WFP’S USDA McGovern -Dole 
International Food for Education 
and Child Nutrition Program’s 
Support in Kenya from 2016 to 
2020
Decentralized Evaluation
Midline Report – Final
October 2018
WFP Kenya Country Office
Midline Manager : Beatrice Mwongela
Agreement: FFE-615-2016/014-00
 Prepared by the independent midline consultant team:
Muriel Visser, Team Leader and Independent Consultant; Warue Kariuki, Deputy team 
leader and Independent Consultant; Moses Mwangi, Lead Statistician and Independent 
Consultant; Ernest Midega, Deputy Statistician, data collection specialist and Independent 
Consultant.
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision making
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e i
Acknowledgements
The midline design team would like to thank the various people who provided suggestions and 
inputs into this work, including the WFP midline committee for their advice and guidance on the 
midline process and the Reference Group for their review and comments on this report. A particular 
thank you is due to all survey respondents and individual interviewees who took the time to 
patiently respond to our questions and to assist us in thinking about how further this programme 
can be improved.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed are those of the Midline 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 the maps do not 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.
The authors declare they have no conflict of interest in the present assignment.
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Agriculture. It was prepared by 
an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views 
of the United States Department of Agriculture or the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e ii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................i
Executive Summary .......................................................................................iv
1. Introduction................................................................................................ 1
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject.......................................................................................... 1
1.2. Context ......................................................................................................................................3
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations ...............................................................................4
2. Evaluation Findings..................................................................................... 9
2.1. Evaluation Question 1 and 2 - How relevant and appropriate isthe programme? ................9
2.2. Evaluation Question 3 (Effectiveness) and Evaluation Question5 (Impact)....................... 12
2.3. Evaluation Question 4 - How efficiently was theprogramme implemented? ..................... 38
2.4. Evaluation Question 6 – What progress has been madetowards sustainability?................ 41
2.5. Evaluation Question 7 – What factors affected the results?..................................................45
Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................48
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions .......................................................................................... 48
3.2. Lessons Learned and Good Practices.................................................................................... 50
3.3. Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 51
Annexes........................................................................................................... 54
Annex 1 – Agreed terms of reference ............................................................... 55
Annex 2 – Map ......................................................................................................72
Annex 3 – Agreed PerformanceMonitoring Framework................................. 73
Annex 4 – Logical framework ..........................................................................88
Annex 5 – Evaluation matrix............................................................................89
Annex 6: Details of quantitative methodologyincluding hypotheses................ 96
Annex 7 : Procedure and criteria for selectionof enumerators ...................... 106
Annex 8 – Characteristics of respondents.......................................................107
Annex 9: Data collection tools........................................................................ 109
Annex 10: Annexes for Quantitative analyses ................................................139
Annex 10a: Comparing distribution of specific variables between study arms stratified 
by gender of child at Baseline ........................................................................ 140
Annex 10b – Computation of the Propensity Scoreat baseline........................170
Annex 10a: Comparing distribution of specific variables between study arms stratified 
by gender of child at Midline .............................................................................. 172
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e iii
Annex 10b – Computation of the Propensity Score at midline ........................195
Annex 11 – Effect of the intervention on specific indicators ..............................216
Annexes –Bibliography ..................................................................................... 220
List of Acronyms ................................................................................................ 222
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e iv
Executive Summary
Background: This report summarizes the midline findings for Kenya’s World Food Programme 
(WFP) implemented School Meals Programme (SMP) - a USD 28 million grant for a period of five 
years. The WFPSMP is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) – Mc Govern 
Dole (MGD) International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme. The programme 
targets 358,000 primary school children. Children are provided with a hot lunch for 120 out of the 
190 school days, with the purpose of contributing to improved enrolment, retention and attentiveness 
at school level. At the school-level, the MGD School Meals Programme (SMP) includes WFP support 
to train education officials to monitor school feeding and guarantee food safety and train trainers to 
facilitate school feeding management s at the sub-county level. The programme is implemented in 
eight counties namely: Baringo, Garissa, Mandera, Turkana, Wajir and West Pokot, Marsabit and 
Tana River. Support to the last two counties does not include a food component and is limited to the 
complimentary training and support activities. The responsibility for meals provision has been 
progressively handed over from WFP to the Government of Kenya (GoK) Home Grown School Meals 
Programme (HGSMP) (a process that started in other areas of the country in 2009), and was 
completed by 30 June 2018 as scheduled. HGSMP schools receive funding from the GoK to procure 
food locally. By the end of the MGD funded WFPSMP programme in 2020, all WFP schools will have 
been integrated into the HGSMP and responsibility for management and funding will lie with the 
GoK.
Purpose: This report compares the situation of the programme at midline (May 2018) against the 
baseline (in May 2017). The midline timing – one year after the baseline - is a requirement by the 
donor. The endline will take place in early 2020. At mid-line the purpose of the evaluation is to provide 
an independent assessment of:
• The project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and sustainability;
• Performance against indicators in comparison with values at baseline;
• Whether the project is on track to meet the results and targets
• Necessary mid-course corrections
Users: The evaluation focusses on learning and accountability. Its primary users are: WFP Kenya; 
the Ministry of Education (MOE) and government officers at county and district levels, USDA, the 
WFP Regional Bureau (RB), and WFP more generally. The mid-line findings will also be of direct 
interest to the wider group of donors, international Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) and 
local NGOs, supporting the education sector in Kenya. While not direct users, beneficiaries are also 
concerned by the results of this evaluation.
Methodology: An inception report for this study was produced at baseline stage, and updated at 
midline. It presented a three-arm quasi-experimental design, which was agreed upon at baseline and 
involves doing two sets of comparison: a) between WFPSMP schools and a group of WFPSMP control 
schools, and b) between WFPSMP schools and HGSMP schools. The midline followed the baseline 
methodology, and used three survey tools at school level. In-depth interviews and Focus Group 
Discussions (FGDs), which complemented the survey were done at national, county, sub-county, 
school and community level in 14 schools and covered 349 informants. Secondary data was collected 
from government and WFP records. For the survey, selected control and HGSMP schools were 
matched against WFPSMP schools using propensity score matching. Survey data collection covered a 
sample of 5301 pupils (equal number of boys and girls) and an equal number of parents in 90 schools. 
Sampling took place using a two-step sampling process, across the three arms of the study. Data was 
collected in five of the six targeted Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASAL) counties. Limitations of the 
study are inherent with the difficulty of finding identical matches between School Meals Programme 
(SMP) schools and control schools as WFP covers all schools in a given region. The other limitation is 
the very short time-period between the baseline and midline findings which reduces the probability 
of being able to identify outcome and impact level findings. All findings presented here will need to 
be confirmed at the end line.
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e v
Context: Twelve percent of Kenyan households have inadequate food consumption. These are most 
likely to be poor, living in rural areas and with low education levels. These conditions are particularly 
severe in the arid and semi-arid parts of the country - which comprise 80 percent of the land area –
where undernourishment, wasting, stunting, and child mortality are high. Immediate causes of 
malnutrition are inadequate food intake (in particular for under-fives) and presence of diseases. In 
addition, food insecurity, poor water and sanitation, as well as limited access to health services, all 
contribute. Worsening droughts and their frequency in recent years - 2008-2011, and 2014-18 - have 
led to negative household coping mechanisms such as withdrawing children from school and selling 
productive assets. The arid north, is particularly underdeveloped, drought-prone and is often affected 
by local conflicts. Food availability is constrained by poor transport infrastructure and long distances 
to markets, and more recently by the effects of the prolonged drought, although rains in 2018 brought 
some relief as well as floods. Enrolment and completion and the north-eastern counties - where the 
MGD programme is implemented - are significantly lower than the national average.
Key findings
Evaluation questions 1 - How relevant and appropriate is the programme?
At mid-line the evaluation finds that the intervention continues to be well aligned with the priorities 
of the Government of Kenya as highlighted in its main policy documents, as well as with the priorities 
of WFP, UN partners and other development agencies.
Interviews and survey results highlight that the school meals are relevant to parents, communities 
and children in the arid areas. School meals contribute directly to food security and also indirectly 
through alleviating the burden on parents. In some regions, school meals are particularly relevant to 
girls who are more easily taken out of school for social and cultural reasons.
The midline evaluation confirms findings from the baseline that the programme made appropriate 
choices in terms of geographical focus given prevailing issues of drought, insecurity, and low 
education performance. In addition, the evidence clearly highlights that the transition to the HGSMP 
represents an appropriate choice that is coherent with the national policy, and with the preferences 
of the beneficiaries and education actors at decentralized levels.
Evaluation question 2 and 3 - How effective is the programme and what are emerging 
areas of impact?
Learning outcomes: The survey findings, comparing baseline and midline, show that WFPSMP is 
significantly associated with improved numeracy. There was significant improvement in favour of 
WFPSMP schools in the proportion of children who scored the highest level of numeracy (division) 
compared to control schools (p=0.002). Interviews at school and community level confirmed the 
perception that school feeding contributes to learning outcomes. Analysis by arms also shows that the 
results of the HGSMP appear to be dropping. Across a range of indicators, including numeracy and 
literacy scores, HGSMP school perform less well compared to WFPSMP schools. Thus, the proportion 
of children in HGSMP who scored the highest level of numeracy (division), in literacy in Kiswahili 
(reading a story), and in English literacy (reading a story) is significantly lower compared to WFPSMP 
schools across all three indictors. The comparison of baseline and midline does not show an 
association with higher enrolment, attendance or improved attentiveness when comparing WFPSMP 
schools with control schools and with HGSMP schools.
Short term hunger: The survey data shows that compared to the baseline, at midline an increased 
number of children accessing food through school meals programme and more so in WFP supported 
schools. Children are also more likely, particularly in areas with WFP support, to have a meal before 
and after school. Compared to the control schools, more households with children in schools 
supported by WFP are within the acceptable food Consumption score, and appear to be employing 
less severe coping strategies. The qualitative findings align with the survey in that parents and teacher 
report better access to food in the last season.
Provision of school meals and importance of education: Survey results highlight that access 
to school meals has improved for WFPSMP schools, and that children in these schools are more likely 
to have a meal during the day and during the week than children in HGSMP schools and control
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e vi
schools. However, comparison of parental understanding of the importance of education shows an 
inverse trend and is higher in HGSMP schools compared to WFPSMP schools, and higher in control 
schools compared to WFPSMP schools.
Food utilization and food safety: The survey shows that WFPSMP schools have better conditions 
in terms of food preparation and storage when compared to HGSMP schools and control schools. 
Understanding of food preparation and safety is also higher in WFPSMP schools compared to HGSMP 
schools, and also when compared to control schools.
Evaluation question 4: How efficiently was the programme implemented?
The midline establishes that the transitioning process is broadly on track although with some delays 
in some of the planned activities, including key training activities for School Meals Committees (SMC) 
and Boards of Management (BOM) which had to be deferred due to new government regulations on 
when training can be organized. WFP monitoring systems are recognized as being strong, but 
challenges are evident from the school, county and sub-county visits in terms of the government 
financial and technical capacity to maintain the same level of support. Communication about 
allocated and disbursed amounts by the GoK to the county and school is weak, and contributes to 
weak control and accountability. Various instances of suspected tampering with food quantities were 
reported to the evaluation. Delays in the disbursement of funds for HGSMP schools have meant that 
food has been purchased at higher prices, and this has reduced number of school feeding days. 
Interviewees report that the complex government procurement procedures for the HGSMP schools 
have reduced the level of benefit that the cash-based model has for local communities, as only 
registered larger traders and farmers can qualify.
Evaluation question 5: What progress has been made towards sustainability?
The mid-line finds that the transitioning process is known and understood by actors at different levels, 
and that the financial commitment by the government has continued in place, and government staff 
have been allocated. Nonetheless, funding for the programme is still insufficient to allow for full 
funding of school meals to all the beneficiary schools. Community engagement is strong, but 
participation in decision making of women is insufficient, and in some cases parental contributions 
through labour for cooking is affecting quality of food preparation, hygiene and management as they 
lack necessary training. In terms of capacity, the policy framework has been strengthened through the 
approval and launching of Kenya’s first National Meals and Nutrition Strategy in May 2018. However, 
inter-sectoral coordination remains weak, and capacity for monitoring still continues to be a major 
concern.
Evaluation question 6: What factors have affected the results?
External factors that have affected the programme include droughts and floods, poor road 
infrastructure affecting transportation of food, as well as insecurity related to elections in 2017 and 
cattle rustling. Poverty, combined with nomadic lifestyle, have also affected enrolment and 
participation in schools, specifically by girls in some areas.
Enhanced policy commitment, strong government ownership and a strong relationship with WFP has 
facilitated the transition process. Internal factors that have had a negative effect include delays in 
transfers of cash grants by the government, complex procurement processes, and capacity challenges 
have affected timeliness and regularity of school meals. Inadequate information about the school 
feeding programme has negatively affected implementation and accountability. Food sharing has 
reduced the quantity of the meals for beneficiaries. At school level the existence of multiple initiatives, 
and the effect of the delocalisation of head teachers and introduction of a new curriculum in the same 
period, have created challenges for the management of the education process.
Conclusions
Across the spectrum, the McGovern-Dole supported interventions have been relevant to the 
beneficiaries. The programme has seen WFP successfully engaging at policy level with the 
government, as is reflected in the recent approval of Kenya’s first School Feeding and Nutrition 
Strategy, and in a growing financial contribution by the GoK to the HGSMP, although the financial 
commitment and policy engagement still need considerable further strengthening.
