and social programs prioritize the most vulnerable.
107
Annex 30: SABER stages of transition
SABER (Systems Approach for Better Education Results) – School Feeding is a government￾led process that helps to build effective school feeding policies and systems. These in turn 
provide the foundation for strong nationally -led and sustainable school feeding programmes 
that ensure school children receive the nourishment they need.
118
Annex 31: Updated PMP – Results Framework 1
Result and Description Performance Indicator Performance 
Indicator Target
Baseline Midline End-line
1 Improved Literacy of school￾age Children
Number of total individuals benefiting 
directly from USDA-funded 
interventions
315,168 218,060 278,308 407 613
1 Improved Literacy of school￾age Children
Number of total individuals benefiting 
indirectly from USDA-funded 
interventions
262,449 252,217 253,036 320 585
SO1 Improved Literacy 
school-age Children
of Percent of student (girls/boys) who, by 
the end of grade 6 demonstrated reading 
comprehension equivalent to their 
grade level as defined by national
standards at USDA supported school
80 percent 
students. Boys: 
percent, Girls: 
percent
of 
80
80
56.5% 65.6% 87 percent of 
students. Boys: 84 
percent, Girls: 89 
percent
1.1 Improved Quality 
Literacy Instruction
of Percent of teachers who demonstrate 
improved literacy instruction as
identified by supervisor
80 percent of teachers No 
value
baseline 48.5% Not collected 
endline survey.
by
1.1 Improved Quality 
Literacy Instruction
of Percent of teachers in target schools 
who demonstrate use of new and quality 
teaching techniques or tools
80 percent of teachers 36% 41.4% Not collected by 
endline survey.
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% 80.9% 95 percent 
teachers
of
1.1.1 More Consistent Teacher 
Attendance
Average teacher attendance rates (for 
each school and aggregated
90% 94.4% 88.2% 97.7%
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 0 856 861
1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and materials
Number of learning material packages 
provided to target school.
2,589 learning 
material packages
0 993 2892
1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and materials
Number of stationery 
provided to target school.
packages 2,589 learning 
material packages
0 993 2892
119
1.1.2 Better Access to School 
Supplies and materials
Number of students (boy/girls) 
benefitting from the provision of school 
supplies
172,600 students;
Boys: 88,026, Girls:
84,574
0 151,837 students,
B: 79,055
G: 72,782
180,810 students,
B: 92,213,
G: 88,596
1.1.3 Improved Literacy 
Instrumental Materials
Number of classrooms in target schools
with Literacy Instrumental Materials 
sufficient for effective instruction
3452 classrooms 2,969 2,645 4 788
1.1.3 Improved Literacy 
Instrumental Materials
Number of teachers using the national 
literacy curriculum and the related 
instrumental materials
85 percent teachers 59.8% 75% 8.1% (or 70%)
1.1.4 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of teachers
Number of teachers/ educators/ 
teaching assistants trained of certified.
5178 teachers/ 
educators/ teaching
assistants
664 3,162 4867
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
5178 teachers/ 
educators/ teaching 
assistants
0 3,257 4 867
1.1.4 Increased Skills and 
Knowledge of teachers
Number of teachers in target schools 
with recognized teacher certification 
credentials
3 452 1,976 2,787 3 894
1.1.5 Increased skills and 
knowledge of school 
administrators
Number of school administrators and 
officials trained or certified
3,452 school 
administrators
129 1,825 4 903
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
224 217
2 942
1.1.5 Increased skills and
knowledge of school 
administrators
Percent of school administrator in
targeted schools who demonstrate use 
of new techniques or tools
85 percent of the 
school administrators
16.9% 29.2% Not collected by 
endline survey.