Mid-line Evaluation MGD Kenya - final | P a g e vii
The mid-line also highlights that school feeding provided under the McGovern-Dole supported SMP 
has output and outcome level effects for girls and boys. The comparison of the baseline and midline 
one year later show evidence of positive effect of the WFPSMP on most of the indicators, including in 
terms of better scores on numeracy, on food consumption (in school and at home), and better 
performance on safe food preparation and storage, as well as improved conditions in schools for 
preparing food for pupils. After transitioning of school from WFP to the government HGSMP, many 
of these indicators appear to decline. The short time-period between the baseline and midline require 
that all these findings be comprehensively re-examined at endline to ensure that they are not due to 
external variations such as better rainfall or other confounding variables.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Support the MOE to strengthen the communication and accountability 
measures for the HGSMP by reinstating, from next school year (2018/2019) mandatory circulars for 
information sharing on the details of grants provided to each school. WFP Kenya and MOE. Timeline: 
by January 2019, and at the beginning of each school year for subsequent years.
Recommendation 2: Prioritize the establishment of an independent complaints hotline for the 
HGSMP and ensure annual reporting on complaints received and how these were addressed. 
Responsible entity: MOE and the intersectoral committees at national and county levels, with 
technical support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: by the first quarter of 2019.
Recommendation 3: Commission a review of the current strategy for training SMC and school 
heads and use this to improve the training approach and content moving forward. Responsible entity: 
WFP Kenya, in consultation with MOE. Timeline: by the end of the first semester of 2019.
Recommendation 4: Advocate with the Treasury to: a) increase funding to the monitoring of the 
HGSMP; and, b) decentralize the disbursement of funds for the HGSMP to the county level to ensure 
that funds are received in a more regular and timely manner. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya and 
MOE. Timeline: End of the first semester of 2019.
Recommendation 5: Secure strong involvement of audit, quality assurance, and gender staff at 
county level in the monitoring of the HGSMP programme. Responsible entity: MOE, with technical 
support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: by the end of the current project (2020).
Recommendation 6: During the transition phase, enhance technical support provision at county 
and sub-county levels by placing WFP funded consultant staff at county level to reinforce training at 
the level of county offices and sub-county offices on HGSMP management and supervision. 
Responsible entity: WFP Kenya in partnership with the MOE. Timeline: continuously until the end of 
the programme.
Recommendation 7: Strengthen the integration of gender into the transition by carrying out a 
gender analysis as a follow up to the midline evaluation and identifying key aspects to include in 
capacity building and monitoring. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya, in consultation with MOE. 
Timeline: By the start of the 2019/2020 school year.
Recommendation 8: Establish clear targets for female participation and representation in the SMC 
to ensure gender balance and women representation in decision making and ensure that gender 
considerations are integrated in all capacity building activities and included in monitoring by WFP 
and MOE. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya and MoE. Timeline: By the end of the first quarter of 2019.
Recommendation 9: Improve the transparency and rationale of selection of SMP schools by 
reviewing the criteria for school selection in coordination with communities who have a better 
knowledge of the challenges that each individual school faces. Responsible entity: MOE at various 
levels, with technical support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: by the next school year (2019/2020).
Recommendation 10: Strengthen the monitoring of HGSMP by linking the monitoring system to 
the Education Management Information System (EMIS) and to the Free Primary Education (FPE) 
funding, to reduce the incidence of ghost schools and pupils. Responsible entity: MOE, with technical 
support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: by the end of 2019.
| P a g e 1
1. Introduction
1. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Mc Govern Dole (MGD) International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Programme has granted the World FoodProgramme 
(WFP) Kenya US$ 28 million to support school feeding in Kenya. The overall duration of the 
support is five years (2016-2021). The grant agreement specifies that performance of the grant 
will be measured against agreed indicators at baseline, mid-line and end-line. This report 
concerns the measurement at mid-line and follows one year after the baseline.
2. The baseline – based on a quasi-experimental design - was conducted in April/May 2017.1 The 
midline – one year after the baseline - coincides with WFP handing over the programme to 
the Government of Kenya (GoK) in June 2018. It is a requirement by the donor that the mid￾line takes place at this time. The end-line will take place in early 2020.
3. The purpose of the mid-line is to provide an independent assessment of:
• The project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and sustainability;
• Performance against indicators in comparison with values at baseline;
• Whether the project is on track to meet the results and targets;
• The need for mid-course corrections.
4. The evaluation has an accountability objective by providing mid-term values against 
indicators. It also has a learning objective which focusses on determining why results occurred 
or failed to occur and to inform operational and strategic decision making moving forward. 
Complete terms of reference (ToR) are in Annex 1.
5. The primary users of this evaluation are: WFP Kenya; the Ministry of Education Science and 
Technology (MoE) at national, county, district and school levels, which is the main 
implementing partner and responsible for ensuring the transition to a Home Grown School 
Meals Programme (HGSMP); the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) which 
will be able to use this evaluation to improve its interventions; WFP Regional Bureau (RB) 
which will use the evaluation for strategic guidance, support and oversight, and WFP for wider 
organizational learning and accountability. The mid-line findings will also be of direct interest 
to partners who contribute the broader outcomes of the initiative (see paragraph 10) such as 
the United Nations Children’s Fund UNICEF, to International and National Non￾Governmental Organizations (NGO) and to the members of the evaluation Reference Group 
and to the wider group of donors supporting the education sector.
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject
6. The current USDA Mc Govern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Programme (McGovern-Dole) project is the last of three phases of support, and targets full 
hand-over to the GoK. It has a total budget of 28 million.2 The programme target of 358,000 
beneficiaries per year surpassed in both years for which data is available (531.467 beneficiaries 
in 2016 and 494.522 beneficiaries in 2017, of whom 44 percent were girls). The programme 
distributed a total of 16,286 tons of food in these two years, and an additional 1,693 tons of 
locally grown food was used in beneficiary schools in this period.
7. In the spirit of transition, the MGD 2016-2020 programme is divided into two phases. For the 
first period of three years (2016-2018), the program planned to provide daily school lunches 
to primary school children in targeted arid and food insecure counties. This phase culminates 
in the handing over of the management and funding responsibility to the GoK. Support from 
USDA will continue for two years (2019-2020) during which WFP provides technical 
assistance to strengthen institutional structures and ensure sustainability.
1 Findings from the baseline were recorded in a comprehensive baseline report (Visser et al. 2017). 2 Previous phases of USDA support included three single year awards in 2004, 2005, and 2006, and three multi-year 
phases awarded in 2007 (2007-2009), 2010 (2010-2012), and 2013 (2013-2016), respectively. These phases were followed 
by the current multi-year phase awarded in 2016 (2016-2020). The funds awarded between 2004 and 2015 amount to 
approximately 93 million USD.
| P a g e 2
8. At the school-level, the MGD School Meals Programme (SMP) includes WFP support to train 
education officials to monitor school feeding and guarantee food safety and train trainers 
among local education, health and agriculture officers, equipping them to facilitate school 
feeding management trainings at the sub-county level. Up to June 2018 (the transition), WFP 
shared the responsibility for the commodity delivery with the MOE, with WFP managing the 
pipeline and ensuring delivery to central warehouses and the MOE transporting commodities 
at sub- county level and to schools. The hot lunch, funded by USDA MGD is served for 120 out 
of the 190 school days.3 The programme is implemented in eight counties namely: Baringo, 
Garissa, Mandera, Turkana, Wajir and West Pokot, Marsabit and Tana River. Support to the 
last two counties did not include food supply but will benefit from the complimentary 
activities.4 A map in Annex 2 shows the location of the activities.
9. Gender dimensions of the intervention: The intervention seeks to benefit both girls and 
boys, and the results framework requires gender disaggregated reporting for educational 
indicators such as enrolment, repetition and drop-out rates. Other than this, the programme 
design – as reflected in the agreement with USDA and the description of its activities - does 
not include specific attention to issues of gender equality in the implementation of the 
programme5 and no specific gender analysis was done at the design stage of the intervention. 
No specific gender indicators are included in the Performance Monitoring Framework (PMF) 
(Annex 3).
10. Logical framework: The results framework for the programme is in Annex 4 and shows a 
logical sequence of activities through to outcomes and impact. As indicated in the results 
framework, the intervention has two overarching strategic objectives (SO) namely: a) 
improved literacy of school-aged children, and b) increased health and dietary practices. 
Underlying the first SO (literacy) are three main outcomes, two of which are marked as being 
directly related to WFP activities i.e. ‘improved attentiveness’ and ‘improved student 
attendance’. The third outcome is ‘improved quality of literacy instruction’ to be achieved 
through what is marked as ‘outcomes to be achieved by other organizations’. The second SO 
(use of health and dietary practices) has six underlying outcomes of which only one ‘increased 
access to preventive health interventions’ is a result to be achieved through partner activities. 
Complementary activities implemented by other partners include the Tusome programme6
funded by USAID, that aims at increasing the pupils’ literacy rate and is implemented in all 
schools. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) is working with the GoK to update the 
current national curriculum (with inputs from WFP) and through awareness campaigns 
sensitizing communities about the importance of education and increasing literacy under the 
support by the Global Partnership for Education (GPE). UNICEF is also supporting Water, 
Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), by providing toilets and running water at school level.
11. All other outcomes in the logical framework will be attained through WFP or sub-recipient 
interventions. Foundations results for both SO include increased capacity, improved policy 
and regulatory framework, increased government support and increased engagement oflocal
3 The meals comprise 150 grams of bulgur wheat, 40 grams of green split peas, 5 grams of vegetable oil (fortified with 
vitamin A and D), and 3 grams of iodized salt – to be procured separately by WFP. 4 The complementary activities focus on: strengthening governance and multi-sectoral coordination and collaboration for 
the school meals programme; advocacy and dialogue to ensure adequate and regular budget allocations and to maintain 
political commitment to the programme; strengthening oversight and management functions; empowering communities 
to manage school feeding activities through training and capacity building of school managers, teachers, and parents in 
order to ensure a solid level of awareness about school feeding implementation principles. 5 This could have included, for example ensuring that community involvement embraces male and female participation 
equally.
6 The Tusome (“Let’s Read’’ in Kiswahili) Early Grade Reading Activity is a collaboration between the MOE, USAID and
UKAID to improve learning outcomes in English and Kiswahili in Class 1 and 2. The TUSOME Programme was 
conceptualized and developed as a National Literacy Programme. It targets approximately 60,000 teachers, 22,600 
schools for improvement in literacy instruction and outcomes. It is envisaged that 5.4 million class 1 and 2 pupils will be 
twice as likely to meet MOE benchmarks for literacy. The programme is being implemented in all public primary schools 
and 1000 alternative basic education institutions serving low cost urban settlements countywide.
| P a g e 3
organizations. A set of four assumptions underlie the logical framework.7
12. A number of points arise from the logical framework with implications for the assessment:
• Firstly, the logical framework highlights very clearly that the actual provision of school 
meals is only one of a range of inputs (although it takes up most of the budget).
• Secondly the framework clearly shows that the outcomes and impact are to be achieved 
through a combination of direct interventions by WFP and interventions by other partners.
13. Past evaluations: Several evaluations were undertaken during the period of the previous 
grant (FFE-615-2013/041-00, covering 2013-2016). A baseline was conducted from May to 
July 2014, a mid-term evaluation in October 20158 covering the period September 2013 to 
December 2014 and the final evaluation was launched in June 2016. The final evaluation 
concluded that: support had been relevant to beneficiaries; good complementarity with the 
work of other partners had been achieved; and, that the project had met key indicator targets. 
Efficiency challenges were highlighted related to limited capacity and insufficient funding at 
county level. Weaknesses in the communication with WFP and partners were also found. 
While an increase was found in enrolment and retention, the educational performance of 
pupils remained low. An evaluation of the transitional Cash Transfer to Schools (CTS) pilot in 
Isiolo County (funded by the Government of Canada) was done in 20159 and found that such 
transfers were relevant, efficient and effective, and allowed schools to purchase food for daily 
meals, at a cost that was 24 percent cheaper than in-kind transfers. Food delivery was found 
to be more reliable, and the initiative produced added value through transfers to traders/local 
farmers, and strengthened ownership. There are no specific differences between the original 
design of the WFP SMP and the implementation to be noted.
1.2. Context
14. Key aspects of the context are highlighted in the ToR (see Annex 1) which state that while 
Kenya was classified as lower-middle income, poverty, food insecurity, under-nutrition and 
income inequality remain, with 45.6 percent of Kenyans living below the national poverty line. 
According to the National School Meals Strategy (2017-2022), 47 percent of the population is 
food insecure, with an estimated 2 million Kenyans in constant need of food relief. This figure 
can rise up to 4 million when the country suffers drought, often followed by flooding. The WFP 
Country Strategic Plan (2018-2023)indicates that 4 million people or 12 percent of households 
have inadequate food consumption. These are most likely to be poor, living in rural areas and 
with low education levels, showing the strong link between poverty, lack of education and food 
insecurity.
15. These conditions are particularly severe in the arid and semi-arid parts of the country - which 
comprise 80 percent of the land area – where undernourishment, wasting, stunting, and child 
mortality are high. Immediate causes of malnutrition are inadequate food intake (in particular 
for under-fives) and presence of diseases. In addition, food insecurity, poor water and 
sanitation, as well as limited access to health services, all contribute. Worsening droughts and 
their frequency in recent years; 2008-2011, and 2014-18 have led to negative household coping 
mechanisms such as withdrawing children from school and selling productive assets.
16. The arid north is particularly underdeveloped, drought-prone and is often affected by local 
conflicts. Food availability is constrained by poor transport infrastructure and long distances 
to markets, and more recently by the effects of the prolonged drought. Enrolment and 
completion and the north-eastern counties - where the MGD programme is implemented - are 
significantly lower than the national average. Adult literacy can be as low as 8 percent10.
.
7 The assumptions are that there will be increased political commitment to expansion of HGSMP, that the GoK will allocate 
sufficient funding for the HGSMP, that public and private donors will be able to do the same, and that other initiatives will
take place in a complementary manner.
8 Dunn & Kariuki (2014). External Evaluation of WFP’s Cash Transfers to Schools Pilot Project. WFP. 9 Bartolli (2016). A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFPs USDA McGovern Dole International Food for Education/Child 
Nutrition Programme Support (2013-2015). WFP, Kenya. 10 Government of Kenya (2015). “National Education Sector Plan: Volume One”. Nairobi: MOE.
| P a g e 4
Retention and educational quality are ongoing challenges. This region also has the highest rate 
of stunting and wasting,
11 WIth acute malnutrition among children aged 6 - 59 months 
exceeding 15 percent and micronutrient deficiencies above 50 percent.
17. Kenya has a relatively well-developed policy context, with policies that seek to promote 
advancement in education, health and nutrition, and which all fall under the umbrella of an 
overall development plan. A social-protection policy (2012) aims at increasing access to 
services for vulnerable populations and includes school feeding. A ten-year Ending Drought 
Emergencies plan (2013-2022) targets drought resilience through investment in 
infrastructure, security, and human capital. Social-assistance programmes cover only 27 
percent of the poor and are funded up to 90 percent by development partners. In 2017, the 
government developed the National School Meal Nutrition Strategy, which was closely 
followed by the Sustainability Road Map for School Meal Programme.
18. Kenya’s new constitution and the Government’s Vision 2030 both address gender equality. 
The Bill of Rights in the constitution affirms equal rights and non-discrimination, and the 
constitution embeds affirmative action aiming at improving equal participation in decision 
making. Notwithstanding, there are still considerable differences in the country between men 
and women’s possibilities to control and benefit from economic, social and political resources 
and structures. Although women represent 75% of the population engaged in agriculture, they 
face greater challenges than men when it comes to accessing land, education and financial 
resources. Consequently, female headed households tend to be more prone to food insecurity 
when faced with shocks such as drought.12 Kenyan women are underrepresented in decision￾making positions. Girls and women living in rural areas spend long hours collecting water and 
firewood which interferes with school attendance and leaves them with little time to earn 
money or engage in other productive activities. Sexual abuse, violence, and harmful cultural 
practices like female genital mutilation are prevalent.
19. Although Kenya has achieved almost 100 percent gender parity in enrolment in primary 
education13, and prioritizes gender in its national development plan and education policy, 
gender disparities persist in the Arid and Semi-Arid Lands.14 Many girls are still out of school 
due to, among other factors, customary practices that expose them to early marriages and child 
pregnancies. Marginalized communities in these areas face climate hardships that keep the 
girls out of school to engage in livelihood and domestic chores.
20. WFPs work in Kenya focusses on: a) strengthening the capacity of national institutions and 
county governments to respond to food insecurity and undernutrition; promoting and 
sustainably expanding a HGSMP towards full school-meals national coverage by mid-2018; c) 
assisting smallholder farmers and millers to acquire skills and benefit from structured market 
opportunities; and d) improving the nutritional outcomes of vulnerable groups by focusing on 
chronic malnutrition.15 The present intervention is part of this package ofactivities.
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations
21. The overall purpose of the midline is to assess progress against baseline indicators (see ToR, 
Annex 1). A set of six evaluation questions were identified for the midline covering OECD/DAC 
evaluation criteria. A seventh question aims at identifying underlying factors affecting the
11 A Discussion Paper by the World Bank and UNICEF (2016) An Investment Framework for Nutrition in Kenya: Reducing 
Stunting and Other Forms of Child Malnutrition shows the highest rate to be in West Pokot County (45.9 percent). While 
national wasting prevalence is at 4%, these are much higher in the arid north. Turkana County has the highest prevalence 
of wasting at 22 percent followed by Mandera at 14.8 percent and Wajir County at 14.2 percent.
12 Determinants of Food Security in Kenya, a Gender Perspective. 
file:///C:/Users/lenovo/Downloads/WhatDeterminesGenderInequalityinHouseholdFoodSecurity.pdf 13 Girls’ enrolment improved from 0.96 in 2008 to 1.0 in 2012, in part due to the introduction of free primary education in
2003. 14 Government of Kenya. (2012). “Second Medium-term Plan, 2013–2017” Nairobi. 15 The country programme was funded at 71% by donors in 2017. Capacity strengthening activities were well-resourced, 
with predictable multi-year funding. School meals activity was seriously under-resourced. Micronutrient supplementation 
for children aged 6-23 months had no funding in 2017 and relied on carry-over stocks from 2016.
| P a g e 5
results and outcomes of the programme (see Table 1). An evaluation matrix (Annex 5) maps 
evaluation questions and sub-questions and identified indicators and relevant sources of 
evidence. Priority questions were identified at inception stage and are in italics in Table 1.
Table 1 - Evaluation questions, sub-questions and criteria
Evaluation question and sub-question Evaluation criteria
KQ 1 – Relevance: How relevant is the programme?
1. To what extent is the programme approach/activities relevant to the GoK? Relevance
2. Is the activity aligned with WFP, UN agency and donor policies and priorities? Relevance
3. Is the package of interventions coherent with the needs of boys, girls, and 
parents of school-age children?
Internal and external 
coherence
4. Is the investment in the right, relevant areas? Relevance & coherence
KQ 2 - Appropriateness: How Appropriate is the programme?
5. Is the intervention the best way to meet the food security/nutrition needs of 
male and female beneficiaries and capacity gaps of key institutions?
Relevance
6. Are protection needs met for male and female beneficiaries? Relevance & cross-cutting
7. To what extent is the intervention based on a sound gender analysis? To what 
extent is the implementation of the intervention gender-sensitive?
Relevance and cross-cutting
KQ 3 – Effectiveness: What are the results of the programme?
8. To what extent are the intervention’s outcomes/objectives likely to be achieved? 
What have been the gender dimensions of the results?
Effectiveness
9. What are the major factors influencing progress in achievement or non￾achievement of the outputs outcomes/objectives of the intervention?
Effectiveness
10. To what extent does the intervention deliver results for beneficiaries? Effectiveness
KQ 4: Efficiency – How efficiently was the programme implemented?
11. Is the programme implemented in a timely way? Efficiency
12. Is the programme implemented efficiently? Are financial and human resource
inputs efficient compared to outputs? Are the activities cost-efficient?
Efficiency
13. Does the monitoring system efficiently meet the needs and requirements of the 
project?
Efficiency, internal & 
external coherence
14. What are the management strengths - technical and financial - of the project? Efficiency
KQ 5 – Impact: What are the impact level results of the programme so far?
15. What are the medium-term effects? Impact
KQ 6 – Sustainability: To what extent are the project results sustainable?
16. To what extent is the government taking ownership of the programme? Sustainability
17. What is the demonstrated capacity at central and sub-national levels to 
manage the programme?
Effectiveness and 
sustainability
18. How are local communities involved in and contributing to the implementation 
of the programme?
Effectiveness
19. Is the HGSMP adequately funded? Effectiveness
KQ 7 – What factors affected the results and what lessons can be learned from the implementation 
so far?
20. What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of 
sustainability of the program?
Internal and external 
coherence
21. What are lessons learned from the project up to this point?
22. What are the recommendations for mid-course corrections to improve
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, & sustainability?
22. At the inception stage of the baseline, a quasi-experimental design was proposed, assessed for 
feasibility, agreed on, and approved by both the internal committee and USDA as the most 
suitable methodology for evaluation this programme. USDA requirements determined that 
the baseline would be followed-up by a midline after one year to assess progress in terms of 
take-over, in spite of the very short time-line.
23. Following the previously agreed design, the midline was set up with a three-arm quasi￾experimental design which involves two sets of comparison, namely:
• Between WFP SMP schools and WFPSMP control schools
| P a g e 6
• Between WFPSMP schools with HGSMP schools.
24. A more detailed discussion of this design can be found in the Inception Report. The first 
comparison (WFPSMP and control schools) provides the means for examining what 
differences the WFP supported SMP makes to key education and nutrition indicators. The 
HGSMP versus WFPSMP arm of the study assesses progress on sustainability, given that 
HGSMP schools have been handed over to the GoK.
25. The research questions and testable hypotheses that underpin the quasi-experimental design 
focus on examining whether the baseline, mid-term and end-line primary education outcomes 
(literacy and numeracy levels) and other educational outcomes (enrolment, attendance, etc.) 
in the ASAL areas of Kenya are the same in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD school 
meals programme (2016 -2020) as those not included (controls and those transitioning to 
HGSMP). Four different hypotheses were formulated at baseline and proposed for testing at 
mid-term and end-line for each indicator (see Annex 6).
26. In line with requirements of the ToR and as documented in the Inception Report, data 
collection combined secondary and primary data sources and mirrored the procedure at 
baseline. Secondary data focussed on an analysis of WFP and GOK policy documents, 
documentation by other donors, as well WFP and GoK reporting, WFP monitoring and 
Education Management Information System (EMIS) data. Sources consulted are in the 
bibliography. Primary data collection included key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus 
group discussions (FGDs) at national, county, sub-county, school and community level and 
the administration of three survey questionnaires (the first for pupils with their respective 
parents; the second for school teachers; and the third combined a head teacher 
questionnaire and school checklist to collect information on schools. Tools had been tested at 
baseline. The evaluation use of mixed methods was part of a consistent focus on 
triangulating information from different methods and sources to enhance the reliability of 
findings. Validity was addressed through the choice of research approach (comparison of 
intervention and control group) and by calculating the sample size to ensure statistical 
validity (a large sample was used to reduce sampling error and the sample size was doubled 
to ensure adequate attention to gender issues). Details on these aspects are in Annex 6.
27. Data collection instruments were reviewed and improved for the mid-line data collection–
redundant/unclear questions were removed/reformulated. An additional question was 
included in all three survey tools to allow for identification of respondents who participated in 
the baseline survey. The study arm was also included to enhance visualization of thedata.
28. Enumerator and supervisor selection followed the same criteria for selection as set during the 
baseline (see Annex 7). A five-day training (28th May – 1st June 2018) preceded data collection. 
Gender balance was secured through the recruitment of equal numbers of male and female 
enumerators. As much as possible enumerators and supervisors with experience from the 
baseline were recruited at midline. All the supervisors for the midline had participated in the 
baseline while 60% of the enumerators for the midline had also participated in thebaseline.
29. Primary data collection was conducted at the same time as the preceding baseline survey (in 
May - June 2018, the baseline having been in May 2017). Control schools were selected from 
the neighboring areas (either within the same county or in a neighboring county in a manner 
that matched as closely as possible the socio-economic activities and livelihood characteristics 
to ensure similarity in terms of vulnerability and food insecurity).16 HGSMP schools were also 
selected from the neighboring areas with comparable socio-economic activities.17
30. Schools – which at baseline had been selected and matched using Propensity Score Matching 
(PSM) - were again targeted at the midline. Sample size was identical to the baseline and 
included an adjustment to account for gender. The midline targeted 90 schools (divided over 
the control, HGSMP and SMP schools) and a total of 5301 children. The second stage of
16 The control schools were in Elgeyo Marakwet, Kajiado, Kitui, Laikipia, Machakos, Makueni, Nyeri and Taita Taveta. 17 This covered Elgeyo Marakwet, Embu, Kajiado, Kitui, Laikipia, Machakos, Makueni and Nyeri.
| P a g e 7
sampling focused on selecting children in schools using a random number generator. For each 
child, the corresponding parent was asked to participate. A 40 percent target was set for female 
(parent) respondents. Sampling of girls was done to ensure that half of the pupils were girls.
31. Qualitative data collection was modified from the baseline approach to ensure in-depth 
analysis of issues of particular interest at the mid-line, namely management, capacity, 
accountability, performance, and progress to sustainability. Qualitative data collection 
through KIIs and FGDs was carried out in seven counties, with a total of 14 schools. There 
were KIIs at national, county, sub-county and school levels, involving MOE at national and 
sub-national levels, officers in charge of SMP and WFP officials, chairs of school Boards of 
Management (BOM), and head teachers. In order to address gender mainstreaming and 
women’s empowerment as per WFP’s evaluation principle of gender equality, the evaluation 
was conducted with a view to elucidating the effect of the intervention (WFPSMP or HGSMP) 
among boys and girls. Views of male and female respondents were sought at all levels. To the 
greatest extent possible, the consultants ensured both men and women were targeted as 
respondents, with the target of at least 40 percent female parents largely surpassed. At school 
level, FGDs were held with teachers, pupils and parents; ensuring that both girls and boys, 
women and men participated. Where needed, discussions were organised separately for 
women and men. A total of 349 persons participated in the interviews and FGDs.
32. Quality assurance took place at various levels starting from rigorous instruments redesign, 
and selection and training of staff responsible for data collection. The work of enumerators 
was supervised by team supervisors who in turn were supervised by the research teams. Survey 
data uploaded on Open Data Kit (ODK) was reviewed daily. Anomalies or problems were 
identified and corrected in a timely manner.
33. As part of the overall approach to the evaluation both triangulation and complementarity 
between quantitative and qualitative methods were ensured. Triangulation between methods 
focused on confirming and corroborating results reached by one method with other results 
reached by another method. Complementarity focused on using results obtained by a method 
to help better understand those obtained by another method. Triangulation within methods 
was used where appropriate (e.g. comparing the perspectives of stakeholders interviewed). A 
one-day research team workshop, and four-day workshop on qualitative data, allowed for 
comparison of findings and discussion of emerging conclusions and recommendations.
34. WFPs Decentralised Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) guidelines which have in￾built steps for quality assurance and templates for evaluation products, as well as checklists 
for feedback on quality - were followed in the design, implementation, and reporting. The 
study complied with standard 3.2 of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and 
Standards. The evaluation also complied fully with GoK and WFP guidelines on contact with 
children. Ethical considerations were taken on board in the study in the followingmanner:
• Enumerators training included ethical considerations for work with children.
• A courtesy call was made to the county district education officials before starting.