1.2 Improved Student 
Attentiveness
Percent of students in target schools
identified as inattentive by their 
teachers
10 percent of students 13.2% 8.7% 4.2%
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 87.8% 95.3% 95.8%
120
1.2.1 Reduced Short term 
Hunger
Percent of students in target schools 
who indicate they are "hungry" or very 
"hungry" during class
10 percent of students 26.5% 17.3% 8.1%
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
0 111,320 THRs,
B: 49,652
G: 61,668
441,600 THRs,
B: 198,720,
G: 242,880
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:
11,209
0 16,721 students, B: 7,236
G: 9,485
38,451 students,
B: 17,303,
G: 21,148
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 Total: rice: 1,074.1, Total: rice: 4416,
Oil: 112, YSP: 108
1.2.1.1 Increased Access to food 
(School Feeding)
Number of students (boys/girls), cooks 
and storekeepers benefitting from 
school meal (breakfast)
204,536 students;
Boys: 104,313, Girls:
100,223
0 Total students: 198,814 
students;
B: 99,912
G: 98,902
Total students: 
251,886
Boys: 127,135;
Girls: 124,751
Cooks: 1218,
Sks: 596
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 meal
(breakfast); Boys:
29,299,015 daily
school meal
(breakfast); Girls:
28,150,034 daily
school meal 
(breakfast)
0 25,653,332 daily school 
meal (breakfast);
Boys: 12,936,666
Girls: 12,716,666
72,437,980 daily 
school meal 
(breakfast):
Boys: 36,943,370
Girls: 35,494,610
121
1.2.1.1 Increased Access to food 
(School Feeding)
Percent of students in target school 
consuming daily meals at schools
95% 0 96.9% 87%
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 
cook
Rice: 7,186 tons; YSP: 
849 tons; Oil: 283 tons
0 Rice: 3,199.4 tons; YSP:
384.8 tons; Oil: 125.3 
tons
Rice: 6,098 tons;
YSP: 680 tons;
Oil: 195 tons
Students (boys): Rice: 
3,319 tons; YSP: 433
tons; Oil: 144 tons
0 Students (boys): Rice: 
1,466.2 tons; YSP: 194.1
tons; Oil: 63.2 tons
Students (boys): 
Rice: 2,889 tons; 
YSP: 347 tons; Oil: 
99 tons
Students (girls): Rice: 
3,189 tons; YSP: 416
tons; Oil: 139 tons
0 Students (girls): Rice: 
1441.2 tons; YSP: 190.8
tons; Oil: 62.1 tons
Students (girls): 
Rice: 2,776 tons; 
YSP: 333 tons;Oil:
96 tons
Storekeepers: Rice:
243 tons; (12% 
female)
0 Rice: 115.8 tons Rice: 178 tons
Cooks: Rice: 435 tons; 
(70% female)
0 Rice: 176.2 tons Rice: 255 tons
1.3 Improved student 
attendance
Percent of students (boys/girls)
regularly (80%) attending USDA 
supported classrooms/schools
80 percent of students 78.2% 86.1% 88.8%
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 543 550 661
1.3.1 Increased Economic and 
Cultural Incentives (or 
Decreased Disincentives)
Number of students at target schools 
who regularly receive take home food 
ration (yearly)
12,221 students; Boys￾5,499, Girls- 6,722
0 T: 12,342 students,
B: 5,445
G: 6,897
T: 15,152 students,
B: 6,526,
G: 8626
1.3.2 Reduced Health Related 
absences
Average number of schooldays missed 
by students due for illness (for each 
school and in aggregate)
5 days 16 15 18
122
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of latrines at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed
210 latrines 0 111 429
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of Kitchens at target schools 
rehabilitated or constructed
90 Kitchens 0 36 175
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of energy saving stoves at
target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed
450 energy saving 
stoves
0 160 397
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of storerooms at target 
schools rehabilitated or constructed
90 storerooms 0 31 110
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of school gardens at target 
schools rehabilitated or constructed
600 school gardens 0 552 596
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of drilled wells/water stations 
at target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed
120 drilled
wells/water stations
0 49 120
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed latrines
63,000 students 0 12,650 49 580
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed Kitchens
27,000 students 0 11,652 44 143
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or
constructed energy saving stoves
135,000 students 0 42,117 101 453
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or
constructed storerooms
27,000 students 0 7,479 25 097
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or
constructed school gardens
199,375 students 0 104,977 190 720
1.3.3 Improved School 
Infrastructure
Numbers of students benefitting from 
the target schools rehabilitated or 
constructed school drilled wells/water
stations
36,000 students 0 11,784 26 248
1.3.4 Increased student 
enrolment
Number of students (boys/girls) 