• Head teacher consent was sought before any activity in the school.
• Teachers introduced the enumerators to the class to explain the survey.
• For the control schools the survey team emphasized that participation sought to 
understand differences between intervention and non-intervention schools. Parents were 
interviewed prior to the their respective children so that consent could be sought. 
Participants were informed that they could decline participation.
• All data collected has been kept confidential.
• Passwords and backing up of data were carried out for security of digital data.
• Research team members signed a code of conduct which included handling of children.
35. Data analysis was complimentarily done using IBM SPSS version 24.0 and SAS version 9.4. 
MS-Excel was used to generate graphical presentation of specific findings.
36. Univariate analysis: Descriptive statistics such as measures of central tendency (mean, 
standard deviations, median, and range) were used for analysis of continuous variables, while
| P a g e 8
frequencies and percentages for categorical variables.
37. Bivariate analysis: Pearson’s Chi-square or Fisher Exact test (depending on the mean 
expected count) was used to compare the distribution of indicator variables and other 
observable characteristics between interventions and control groups. T-test was used to 
compare mean difference between intervention and control groups. Where normality 
assumptions are violated, appropriate non-parametric methods were used.
38. Multiple regression analysis: Binary logistic regression was used to estimate the 
difference in the proportion of children ages 7-13 that have attained literacy and numeracy 
for a Standard 2 level adjusting for midline characteristics, identified to be significantly 
different between intervention and control groups at bivariate analysis. Threshold for 
statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
39. Estimation of programme effects: Difference-in-differences (DID), also known as the 
‘double difference’ method, was used to compare the changes in outcome (effect size) over 
time between specific intervention (HGSMP and WFPSMP) and control group. Application of 
DID method was able to adjust for difference in the outcome between both interventions 
(HGSMP and WFPSMP) and control group at baseline.
40. Effect of WFPSMP: the difference in the measurement indicator between WFPSMP and 
control groups was first calculated at baseline and midterm. The calculated baseline difference 
were then differenced from the midterm differences to ascertain the accurate difference 
attributable to the WFPSMP at midterm.
41. Evaluating sustainability of SMP: In order to determine whether transitioning schools from 
WFPSMP to HGSMP sustains school performance, the comparison of HGSMP and WFPSMP 
was done. The indicators measured at baseline, were compared again at midterm. Owing to 
its rigorous programme implementation, the bench mark was WFPSMP. Propensity score 
matching was used as an adjustment factor at every step of analysis.
42. Qualitative results were coded and analyzed for patterns, identifying similarities and 
differences among the different groups of people, different contexts. Identification of patterns, 
similarities and differences led to conclusions.
Limitations
43. Limitations are inherent with the difficulty of finding identical matches between SMP schools 
and control schools as WFP covers all schools in a given region. Care was taken to ensure as 
close a match as possible for indicators for which data could be collected. The following table 
presents the identified limitations, implemented mitigations, risk level and possible impact on 
the survey.
44. The other limitation is the very short time-period between the baseline and midline findings 
which reduces the probability of being able to identify outcome and impact levelfindings.
Limitation Mitigation Risk level Impact
Limited matching after using
propensity score matching (PSM) -
23 against the expected 30.
Independent paired
matching for 
different groups Low
Comparison between
HGSMP and Control not 
possible
Not able to implement the ideal 
triple matching for PSM
Independent paired 
matching for 
different groups Low None
Slight variation between 2016 
EMIS data and actual enrolment 
figures in May 2017
Redistribution of 
sample size at 
school and class
level Low Minimal biasness
Limited variables in the EMIS data
from the ministry of education for 
PSM
Computed
alternative 
variables for PSM Low Limited matching
| P a g e 9
2. Evaluation Findings
45. The evaluation findings and the evidence to substantiate them are presented below. They are 
structured as a response to each evaluation question in turn.
2.1. Evaluation Question 1 and 2 - How relevant and appropriate is the 
programme?
Relevance to the Government and other key stakeholders?
46. The GoK commitment to education is articulated in the Constitution of Kenya (2010), which 
states that education is a basic right. Article 53 b stipulates that basic education is ‘free and 
compulsory’. The constitution has provision for food as a basic right (Article 53c)18. At 
international level, Kenya is a signatory to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and 
SDG4 commits United Nations (UN) member states to: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality 
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. In regard to basic education, 
MOE and partners efforts focus on ensuring: ‘Access, equity, retention and completion’ for all 
children. This effort focuses on bridging the gap in achieving 100% Net Enrolment Rates 
(NER) and in reversing the current low learning achievement (see Uwezo19, Southern African 
Consortium for Measuring Education Quality (SACMEQ), and Kenya National Assessment 
System for Monitoring Learning Achievement (NASMLA) assessment results).
47. The key strategic objectives of the programme, i.e. SO1: improved literacy of school age 
children, and SO2: increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices, address the issues of 
learning outcomes, nutrition and health, therefore complementing GoK efforts to increase 
enrolment, attendance and retention, completion and transition, as well as improved learning 
outcomes in arid counties of North East and West of Kenya.
48. School meals are relevant to parents, communities and children in the arid areas. For the 
parents, informants pointed out the benefit of parents’ time freed by provision of lunch and 
especially the female parents who had more time to look for food for the evening meal, work 
on improving their livelihoods, or time to look for water and firewood. Schools with the SMP 
also attracted the younger children to the early childhood development(ECD)level, generating 
interest in education, thus facilitating enrolment in primary school at the right age. Gender 
parity has generally improved in enrolments, especially at the lower levels, with some schools, 
reporting there are now more girls enrolled than boys, especially in the lower classes in 
primary schools. With meals provided to both boys and girls, and young children enrolling in 
ECD, parents and pupils also reported that girls are less burdened to look after the younger 
siblings. With assured food in school, girls are also reported to be becoming more confident 
and performing better in class.
18 National School Meals and Nutrition Strategy 2017 -2022. 19 Uwezo is a five year initiative that aims to improve competencies in literacy and numeracy among children aged 6-16
years old in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, by using an innovative approach to social change that is citizen driven and 
accountable to the public.
Summary EQ 1 and 2
• The intervention is well aligned with the priorities of the GoK. The MGD programme is also well 
aligned with the priorities of UN partners and other development agencies.
• School meals are relevant to parents, communities and children in the arid areas. School meals 
contribute directly to food security and also indirectly through alleviating the burden on parents.
• The programme made appropriate choices in terms of geographical focus.
• The transition to HGSM represents an appropriate choice that is coherent with the national policy 
and with the preferences of the beneficiaries and education actors at decentralized levels.
| P a g e 10
Alignment with WFP, partner UN agency and donor policies and priorities?
49. The MGD programme is aligned to the WFP Kenya Strategic Plan of 2011-2014 whose focus 
was on capacity building of government to extend the HGSMP to arid areas, while continuing 
to give direct food supplies to areas with limited capacity and cash transfers to schools 
transitioning to HGSMP. There has since then been a shift in the current WFP strategy (2018-
2013), with the overarching aim to move: ‘from the direct provision of transfers and services 
to the strengthening of national systems and capacities to deliver food and nutrition security.’
50. The WFP Kenya Country Strategy is anchored on the United Nations Development Assistance 
Framework (UNDAF) and its five principles: a human rights-based approach, gender equality, 
environmental sustainability, capacity development, and results-based management. Capacity 
development aspect cuts across the UN agencies supporting education, with the United 
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) supporting the
government capacity to ‘ensure equitable and inclusive quality of education and lifelong 
learning for all by 2030’, in line with SDG 4, while UNICEF works in partnership with the GoK 
to ‘create an inclusive, protective, healthy and learning environment for children’. The GPE, 
supports government programmes in achieving SDG4 and is supporting the GoK in improving 
early grade numeracy. This initiative complements the USAID funded Tusome Programme 
which, in partnership with the GoK, aims at improving early grade literacy. Thus, the MGD 
SO1 contributes to GoK and donor policies and priorities in improving learning outcomes, by 
strengthening enrolment, attendance and attentiveness, retention and completion.
Coherence and Relevance of the Package of Interventions?
51. The seven areas of intervention by WFP MGD project, can be categorised into: a) direct 
material support in terms of food supply, provision of energy saving stoves and 
building/rehabilitation of kitchens/cooking areas; b) capacity building at national, county, 
sub-county, school and community levels; and c) awareness creation/education on 
importance of education, hygiene and nutrition. Each of the component resonates with and 
complements the other, which is important for smooth transition and handover.
Investment in the right, relevant areas?
52. Kenya has almost half (45.6 percent) of its population living below the poverty line in spite of 
the fact that the country was reclassified by the World Bank, in 2014, as a lower-middle income 
country. It has remained a food deficit country, with high prevalence of malnutrition and 
significant inequality. The counties targeted by this programme have similar characteristics, 
which include vast geographical expanse and sparse population, pastoralism and in some 
counties nomadic pastoralism as the main source of livelihood, where poverty indices are 
highest. These counties experience prolonged periods of drought, which are becoming more 
frequent; resulting in famine and food insecurity. Food insecurity is compounded by instability 
and insecurity caused by protracted internal conflict, at times fuelled by cattle rustling. The 
situation in the north-eastern region has been exacerbated by terrorist attacks from Al Shabab, 
Food insecurity is exacerbated by constraints in accessing markets and subsequently high 
prices of food commodities due to poor roads which become impassable during rainy seasons.
53. Within the context of food insecurity, the evaluation was informed in all the counties visited, 
that families normally have one meal per day in the evening and in some families, there are 
times when there is no meal. This underscores the importance of school meals for the children. 
In areas affected by conflict, parents and communities are also assured children are safe in 
school and have a meal. In some situations, children save half of their lunch for younger 
siblings. In the case of Wajir and Turkana, evaluators were informed that during extreme 
famine, people living within the school’s neighbourhood come to school at lunch time
54. The program activities are very relevant because of the protracted drought. Some of the 
parents, are forced to move to other areas in search for pasture. The SMP enables them to leave 
their children behind with relatives, allowing them to attend school and get some food. As 
noted by one of the County Directors of Education (CDE):
| P a g e 11
“It is the right intervention, focussing on areas with food challenges. Some of the issues 
in the county include border skirmishes which affect food production in the dry areas, at 
times unable to harvest any food. This has had a negative effect on retaining children in 
school. The areas that experience drought are the same ones that also are affected by 
conflict, affecting the nutrition of children in the area.” (informant, ElgeyoMarakwet).
Coherence of WFP activity with key policies of other partners operating in the context
55. The MOE is working with various partners towards increasing enrolments, retention and 
completion rates as well as improving quality of education and learning outcomes. The WFP 
SMP intervention is gradually being handed over to the government, which is in coherence 
with the policies of government partners. Agencies such as UNICEF are supporting WASH in 
schools, and GPE is supporting improvement of early numeracy and strengthening of systems, 
while other interventions such as the World Bank Secondary Education Quality Improvement 
Project for Kenya, straddle across the primary and secondary education. All these 
interventions supporting the GoK to ensure equal access to quality education. The coherence 
of WFP activity with key policies of other partners is summarized by one head teacher in 
Turkana: “Even with FPE (Free Primary Education), if there is no food, other programmes 
won’t go on”. (Head teacher, Turkana).
Appropriateness
56. The approach chosen - considering the food security and nutrition needs of the beneficiaries -
is generally accepted as the best one. Most informants, in particular head teachers, were of the 
opinion that the cash transfer is mostly preferred compared to the food in kind. Their main 
reason is that the children need food of their choice, and that the cash advance allows schools 
to plan in advance, get variety of food, and allow them to cope with the delays they have been 
experiencing. Education officials at sub-county and county levels and community officials as 
well as members (including parents) underscored that the cash based model presented in 
principle advantages in terms of the benefits for local producers (farmers and small traders). 
On the other hand, some teachers, parents and the BOM were clearly concerned that the cash 
based model produces disagreements and misappropriation of funds when they are 
channelled to the schools (this is issue is further discussed under the efficiency section).
57. Head teachers reported that there is a WFP hotline for reporting issues that may be affecting 
the SMP, but that they also resorted to consulting with the sub-county Directors of Education 
on issues related to food delivery, delays, quantities and distribution. However, some head 
teachers reported preferring to present any challenges directly to WFP during their monitoring 
visits, because they get feedback and action is taken very fast (and there is lower risk of 
repercussions). Other key stakeholders – in particular parents and almost all the children –
were not clear on communication lines and on where they should present complaints about 
the SMP. No examples were identified of instances where this had been done.
58. While the school meals were widely considered very appropriate to needs, a few issues that 
could have a negative effect were raised. Some schools, for example did not have easy access 
to water and children were required to fetch water. In one school in West Pokot, pupils 
informed the evaluation that they could take about five hours - from 6 am to 11 am - fetching 
water. In other schools, children brought water from home and the head teachers could not 
vouch for the quality of the water. The issue of fear of dependency was also raised by a number 
teachers and head teachers, who shared the view that people in the areas where SMP was 
implemented had become dependent on the programme and that this was a concern given 
high levels of food insecurity combined with the irregular provision of school meals under the 
SMP, and the lack guarantees about continuity beyond the support by WFP.
59. Another challenge raised was the selection of schools under the programme. Head teachers 
expressed concerns that the selection process for the schools was not transparent and that 
neighbouring schools were not selected which creates movements of pupils from one school to
| P a g e 12
the other. For the receiving school this creates challenges in terms of management of 
educational process, while other schools struggle to maintain enrolments.
60. It was clear that the interventions were benefiting both boys and the girls. However, in some 
situations, such as in North Eastern Kenya, teenage girls fear to be in the same queue with 
boys to get food, and women cannot eat in the same place with men, so the girls are forced to 
send the younger ones to collect food for them. Some schools have mitigated this by having 
girls use a different line while being served. In other schools this was not the case.
2.2. Evaluation Question 3 (Effectiveness) and Evaluation Question 5 (Impact)
61. This section of the report discusses the combined results and impact of the programme. It 
follows the same structure as the baseline report. and presents the findings of the survey across 
the three arms of the study with respect to the USDA MGD indicators. This section of the 
covers results, outcomes and emerging areas of impact, as follows:
• Learning outcomes – discusses findings for impact level indicators of literacy and 
numeracy, as well as indicators on attentiveness and student attendance.
• Short term hunger - this section covers the situation with respect to food consumption 
by children during the day and week.
• School meals and expected outcomes – this section presents outcome level 
indicators (access to food and to school meals during in 2017 and 2018, and in the week of 
the survey) and community understanding of the importance of education.
• Food utilization and food safety – covers issues related to hygiene, nutrition, food 
preparation and storage and the knowledge of nutrition.
62. For each section, quantitative findings from the survey instruments are presented first. Where 
appropriate, qualitative findings provide further understanding. An overview of the 
characteristics of the respondents is provided in Annex 8. To facilitate understanding a 
summary of the effects that have been retained for all indicator is provided in Annex 11.
Learning Outcomes
63. This section discusses the findings with respect to indicators of literacy and numeracy of 
school age children (7-13 years): improved attentiveness; and improved student attendance. 
It presents the findings organized under specific objectives and outcomes in the PMF.
Summary EQ 3 and EQ 5
• The survey findings comparing baseline and midline show that WFPSMP is significantly 
associated with improved numeracy.In addition, though not significant, there was improvement 
on literacy for English and Kiswahili. (i.e. progression of the percentage of children who are able 
to read a paragraph as opposed to a sentence).
• Compared to the baseline, the midline points to an increased number of children accessing food 
through school meals programme and more so in WFP supported schools.
• Compared to the control schools, more households with children in schools supported by WFP 
are within the acceptable FCS, and appear to be employing less severe coping strategies. 
Attribution of these findings to the intervention are not possible at this stage.
• The survey comparison of baseline and midline does not show an association with higher 
enrolment, attendance or improved attentiveness.
• Analysis by arms also shows that the results of the HGSMP appear to be dropping. Across a 
range of indicators, including numeracy and literacy scores, HGSMP school perform less well 
compared to WFPSMP schools.
| P a g e 13
MGD SO 1: Improved literacy of school age children
64. Three specific performance indicators monitoring of learners’ outcomes, namely competence 
in numeracy, and competence in literacy in English and Kiswahili.
Indicator 1: Children 7-13 who can solve Class 2 numeracy & literacy problems
Literacy (English)
65. Changes in highest level of literacy in English (reading a story) between baseline and midline 
for pupils enrolled in WFPSMP schools were compared with those of children enrolled control 
schools. Figure 1a and Table 24a show that, there was no significant difference in the change 
of proportion of children with highest level of literacy in English, between schools having 
WFPSMP (1.4%) compared to their control counterparts (0.4%), (net change of 1.0%; 
p=0.761). This was consistent both in boys (net change of 0.5%; p=0.895) and girls (net change 
of 1.3%; p=0.894), (Figure 1a and annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 1a – Highest level English literacy scores (reading a story), compared at baseline and 
midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
66. A further comparison was done between the HGSMP schools and the WFPSMP schools. The 
analysis showed that, there was a significant decrease in the proportion of children who scored 
the highest level of literacy in English (reading a story) in HGSMP (-2.6%) compared to 
improvement in WFPSMP (3.5%) schools (a net change of -6.1%; p=0.027). The change was 
significantly high among girls (a net change of -7.6%; p=0.046) but not boys (a net change of
-4.5%; p=0.245), (Figure 1b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Summary of main findings
● There was significant improvement in favour of WFPSMP schools in the proportion of children 
who scored the highest level of numeracy (division) compared to control schools (p=0.002). A 
significant improvement for boys (p=0.001) but not girls (p=0.059).
● There was no significant change in proportion of children with highest level of literacy (reading 
story) in Kiswahili (p=0.707).This was consistent both in boys and girls.
● There is a significant decrease in the literacy and numeracy results for HGSMP schools compared 
to WFPSMP schools. The proportion of children who scored the highest level of numeracy 
(division) in HGSMP is significantly lower compared to WFPSMP schools (p<0.001). The decrease 
was significantly high among boys (p<0.001) but not girls (p=0.277).
● There is also a significant decrease in proportion of children with highest level of literacy (reading 
story) in Kiswahili in HGSMP schools compared to WFPSMP schools (p=0.025). The decrease was 
significantly high among boys (p=0.027) but not girls (p=0.285).
● Finally, there is a significant decrease in the proportion of children who scored the highest level of 
literacy in English (reading a story) in HGSMP compared to WFPSMP schools (p=0.027). The 
decrease was significantly high among girls (p=0.046) but not boys (p=0.245).
Boys
WFPSMP
Totals
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
| P a g e 14
Figure 1b - Highest level English literacy scores (reading a story), compared at baseline and 
midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Literacy (Kiswahili)
67. As was the case for the English results, comparing the different arms was for the Kiswahili 
results, there was no significant change in proportion of children with highest level of literacy 
(reading a story) in Kiswahili in schools having WFPSMP (0.5%) compared to control (1.6%), 
(net change of -1.1%; p=0.604). This was consistent in boys (net change of -1.0%; p=0.707) 
and girls (net change of -1.3%; p=0.633), (Figure 2a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 2a – Highest level Kiswahili literacy scores (reading a story), compared at baseline and 
midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
68. Comparing the HGSMP with the WFPSMP schools, Figure 2b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and
34) shows that, there was a significant decrease in proportion of children with highest level 
of literacy (reading a story) in Kiswahili in schools having HGSMP (-3.5%) compared to 
improvement in WFPSMP (2.6%) schools (net change of -5.7%; p=0.025). The change was
HGSMP HGSMP HGSMP
Boys Girls
51,2% 51,7%
Boys Girls
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
| P a g e 15
significantly high among boys (net change of -8.2%; p=0.027) but not girls (net change of -
3.1%; p=0.285).
Figure 2b - Highest level Kiswahili literacy scores (reading a story), compared at baseline and 
midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Numeracy
69. Similar analyses were done on the numeracy portion of the UWEZO test. The numeracy test 
includes eight levels of acquisition which are ordered from ‘nothing’ to ‘division’ with the latter 
reflecting the highest level of acquisition.
70. There was a significant change in favour of WFPSMP schools (-1.0%) in the proportion of 
children who scored the highest level of numeracy (division) compared to control (-9.0%) 
schools (net change of 8.0%; p=0.002). A significant improvement for boys (net change of 
9.4%; p=0.011) but not girls (net change of 6.2%; p=0.059). (Figure 3a and Annex 10a (Table
24 and 25)).
Figure 3a – Highest level of numeracy scores (division), compared at baseline and midline for 
WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
71. The proportion of children with the highest numeracy level (division) was significantly 
different between the HGSMP and WFPSMP. There was a significant decrease in the 
proportion of children who scored the highest level of numeracy (division) in HGSMP (-7.1%) 
compared to slight improvement in WFPSMP (1.3%) schools (net change of -8.4%; p<0.001).
HGSMP HGSMP HGSMP
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
| P a g e 16
The decrease was significantly high among boys (net change of -13.6%; p<0.001) but not girls 
(net change of -3.0%; p=0.277). (Figure 3b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 3b - Highest level numeracy scores (division), compared at baseline and midline for 
HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Indicator 2: Number of individuals benefiting directly from USDA-funded interventions
72. At midline, a total of 245,591 pupils were reported to be benefiting directly from USDA funded 
interventions. There was a notable decrease of -28.1% (corresponding to 96,048 pupils) in the 
number of individuals who directly received assistance form USDA funded interventions both 
in terms of school meals and trainings.
Indicator 3: Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions
73. The reduction in the number of direct beneficiaries to the USDA funded interventions, is 
equally reflected in a proportionate decrease in the number of indirect beneficiaries (-27.8%, 
or 142,145 indirect beneficiaries).
Findings from interviews and focus groupdiscussions
74. The interviews and focus group discussion at school level generally support the survey findings 
with a predominant perception by parents and teachers that school meals encourage better 
learning results. There were two schools that showed different results, indicating the benefit 
of school meals to learning and achievement of better results. In one school in Turkana, the 
head teacher reported that they had marked improvement in KCPE20 results; with the mean 
score improving from 206 in 2015 to 227 in 2016 but, declining to 214 in 2017 (2017 was 
characterised by prolonged drought and the break up in the food pipeline, which meant no 
food for one term of the school year). In another school (control school) which used to be in 
the SMP but was later removed from the schools under the programme, there was evidence of 
declining KCPE results over the last five years. Some elements from the interviews and focus 
group discussions could explain the dropin results for the HGSMP results (under the 
assumption that school feeding does impact on learning). Interviews with head teachers and 
school BOM consistently highlighted challenges for the schools that had transitioned to the 
HGSMP in terms of a reported reduction in the number of school feeding days, considerable
20 Kenya Certificate of Primary Education, which is the examinations students have to sit at the end of primary school 
level. The results of the examination determine if the student will transition to secondary education and what kind of 
secondary school the student will be enrolled in.
71,7%
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls
| P a g e 17
delays in the transfer of funds (see paragraph 95), and challenges because of food being 
diverted before reaching schools (paragraph 127).
MGD 1.2: Improved Attentiveness
Indicator 4: Percent of students in classrooms identified as inattentive by their teachers
75. There was a significant increase in the proportion of students who reported that “sometimes” 
they find it difficult to concentrate in class in WFPSMP schools (19.4%), compared to control
(2.5%) schools (net change of 16.9%; p<0.001). A significant increase in boys (net change of
12.1%; p=0.002) as well as girls (net change of 22.1%; p<0.001). (Figure 4a and Annex 10a 
(Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 4a – Percentage of students who report “sometimes” findin it difficult to concentrate, 
compared at baseline and midline (WFPSMP & control schools), stratified by gender
76. The proportion of students who report that “sometimes” they find it difficult to concentrate in 
class, significantly increased in WFPSMP (21.0%) compared to HGSMP (5.2%) schools (net 
change of -15.8%; p<0.001). The change was significantly high among boys (net change of -
18.8%; p<0.001) compared to girls (net change of -13.6%; p=0.001). (Figure 4b and Annex
10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 4b – Percentage of students who report “sometimes” finding it difficult to concentrate, 
compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
77. The interviews and focus group presented the perception by parents and teachers that school 
meals play a part in increasing student attentiveness in class. This finding goes contrary to the 
survey results that indicate attentiveness has dropped in WFPSMP schools. A partial 
explanation for this issue could be the challenges that were faced during the preceding school 
year in terms of the insecurity generated by the contested elections which occurred after the
Boys Girls
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
49,9%
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
| P a g e 18
baseline, and affected some areas more than others, and which were mentioned by head 
teachers in a number of the interviews.Insecurity could also be a cause for poor concentration.
Short-term Hunger
78. This section covers the situation with respect to food consumption by children during the day 
and week. It also looks at results for the Food Consumption Scores (FCS) of households 
covered by the survey and associated coping mechanisms. The data was collected through the 
parent/child tool with the parents as respondents.
MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short-Term Hunger
Indicator 5: Number of daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) provided to school-age children 
because of USDA assistance
79. There was a two-fold increase (209.3%, 19,930,542) in the number of daily school’s meals 
provided to school children from baseline to midline (29,452,080). This was noted to be as a 
result of carry forward of WFP food consignment for term 2 (2018) to the next school term 
(term 3, 2018) to avoid duplication of food distribution to schools which was also being done 
by the government in response to the drought in school term 2. This is illustrated in figure 4c.
Figure 4c: Number of daily school meals provided to school-aged children with USDA 
assistance in 2017 and 2018
35 000 000
30 000 000
25 000 000
20 000 000
15 000 000
10 000 000
5 000 000
April - Sept 2017 Oct 2017 - March
2018
# of daily meals 
provided
Summary of main findings
● There was a significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children 
ate daily before going to school in WFPSMP schools (23.3%), compared to control (12.6%) schools 
(net change of 10.7%; p<0.001). The WFPSMP schools were more likely compared to controls.
● The proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school, 
also significantly increased in WFPSMP (27.0%) compared to HGSMP (19.3%) schools (net change 
of -7.7%; p=0.004). The HGSMP schools were less likely compared to WFPSMP schools.
● There is an increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily 
after going to school in WFPSMP schools (18.3%) compared to control (-12.0%) schools (net change 
of 30.3%; p<0.001). The WFPSMP schools were more likely compared to control schools.
● The proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school, 
significantly increased in HGSMP (10.5%) compared to WFPSMP (8.3%) schools (net change of
2.2%; p=0.038). The HGSMP schools were more likely compared to WFPSMP schools.
● The proportion of parents/guardians with acceptable FCS in WFPSMP schools (37.3%) was a 
significant high compared to control (33.5%) schools (net change of 3.8%; p>0.050). The WFPSMP 
schools were more likely compared to control schools.
● The proportion of parents/guardians with acceptable FCS, significantly decreased in HGSMP 
(32.8%) compared to WFPSMP (37.5%) schools (net change of -4.7%; p=0.016). The HGSMP 
schools were less likely compared to WFPSMP schools.
| P a g e 19
Indicator 6: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
because of USDA assistance
80. Though the number of meals provided to school going children significantly increased at 
midline compared to baseline, there was a -28.0% (95,683) decrease in the number of school￾aged children receiving daily school meals as a result of USDA assistance at midline (245,243).
Figure 4d: number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals as a result of USDA 
assistance
Indicator 7: Percent of students in target schools regularly consuming a meal before the school
81. There was a significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their 
children ate daily before going to school in WFPSMP schools (23.3%), compared to control
(12.6%) schools (net change of 10.7%; p<0.001). A significant increase in boys (net change of
14.1%; p=0.002) than girls (net change of 7.4%; p=0.050). (Figure 5a and Annex 10a (Table
24 and 25)).