enrolled in school
Total: 258,900; Boys:
132,040; Girls:
126,860
T:248,356 
B:124,823 
G:123,533
T:250,622, 
B:127,817 
G:122,805
123
1.3.4 Increased student 
enrolment
Percentage increase in students (girls, 
boys) enrolled in school
5/5 percent T: 2.4%, B:
2.2%, G: 3%
T: 2%, B: 0%, G: 4% T: 1%, B: 1%, G: 1%
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% 16.5% 80.1%
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)
4,325 parents 3,615 3.986 4 305
1.4.1 increased capacity of 
Government Institutions
Standard operating procedures and 
tools for management and oversight of 
school feeding programmes by relevant
government offices are operational
2 standard operating 
procedures and tools
0 3 3
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 policy 
reform process i.e. analysis (review of 
existing policy/ regulation/ 
administrative procedure and/or 
proposal of new policy/ regulation/
administrative procedure
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 (National 
school feeding
policy)
Stage 4: 1 (National 
scholarship policy for 
primary schools)
None (National school 
feeding policy)
Stage 5: 1
(National 
scholarship policy 
for primary 
schools)
None (National
school feeding 
policy)
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 1 1
1.4.2 Improved Policy or 
Regulatory framework
National school feeding policy is 
operational
1 national school 
feeding policy at stage 
1
0 0 0
1.4.3 Increased Government 
Support
Establishment of a national school 
feeding unit within the government
1 national school 
feeding unit
0 0 0
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 467 785 861
1.4.4 Increased Engagement of
local and community groups/ 
FTF 1
Number of public-private partnerships 
formed (e.g. farmer associations)
1 0 4 124
124
Annex 32: Updated PMP – Results Framework 2
Results and
Description
Performance Indicator Performance
Indicator target
Baseline Midline End-line
2: Increased use of 
Health and Dietary 
Practices
Number of total individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded
interventions
467,324 0 250,622 373911
Number of total individual benefiting indirectly from USDA-Funded 
interventions
415,619 0 0 323597
Percent of schools with soap and water at a hand washing station 
commonly used by students
85 percent of schools 63.5% 96%
Number of schools using the available (improved) sanitation facility
(latrine)
863 schools 801 851 851
Percent of schools in target communities that store food off the
ground
100 percent of schools 86.4% 54.37% 76%
Percent of schools in target communities that clean cooking and 
eating equipment, consistence with accepted standards, prior to use
90 percent of schools 82.5%
2.1. Improved 
knowledge of health 
and hygiene practices
Percent of parents in target communities who can identify at least 
three important health/hygiene practices
85 percent of parents 56.0% 0 87%
Percent of students (and parents) in target communities who can 
identify at least one local source of information on good health 
practices (e.g. health centre
85% of students’
85% of parents
93.7% 91.7
students 
87.%
parents
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% of 
cooks/storekeepers
0 99%
2.3 Increase 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% of
cooks/storekeepers
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 centre)
85% of students
85% of parents
87.9% 91.7%
2.4. Increased accessto 
clean water and 
sanitation
Number of target schools with year-round access to a clean and safe
water source
863 schools 580 861
Average ratio of latrines (boys/girls) to students at target schools 1 latrine per 50 students Total:131 
Boys: 1:138
Girls: 1:127
Total:661 
Boys: 1:125
Girls: 1:112
Total: 1:58
Boys: 1:96
Girls: 1:135
Number of target schools that have latrines of sufficient quality (in
good repair)
863 schools 673 661 742
125
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 603 861
Number of students (boys/girls) receiving daily school meals with 
micronutrient fortified commodities (rice, oil, salt)
Total: 204,536 students
Boys: 104,313
Girls: 100,223
0 Total: 
251,886
students 
Boys: 
127,135
Girls:
124,751
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 0 478
Schools
580 schools
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 SEP
5 staff 0 4
2.7.2 Improved policy
or regulatory 
framework
Government water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) standards for 
primary schools are established and implemented
1 WASH standard 0 1
2.7.3 Increased
government support
Number of national and sub-national government staff working on
school-based health and nutrition programs
5 0 4
WFP Cambodia
http://www1.wfp.org/countries/cambodia
Phnom Penh, December 2017, Report Number