Figure 5a - Percentage of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going 
to school, compared at baseline and midline (WFPSMP & control schools) stratified by gender
82. The proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to 
school, significantly increased in WFPSMP (27.0%) compared to HGSMP (19.3%) schools (net 
change of -7.7%; p=0.004). The change was significantly high among girls (net change of -
10.8%; p=0.005) but not boys (net change of -3.8%; p=0.323). (Figure 5b and Annex 10b 
(Table 33 and 34)).
400000
350000
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
April- Sept2017 Oct 2017 - March 2018
# of children
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Totals
| P a g e 20
Figure 5b - Percentage of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going 
to school, compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by 
gender
83. Increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after 
going to school in WFPSMP schools (18.3%) was a significant high compared to control (-
12.0%) schools (net change of 30.3%; p<0.001). A significant increase in boys (net change of
32.3%; p=0.004) as well as girls (net change of 28.3%; p<0.001). (Figure 6a and Annex 10a 
(Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 6a - Percentage of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going 
to school, compared at baseline and midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by 
gender
84. The proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to 
school, significantly increased in HGSMP (10.5%) compared to WFPSMP (8.3%) schools (net 
change of 2.2%; p=0.038). The change was significantly high among boys (net change of 6.8%; 
p=0.004) but not girls (net change of -2.1%; p=0.978). (Figure 6b and Annex 10b (Table 33 
and 34)).
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls
| P a g e 21
Figure 6b - Percentage of parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going 
to school, compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by 
gender
Food Consumption Scores:21
85. To further anchor the preceding results in the context, an analysis of the household FCS was 
undertaken.
86. The increase in the proportion of parents/guardians with acceptable FCS in WFPSMP schools 
(37.3%) was not significantly high compared to control (33.5%) schools (net change of 3.8%; 
p=0.128). There was no significant increase in boys (net change of 3.2%; p=0.347) as well as 
girls (net change of 4.5%%; p=0.194). (Figure 7a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 7a - Percentage of parent/guardians with acceptable FCS, compared at baseline and 
midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
87. The proportion of parents/guardians with acceptable FCS, significantly increased in HGSMP 
(32.8%) compared to WFPSMP (37.5%) schools (net change of -4.7%; p=0.016). The change
21 The FCS was calculated using WFP’s guidelines as set out in: WFP VAM Unit (2008). Food consumption analysis -
Calculation and use of the FCS in food security analysis. WFP, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping.
71,2% 81,7%
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls
36,1% 36,0%
Boys Girls
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
| P a g e 22
was significantly high among girls (net change of -9.2%; p=0.004) but not boys (net change of 
0.2%; p=0.693). (Figure 7b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 7b - Percentage of parent/guardians with acceptable FCS, compared at baseline and 
midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
88. There was a significant difference in change of mean copying strategy index (CSI) between 
WFPSMP schools (-9.84) compared to control (-1.290) schools (net change of 2.362;
p=0.048). Significant in both boys (net change of 3.080; p<0.001) and girls (net change of 
3.768; p=0.002). (Figure 8a and Annex 10a (Table 21)).
Figure 8a – Mean CSI comparing WFPSMP and control group schools, compared at baseline 
and midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
89. Similarly, there was a significant difference in change of mean CSI between HGSMP schools 
(-12.75) compared to WFPSMP (-8.04) schools (net change of -4.697; p<0.001). Significant in 
both boys (net change of -5.890; p<0.001) and girls (net change of -3.548; p<0.001) (Figure 
8b and Annex 10b (Table 30)).
HGSMP HGSMP HGSMP
Boys Girls
Boys Girls
CS
Baseline
Baseline Midlin
Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline Baseline
Midlin Midlin
Baseline
Baseline
Midlin
Midlin
| P a g e 23
Figure 8b – Mean CSI comparing WFPSMP and control group schools, compared at baseline 
and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
90. Interviews with parents support the finding that the food security situation has generally 
improved, compared to the situation during the baseline. Parents and education officials 
attribute this to the rains over the last season which alleviated the effects of the drought. The 
heavy and prolonged rains that started in early March had provided pasture for animals and 
in the more arable lands, crops had done well. This had meant more food in the market and 
therefore lower food prices. In such areas as West Pokot, the team found that a bag of maize 
which would have cost up to KES 3,000, was, at the time of the evaluation, sold for KES 1,000.
School meals and expected outcomes
91. This section presents the situation with respect to access to food and to school meals during 
the year of the study (2017 and 2018) and in the week of the survey. It also reports on the 
situation with respect to key expected outcomes of school feeding, namely attendance, 
enrolment and community understanding.
MGD 1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1.Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
HGSMP HGSMP HGSMP
Boys Girls
CS
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Summary of main findings, comparing baseline to midline
● There was a significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their children 
had received school meals in the current school year in WFPSMP schools (30.7%), compared to 
control (4.2%) schools (net change of 26.5%; p<0.001). The WFPSMP schools were more likely 
compared to control schools.
● The proportion of parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the 
current school year, significantly increased in WFPSMP (25.5%) compared to HGSMP (-1.6%) 
schools (net change of -27.1%; p<0.001). The HGSMP schools were less likely compared to WFPSMP
schools.
● There was a significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians indicating that their child 
had received school meals in the week of the survey in WFPSMP schools (18.8%), compared to 
control (5.0%) schools (net change of 13.8%; p=0.001). The WFPSMP schools were more likely 
compared to control schools.
● The proportion of parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the 
week of the survey, significantly increased in WFPSMP (26.3%) compared to HGSMP (16.6%) 
schools (net change of -9.7%; p<0.001). The HGSMP schools were less likely compared to WFPSMP 
schools.
| P a g e 24
Indicator 8: Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal
92. This section of the survey examined regularity of school meal consumption during the school 
year, and during the week of the survey.
School meals situation in the year 2017 and 2018
93. There was a significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians who reported their 
children had received school meals in the current school year in WFPSMP schools (30.7%), 
compared to control (4.2%) schools (net change of 26.5%; p<0.001). A significant increase in 
boys (net change of 32.5%; p<0.001) as well as girls (net change of 20.7%; p<0.001). (Figure 
9a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 9a - Percentage of parents/guardians stating their child received school meals in 
current school year, comparing baseline and midline (WFPSMP & control) schools, by gender
94. The proportion of parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in 
the current school year, significantly increased in WFPSMP (25.5%) compared to HGSMP (-
1.6%) schools (net change of -27.1%; p<0.001). The change was significantly high among boys 
(net change of -26.1%; p=0.004) as well as girls (net change of -27.0%; p<0.001). (Figure 9b 
and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 9b - Percentage of parents/guardians indicating that child had received school meals in 
current school year, comparing baseline and midline (HGSMP & WFPSMP schools) by gender
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
79,9%
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
| P a g e 25
School meals situation in the current week
95. A significant increase in the proportion of parents/guardians indicated that their child had 
received school meals in the week of the survey in WFPSMP schools (18.8%), compared to 
control (5.0%) schools (net change of 13.8%; p=0.001). The data show a significant increase 
in boys (net change of 17.8%; p=0.001) but not girls (net change of 9.7%; p=0.114). (Figure
10a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 10a - Percentage of parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school 
meals in the week of the survey, compared at baseline and midline for WFPSMP and control 
schools, stratified by gender
96. The proportion of parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in 
the week of the survey, significantly increased in WFPSMP (26.3%) compared to HGSMP
(16.6%) schools (net change of -9.7%; p<0.001). The change was significantly high among girls 
(net change of -15.9%%; p<0.001) but not in boys (net change of -2.5%%; p=0.631). (Figure
10b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 10b - Percentage of parents/guardians indicating that child received school meals in the 
week of the survey, comparing baseline and midline (HGSMP & WFPSMP schools) by gender
Indicator 9: Total amount of commodities that have been provided as a part of USDA-funded 
intervention.
97. As at midline, a total of 6,712.00MT of different commodities were provided to schools as per 
of USDA funded intervention to the schools. The amount of commodities distributed was
261.0% more than the amount distribution as at the time of baseline (1856.70MT). As at the
49,9% 51,7%
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Totals
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
| P a g e 26
time of baseline, the government in kind distribution in response to the drought was being 
implemented and thus USDA supported commodities were carried forward to avoid 
duplication. The amounts distributed is as illustrated below.
Figure 10c: Total amount of commodities (in MT) provided as part of USDA funded intervention
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
98. The qualitative interviews (as well as the review of documentation) highlight that the Baseline 
Survey was undertaken at a time when the drought was severe in the target counties. At the 
same time, WFP had a complete pipeline break in term one of 2017. No funding was availed 
for any school meals in the arid counties. While there was no direct school feeding from WFP 
during the survey period at the time, when the data was collected at baseline there was school 
feeding in some of the schools where this was not expected, mainly because there were 
interventions from Government and other actors to mitigate the effects of the drought. In 
addition, a small number of WFP schools were providing school feeding with carryovers from 
the previous phase of the SMP.
MGD 1.3 Improved Student Attendance
Indicator 10: Number of students regularly (80%) attending USDA supported classrooms/schools
99. The mean change in the number of students regularly (80%) attending school in WFPSMP 
schools (-21), was not significantly different compared to control (7) schools (net change of -
28; p=0.556). The change was consistent in boys (net change of -10; p=0.722) and girls (net 
change of -18; p=0.403). (Figure 11A and Annex 10a (Table 28 and 29)).
Summary of main findings
● The mean change in the number of students regularly (80%) attending school in WFPSMP schools 
(-21), was not significantly different compared to control (7) schools (net change of -28; p=0.556).
● The mean change in the number of students regularly (80%) attending school in HGSMP schools (42), 
was not significantly different compared to WFPSMP (9) schools (net change of 33; p=0.705).
| P a g e 27
Figure 11a – Mean number of students regularly (80%) attending school, compared at baseline 
and midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
100. The mean change in the number of students regularly (80%) attending school in HGSMP 
schools (42), was not significantly different compared to WFPSMP (9) schools (net change of 
33; p=0.705). The change was consistent in boys (net change of 4; p=0.929) and girls (net 
change of 29; p=0.490). (Figure 11b and Annex 10a (Table 37 and 38)).
Figure 11b – Mean number of students regularly (80%) attending school, compared at baseline 
and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
MGD 1.3.4 Increased Student Enrolment
Indicator 11: Number of students enrolled in schools receiving USDA assistance
101. The mean change in the number of students enrolled in schools in WFPSMP schools (13), 
was not significantly different compared to control (-40) schools (net change of 54; 
p=0.456). The change was consistent in boys (net change of 37; p=0.399) and girls (net 
change of 16; p=0.604). (Figure 12a and Annex 10a (Table 28 and 29)).
135
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Total
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
Averagenumberof Averagenumberof
Summary of main findings
● The mean change in the number of students enrolled in schools in WFPSMP schools (13), was not 
significantly different compared to control (-40) schools (net change of 54; p=0.456).
● Similarly, mean change in the number of students enrolled in schools in HGSMP schools (-37), was 
not significantly different compared to WFPSMP (64) schools (net change of -101;p=0.388).
| P a g e 28
Figure 12a – Mean number of students enrolled in schools, compared at baseline and midline 
for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
102. The mean change in the number of students enrolled in schools in HGSMP schools (-37), 
was not significantly different compared to WFPSMP (64) schools (net change of -101;
p=0.388). The change was consistent in boys (net change of -77; p=0.253) and girls (net 
change of -24; p=0.663). (Figure 12B and Annex 10a (Table 37 and 38)).
Figure 12b – Mean number of students enrolled in schools, compared at baseline and midline 
for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
103. Interviews with school heads, sub-county education officers, and parents suggest a number 
of reasons, which could explain the lack of impact of school feeding on enrolment and 
attendance. For schools under the WFPSMP and also the HGSMP, it was reported that food 
was not regularly delivered, and that the quantities of food are not always adequate. According 
to one teacher: “Food can be in the stores in Kapenguria but it doesn’t get to the schools in 
time” (informant, West Pokot). Delays and irregularity in school feeding were reported by a 
number of parents to have a significant effect on attendance. This may in some cases, as 
reported by a parent in West Pokot, lead to school closure until the next delivery: ‘There was 
a time, last year, when the school had to close. It was closed earlier than the end of the third 
term because there was no food.’ (Male Parent – West Pokot). WFP sources confirmed that 
this was related to a food pipeline break in 2017, due to lack of funding.
125
Boys Girls
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
Average school enrolment
Average school enrolment
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
Baseline
Midlin
| P a g e 29
MGD 1.3.5 Increased Community Understanding of the Benefits of Education
Indicator 12: Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of 
primary education
104. There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of parents/guardians in 
target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education in WFPSMP 
(-1.2%) schools, compared to control (7.4%) schools (net change of -8.6%; p=0.001). A 
significant high in male respondents (net change of -13.5%; p<0.001) but not female (net 
change of -3.6%; p=0.401). (Figure 13a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 13a - Percentage of parents/guardians who could name at least three benefits of 
primary education, compared at baseline and midline, stratified by gender
105. The change in proportion of parents/guardians in target communities who could name at 
least three benefits of primary education, was not significantly different in HGSMP (3.9%) 
compared to WFPSMP (0.3%) schools (net change of 3.6%; p=0.092). The change was higher 
among male respondents (net change of 4.1%; p=0.215) compared to female respondents (net 
change of 2.8%; p=0.282). (Figure 13b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Summary of main findings
● There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of parents/guardians in target 
communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education in WFPSMP (-1.2%) 
schools, compared to control (7.4%) schools (net change of -8.6%; p=0.001). 
Parents/guardians in the WFPSMP schools were less likely to be able to name the benefits of 
education compared to control schools.
● The change in proportion of parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least 
three benefits of primary education, was not significantly different in HGSMP (3.9%) compared 
to WFPSMP (0.3%) schools (net change of 3.6%; p=0.092). Parents in the HGSMP schools 
were more likely to be able to name the benefits compared to WFPSMP schools.
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Totals
| P a g e 30
Figure 13b - Percentage of parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least 
three benefits of primary education at baseline & midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP, by gender
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
WFPSMP is mainly in the very arid counties, whose mainstay is pastoralism and for some, 
nomadic pastoralism. In all the counties, the evaluation was informed that food in school 
was the main attraction for both children and their parents and it was after many years of 
children coming to school that they developed interest in and appreciated the value of 
education. According to one head teacher in Turkana: “The challenge is value given to 
education, compared to value given to animals… Their animals are the priority. The 
programme has helped them to have a change of attitude towards education… while before 
there was resistance.” This was confirmed by parents, who (in almost all the schools visited) 
explained that families would not send all their children to school. Indeed, some female 
parents in Turkana explained by giving an example that, if one has five children, one could 
send two to school while three were left at home. The rationale was to create a balance 
between going to school and helping with work at home because, if all went to school, there 
were no children to help at home So, if one goes to school, the other one stays at home to 
help with fetching water as they rely on the children to help them with work, so according to 
them: “one (child) takes care of animals and another one helps with fetching water, 
otherwise we won’t have anyone to help us”. In the case of girls: “if no one gets married and 
the family gets animals, one will not get help…”.
Increased Capacity
MGD 1.4.1 Increased Capacity of Government Institutions
Indicator 13: Number of county-level inter-ministerial committees for HGSMP established
106. Implementation of the school meals programme at decentralized levels requires strong 
inter-ministerial coordination at the county level. At baseline, no county level inter-ministerial 
committees were in place for the control, WFPSMP, and HGSMP schools. MGD reporting and 
interviews with national and county level informants highlighted that county level ministerial 
committees had not yet been established at midline. Information provided to the team is that 
this will take place now that technical assistance has been placed full time in the MoE to 
support further capacity strengthening and that this indicator should be positive atendline.
Indicator 14: Number of national-level inter-ministerial coordination committees for HGSMP
107. Stakeholder analysis informed by documentary research and key informant interviews at 
baseline confirmed the assumptions around a critical role for government ministries, 
development partners, other government entities and departments and civil society 
organizations in the implementation of school meals programmes in Kenya. In particular, the
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
| P a g e 31
MOE, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Ministry of Health stand out in their respective roles 
and responsibilities in implementing the school meals programmes.
108. At baseline the KIIs indicated that the participation of other ministries in school feeding 
coordination was ad-hoc on that commitment was insufficient. At midline, interviews suggest 
that there has been some improvement – among others through the organization of a national 
launch for the School Feeding Strategy in May 2018.
109. As was the case at baseline, there has been a challenge in the frequent changes in leadership 
and senior positions in the MOE. The MOE acknowledges, and confirms the important roles 
played by the development partners and civil society organizations, with roles that range from 
resource/funding provision to implementing partners. However, inadequate multi-sectoral 
commitment to school feeding is evident, with the programme being mostly run by the MOE, 
although nutrition has been participating well.
110. At midline, there continues to be a need for further strengthening of the multi-sectoral 
approach in particular to ensure:
• Strong action by the recently established national steering committee (formally established 
in May 2018), in particular to become truly multi-sectoral in nature and provide guidance 
to the county level multi-sectoral action.
• More formal integration of the school meals efforts with the national social protection 
programmes.
• Further integration of SMP with agricultural production and marketing programs.
MGD 1.4.2/2.7.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Indicator 15: Number of educational policies, regulations, and/or administrative procedures in each 
of the following stages of development because of USDA assistance (Stage 5)
Indicator 16: Number of child health and nutrition policies, regulations, and/or administrative 
procedures in each of the following stages of development because of USDA assistance (Stage 5)
111.An inventory of key policy documents was done at the time of the baseline report. The baseline 
also recorded an overall view from KII that the policy environment had been strengthened 
over time although these achievements were not directly or uniquely linked to the inputs from 
the USDA project. The main documents include: the overarching Vision 2030 of the GoK; 
the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (2010), the National Social 
Protection Policy (2011) in which school meals are one of the approaches to ensuring social 
protection; the National School Health Policy (2009); and the National School Health 
Guidelines (2009); the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2011).
112. A gap at the time of the baseline was the fact that the National School Health, 
Nutrition and Meals Programme Strategy remained to be formally approved. At mid￾line a major achievement is the formal approval of this document, which is being disseminated 
to county and sub-county levels. The launching of the strategy formalizes a commitment that
Summary of main findings
● The policy and institutional environment has improved in the period preceding with the approval of 
the National School Health, Nutrition and Meals Programme Strategy.
● The value of government funding (allocated budget) has increased from 623 million to 1.6 bn KES 
in the preceding period.
● Delays in disbursement of funds and differences between allocations and disbursements reduce the 
amount of available funding for schools.
● Targets for private-public partnerships as reflected in the number contracts signed with local 
traders had been surpassed at midline stage, although there are challenges at the level of identifying 
and contracting traders.
● Various training activities for Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and BOM had to be deferred due 
to new government regulations on when training can be organized at local level.
| P a g e 32
the GoK has been making to SF. It also provides the framework for involvement of different 
government ministries in SF. While noting the importance of this achievement, key 
interviewees at national level also stressed that ensuing implementation of the strategy will be 
a major task and cited continued challenges in terms of commitment by other ministries (with 
the exception of the department for nutrition of the Ministry of Health) in spite of the strategy 
being in place.
MGD 1.4.3/2.7.3 Increased Government Support
Indicator 17: Value of new public and private sector investments leveraged
113. WFP reporting testifies to an increase in government funding to the school meals 
programme by Ksh.1.6bn during the 2017/2018 financial year22 compared to the previous year 
with a funding level of KES 623 million to support school feeding during the drought.23
However, the allocated 1.6bn for 2018 is unlikely to be made fully available as already during 
the evaluations’ visit some of the allocated funding was retracted (300 million). Other 
challenges include the significant delays in the transfer of allocated funding to schools which 
the evaluation found has knock-effects for the purchasing of food (in particular purchasing at 
a time when prices are high) and ultimately for the number of school meals that areserved.
Indicator 18: Number of public-private partnerships formed
114. Public-private partnerships under this programme are interpreted as referring to the 
number of traders contracted to supply food commodities to schools. Against a target of 100 
traders contracted at midline WFP reported the existence of 81 contracts (WFP, 2018), against 
zero in the previous reporting (WFP, 2017) - a value which was considerably higher than 
anticipated.Interviews with informants at county and sub-county level underscored that these 
partnerships are critical to the HGSMP model but that the partnerships are challenging in 
some counties and sub-counties because of various externalities including unfriendly agro￾ecological conditions, long distances, etc., as well as internal factors including delays and 
uncertainty about the timing and volume of government disbursements.In particular, in some 
areas there is not much food in the market, and so counties have to procure from neighbouring 
counties, making the food costlier.
Indicator 19: Number of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) supported
115.This activity was not implemented both at baseline and midline but is planned for the 
upcoming WFP reporting period. A new government directive has mandated that such 
trainings can only take place during the holiday period which has affected the programming 
and resulted in a shift to the next period. The evaluation team noted during the qualitative 
work at school level that PTAs are in place in all schools, and are playing a role in the 
management of the SF. However, there is insufficient representation of women in the 
PTAs/BOM, and inadequate involvement of the PTA’s/BOM in key decisions related to the 
awarding of tenders and the contracting of traders.
Food utilization and food safety
116. This final section of the survey reports on issues related to hygiene and nutrition and 
provides the situation in the schools in terms of food preparation and storage.
MGD SO 2 Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices
22 WFP (2018). Kenya Semi-Annual Report – October 2017 – March 2018. 23 WFP (2019). Kenya Semi-Annual Report – October 2016 – March 2017.
Summary of main findings
● There was no significant difference in the change of proportion of schools in target counties 
that store food off the ground in HGSMP (-11.3%) schools, compared to WFPSMP (4.4%) 
schools (net change of -15.6%; p=0.456). The HGSMP schools were less likely compared to 
WFPSMP schools to store food off the ground.
| P a g e 33
Indicator 20: Percent of schools in target counties that store food off the ground 24
117.There was no significant difference in the change of proportion of schools in target counties that 
store food off the ground in HGSMP (-11.3%) schools, compared to WFPSMP (4.4%) schools 
(net change of -15.6%; p=0.456). (Figure 14a and Annex 10b (Table 35 and 36)).
Figure 14 – Percentage of schools in target counties that store food off the ground, compared 
at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools
Baseline
HGSMP
Midline Baseline
WFPSMP
Midline
2.2 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices
Indicator 21: Percent of food preparers at target schools who achieve a passing score on a test of safe 
food preparation and storage
118. There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of food preparers at target 
schools who achieve a passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage in 
WFPSMP (24.7%) schools, compared to control (-19.1%) schools (net change of 43.8%; 
p=0.036). More likely in WFPSMP schools compared to control schools. (Figure 15a and 
Annex 10a (Table 26 and 27)).
24 The denominator is 23 schools (with or without food store) per arm. Please note that as the denominators are different 
for some variables a small percentage difference in one part of the analysis may be significant, while it may not be 
significant in other analyses where the denominator is much lower.
Summary of main findings
● There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of food preparers at target schools 
who achieve a passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage in WFPSMP (24.7%) 
schools, compared to control (-19.1%) schools (net change of 43.8%; p=0.036). The WFPSMP 
schools were more likely to have a passing score compared to control schools.
● Although not statistically significant, there was a remarkable difference in the change of proportion 
of food preparers at target schools who achieve a passing score on a test of safe food preparation and 
storage in HGSMP (-19.4%) schools, compared to WFPSMP (17.4%) schools (net change of -36.8%; 
p=0.074). The HGSMP schools were less likely to have passing score compared to WFPSMP 
schools.
| P a g e 34
Figure 15a – Percentage of food preparers at target schools achieving a passing score on a test 
of safe food preparation and storage, compared at baseline and midline (WFPSMP & control)
Baseline
WFPSMP
Midline Baseline
Control
Midline
119. Though not statistically significant, there was a remarkable difference in the change of 
proportion of food preparers at target schools who achieve a passing score on a test of safe 
food preparation and storage in HGSMP (-19.4%) schools, compared to WFPSMP (17.4%) 
schools (net change of -36.8%; p=0.074). (Figure 15b and Annex 10b (Table 35 and36)).
Figure 15b – Percentage of food preparers at target schools achieving a passing score on a test 
of safe food preparation and storage, at baseline and midline (HGSMP & WFPSMP schools)
Baseline
HGSMP
Midline Baseline
WFPSMP
Midline
Findings from interviews and focus group discussions
120. Interview with county and sub-county official in the HGSMP areas revealed that in some of 
the schools, communities are providing labour (in the form of time spent managing and 
preparing food) to compensate for the lack of capacity to contribute financially for hiring a 
cook. This is seen as an efficient way of ensuring community contribution and reducing costs 
of the school feeding model. When questioned, informants at county level admitted not having 
considered that this may impact on the quality of the meals and on aspects related to hygiene.
MGD 2.3 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
Summary of main findings
● There was a significant difference in the change of proportion child survey respondents in WFPSMP 
schools who were able to mention the three most important hygiene methods (-8.0%) schools, 
compared to control (7.1%) schools (net change of -15.6%; p<0.001). The WFPSMP schools were 
less likely compared to control schools.
● The change in proportion of parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three 
benefits of primary education, was significantly different in HGSMP (1.3%) compared to WFPSMP 
(-11.4%) schools (net change of 12.7%; p<0.001). The HGSMP schools were more likely compared 
to WFPSMP schools.
● There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of children who responded to the
| P a g e 35
Indicator 22: Number of schools benefitting from nutrition and hygiene education
Hygiene
121. There was a significant change of proportion of children who responded to the survey who 
mentioned three most important hygiene methods in WFPSMP (-8.0%) schools, compared to 
control (7.1%) schools (net change of -15.6%; p<0.001). A significant high in boys (net change 
of -14.5%; p<0.001) as well as girls (net change of -15.7%; p=0.401). (Figure 16a and Annex
10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 16a – Percentage of children who mentioned three most important hygiene methods, 
compared at baseline and midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
122. The change in proportion of parents/guardians in target communities who could name at 
least three benefits of primary education, was not significantly different in HGSMP (1.3%) 
compared to WFPSMP (-11.4%) schools (net change of 12.7%; p<0.001). The change was 
higher among boys (net change of 14.9%; p<0.001) as well as girls (net change of 10.4%; 
p=0.005). (Figure 16b and Annex 10b (Table 33 and 34)).
Figure 16b – Percentage of children who mentioned three most important hygiene methods, 
compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
survey who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts in WFPSMP (13.0%) schools, 
compared to control (14.0%) schools (net change of -1.0%; p<0.001). The WFPSMP schools were 
less likely compared to control schools.
● The change in proportion of children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts, was 
not significantly different in HGSMP (8.6%) compared to WFPSMP (14.5%) schools (net change of
-5.9%; p=0.841). The HGSMP schools were less likely compared to WFPSMP schools.
26,9%
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Totals
20,9% 21,9% 20,7%
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls Total
| P a g e 36
Nutrition
Indicator 23: Number of individuals trained in child health and nutrition
123. There was a significant difference in the proportion of children who responded to the 
survey who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts in WFPSMP (13.0%) schools, 
compared to control (14.0%) schools (net change of -1.0%; p<0.001). A significant change in 
boys (net change of -1.2%; p=0.002) as well as girls (net change of -0.9%; p=0.019). (Figure
17a and Annex 10a (Table 24 and 25)).
Figure 17a – Percentage of children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts, 
compared at baseline and midline for WFPSMP and control schools, stratified by gender
124. The change in proportion of children who mentioned three most important nutrition 
efforts, was not significantly different in HGSMP (8.6%) compared to WFPSMP (14.5%) 
schools (net change of -5.9%; p=0.841). The change was comparable among boys (net change 
of-6.4%; p=0.854) and girls (net change of-5.7%; p=0.684).(Figure 17b and Annex 10b (Table 
33 and 34)).
Figure 17b – Percentage of children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts, 
compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools, stratified by gender
WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control WFPSMP Control
Boys Girls Totals
HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP HGSMP WFPSMP
Boys Girls
| P a g e 37
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
pupils 
food
Enough Storage Storage 
locked
Humidity Storehave 
free
storage scale
MGD 2.6 Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools
Indicator 24: Number of target schools with increased access to improved food preparation and 
storage equipment (kitchens, storerooms, stoves, kitchen utensils)
125. There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of schools that had a kitchen 
for preparing pupils food in WFPSMP (11.0%) schools, compared to control (-29.1%) schools 
(net change of 40.1%; p=0.036). Similarly, though not significantly, there was a remarkable 
difference in the change of proportion of schools that had kitchens having fuel efficient stoves 
in sufficient quantity in WFPSMP (10.7%) schools, compared to control (-21.1%) schools (net 
change of 31.8%; p=0.068). Generally, there was a difference in the change of proportion of 
target schools with increased access to other improved food preparation and storage 
equipment in favor of WFPSMP schools, compared to control schools. However, the change 
was not statistically significant (p>0.05) in the other observed characteristics. (Figure 18a and 
Annex 10a (Table 26 and 27)).
Figure 18a – Percentage of target schools with increased access to improved food preparation 
and storage equipment, compared at baseline and midline for WFPSMP and control schools
quantity
WFPSMP Baseline 43,5% 34,8% 34,8% 78,3% 56,5% 65,2% 26,1%
WFPSMP Midline 54,5% 45,5% 45,5% 90,9% 50,0% 22,7% 18,2%
Control Baseline 39,1% 26,1% 0,0% 30,4% 26,1% 34,8% 4,3%
Control Midline 10,0% 5,0% 5,0% 50,0% 25,0% 10,0% 5,0%
126. There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of schools that had sufficient 
kitchen for preparing pupils food in HGSMP (-29.1%) schools, compared to WFPSMP (43.5%) 
schools (net change of -72.6%; p=0.001).
Summary of main findings
● There was a significant difference in the change of proportion of schools that had sufficient 
kitchen for preparing pupils food in WFPSMP (11.0%) schools, compared to control(-29.1%) 
schools (net change of 40.1%; p=0.036).
● Similarly, there was a significant difference in the change of proportion of schools that had 
sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food in HGSMP (-29.1%) schools, compared to 
WFPSMP (43.5%) schools (net change of -72.6%; p=0.001).
● The change was in favour of WFPSMP schools, compared to control and HGSMPschools.
| P a g e 38
stoves in
Storage free 
scale
Figure 18b – Percentage of target schools with increased access to improved food preparation 
and storage equipment, compared at baseline and midline for HGSMP and WFPSMP schools
pupils food sufficient 
quantity
HGSMP Baseline 60,9% 52,2% 30,4% 65,2% 65,2% 56,5% 30,4%
HGSMP Midline 31,8% 27,3% 27,3% 90,9% 59,1% 40,9% 31,8%
WFPSMP Baseline 30,4% 34,8% 43,5% 73,9% 60,9% 69,6% 30,4%
WFPSMP Midline 73,9% 34,8% 34,8% 95,7% 43,5% 30,4% 26,1%
127. Generally, there was a difference in the change of proportion of target schools with 
increased access to other improved food preparation and storage equipment in favour of 
WFPSMP schools, compared to HGSMP schools. However, the change was not statistically 
significant (p>0.05) in the other observed characteristics. (Figure 18b and Annex 10b (Table 
35 and 36)).
Indicator 25: Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) 
as a result of USDA assistance
128. The results for this indicator have been discussed under Indicator 2, page 18 above.
2.3. Evaluation Question 4 - How efficiently was the programme implemented?
Summary EQ 4
• The transitioning process on track although with some delays in some of the plannedactivities.
• WFP monitoring systems are recognized as being strong, but challenges have arisen in terms of the 
government financial and technical capacity to maintain the same level of support.
• Communication about allocated and disbursed amounts by the GoK to the county and school is 
weak, and contributes to weak control and accountability
• Delays in the disbursement of funds have meant that food has been purchased at higher prices, and 
this has reduced number of school feeding days.
• Complex procurement procedures have implications for the level of benefit that the cash based 
model has for local communities, as only registered larger traders and farmers can qualify.
| P a g e 39
Is the programme implemented in a timely way?
129. At a general level the programme is on track in terms of transitioning the schools to 
government responsibility. The hand-over has taken place, and all locations visited are aware 
that the transition to full government management is in progress. However, for the last schools 
that were handed over, in practice the full transition will only become a reality when the 
current stocks of food have been cleared as many schools that were visited still have sufficient 
food until the end of the first quarter of 2019.
130. At a more detailed level, and as is evident from the review of WFP reporting and the 
interviews at different levels, some of the activities that were scheduled to take place have run 
into minor delays. This includes the establishment of inter-ministerial county-level 
committees which remains a priority but have not yet been put in place, and the planned 
training of BOM which was affected by a Government directive that school teachers would only 
be trained during school holidays. With the placement of a full time-WFP staff in the MOE it 
is expected that these activities will be implemented as a matter of priority.
131. In terms of timeliness one of the key issues that emerged from the interviews at sub-county 
and school level are the frequent delays in terms of transfer of funds to schools under the 
HGSMP. These delays have various knock-on effects in terms of availability of school meals 
and increases in costs because food is purchased at a time it is more expensive. The lack of 
clarity on the timeframes is also reported to makes the school and the BOMs as well as the 
SMCs efforts in terms of planning a futile exercise. This underscores the fact that while the 
cash transfers are considered to be an effective way of delivering school feeding, in particular 
because it also has reported effects on local farmers, the system is not functioning in an 
efficient manner. In fact, the only school where cash transfers appeared to be functioning 
correctly is the pilot WFP school in Turkana North, that received cash from WFP.
Are the activities cost-efficient? Is the programme implemented in the most efficient 
way compared to alternatives?
132. Procurement procedures were mentioned as affecting efficiency and cost-effectiveness in 
all counties visited. HGSMP have to follow government procurement process and are only 
allowed to procure from prequalified suppliers who are registered with the GoK. Some of these 
suppliers were reported to take the opportunity to inflate the prices. It was reported (examples 
from Nyeri and Laikipia) that when parents have to buy food to fill the gap due to delayed 
funds, they purchase food much more cheaply from the same market, from local traders who 
are not registered but provide more acceptable prices.
133. The other factor is that the timing of disbursement of funds does not always coincide or 
take into consideration the harvest season when the food commodity prices are lowest and 
often times money is received in school when food prices are at the highest. An example was 
given of schools having to pay KES 6000 for a bag of maize which would ordinarily cost KES 
3000 or less. At the time of evaluation data collection in West Pokot for example, a 50kg sack 
was being sold for KES 1000. Systematic delays in the transfer of funds to the schools may also 
mean that schools receive funds just before the school term ends and this obliges schools to 
procure food hastily at times when the food prices are not optimal. It also reduces the impact 
of the school feeding starts late in the school term and does not – according to interviews with 
parents, guardians and teachers – attract children to school in the way it does when the food 
is available early on in the semester.
Were the project strategies efficient in terms of financial and human resource inputs 
as compared to outputs?
134. In general interviewees felt that the programme has made the right choices in terms of 
financial and human resources and has sought to optimize their use. Various examples were 
provided including the choice to transition to a cash-based model which is less expensive, the
| P a g e 40
focus on building capacity and the use of cascade training (although there are some concerns 
about the effectiveness of this), and the embedding of WFP staff in the MOE structures.
135. In terms of inputs, food diversion was one of the main issues that was mentioned by parents 
and teachers in one school under the WFPSMP. Information collected at school and 
community level suggests that the diversion of food happens between the county, sub-county 
and school level. In one of the schools, teachers (who did not want to be quoted) brought in 
the issue of ‘cartels’ who are siphoning food. Parents and teachers explained for example, that 
their school would be expecting to receive 20 bags of cereals, but could receive 15 bags. Parents 
also reported weighing the bags of food delivered because they doubted the stated weight of 
90 kilos, and there were times when these would weigh as little as 50 kilogrammes.
Does the monitoring system efficiently meet the requirements of the project?
136. This question looks both at information flows and monitoring. The evaluation interviews 
at different levels underscore that there are insufficiencies in the information flow and 
communication regarding allocation and disbursement of government funding. The central 
MOE communicates information about allocation of funds from the national government, 
through the MOE directly to schools. However, interviews with the county officials highlight 
that this information is not shared with the county education authorities. In addition, 
instances were noted, during the school visits of funds from MOE being credited to the school 
general account, and schools not receiving official information to this effect. Some schools 
reported that although they officially fall under the HGSMP, they were not receiving funds. 
Head teachers in these schools reported spending a lot of time tracing the money, at times 
having to travel to the MOE headquarters. . There was also the issueof reliability of data, linked
to low monitoring capacity of the MoE at local level. A key issue raised by WFP officials was
what was referred to as ‘ghost schools’ and ‘ghost pupils’, and exaggerated enrolment data at 
school and county levels. An example given was results from a spot check on enrolments which 
indicated that out of 70 percent of the schools sampled, 30 to 40 percent had exaggerated data 
(WFP, Lodwar).
137. Insufficient levels of funding for transportation of food to schools, are additional challenges 
of considerable concern to the county and sub-county level. The lack of funding also makes it 
difficult to carry out supervision and control visits at the level of the schools.
138. The combined effect of lack of information, delayed and lack of funding makes it difficult 
for the county education officials and the finance staff at this level, to monitor the SMP. 
Interviewees at county level in particular stressed that this creates challenges in terms of 
transparency and accountability.
139. In general, the informants at different levels expressed satisfaction with the monitoring 
system that WFP has put in place. The WFP monitoring system and associated tools are 
considered very useful. The introduction of joint WFP monitoring visits with MOE officers in
2018 to look at aspects of implementation was considered very valuable in terms of 
highlighting achievements as well as areas that need attention.
What are the management strengths, including technical and financial, of this project?
140. The factor most commonly mentioned by all the informants was WFPs contribution over 
the years to ensuring school feeding programme was run efficiently and effectively. This 
contribution has included delivery of food, as reported by informants in areas served by SMP, 
in the required quantities and at the right time. WFP has provided support in capacity building 
and technical support, through training and also providing to some schools, kitchen 
equipment, ensuring food safety and quality. A factor that was acknowledged by schools, sub￾county and county informants was the monitoring done by WFP, which was well resourced 
and was carried out regularly.Indeed, the monitoring visits were identified as the main avenue 
for schools to air their views and report any issues arising from the school meals programme. 
Other management strengths include the dedicated school feeding unit in the MOE, which has 
played a key role over the years in the management and implementation of the programme.
| P a g e 41
The existence and institutionalisation of the school BOM and the SMC are seen as an 
important strength. A number of weaknesses also emerged from the analysis. These include, 
the fact that until very recently there has been no formal country level inter-ministerial 
coordination, and that county level coordination structures have not yet been established.
2.4. Evaluation Question 6 – What progress has been made towards 
sustainability?
Government taking ownership of the programme
141. GoK’s commitment to the provision of school meals has been evidenced by providing funds 
for transportation of food in the WFPSMP areas. It has also progressively provided financial 
resources for the purchasing of food for the HGSMP over the last decade; an indication that 
the school meals programme has been given priority in areas prone to food insecurity. 
Additional funding has been made available for the last two years because of the drought in 
Kenya. Nonetheless, interviews at school level highlighted that for many schools the lack of 
sufficient financial resources, and in some cases the issues related to food quantities, have 
meant that in practice the number of school feeding days has been reduced compared to what 
was in place when WFP was providing food under the WFPSMP.
142. Government ownership is also evident, at all levels, though the deployment of staff for 
programme management remains a challenge. County level discussion by the evaluation team 
revealed that there is room to better integrate the school feeding monitoring with the existing 
monitoring and supervision arrangements for schools; for example, by involving auditors and 
quality assurance officers in supervising school feeding.
143. Interviews highlight awareness of the objectives and functioning of the school meals 
programme and of the key dimensions of the transitioning process by most staff and a 
commitment to ‘making the transition work.’ However, concerns were expressed about the 
government technical and financial capacity to fully take over the programme by 2020. Fears 
were expressed at all levels of the sustainability of the school meals programme. The main 
fear, as one head teacher in West Pokot put it, was that: “the SMP could collapse and schools 
would no longer get food. If the food stops, then enrolment and participation will be 
reduced.”
144. The fears raised by various stakeholders, about the transition and handover emanate from 
the challenges the programme has faced and which have contributed to the non-achievement. 
Among these challenges is the issue of understaffing at county and sub-county levels, limiting 
the capacity to support the programme. Some of the services affected are audit services, 
monitoring of the programme and even providing regular training on financial management 
at school level. According to the head teachers, chairpersons of the BoMs and parents, the 
handover was being done too early and that a lot more needed to be done before a full 
transition to the government.
Summary EQ 6
• The transitioning process is known and understood by actors at different levels.
• The financial commitment by the government has continued in place, and government staff have 
been allocated, but funding and staff capacity are still insufficient.
• Inter-sectoral coordination remains weak, and capacity for monitoring is a major concern.
• The policy framework has been strengthened through the approval and launching of Kenya’s first 
National Meals and Nutrition Strategy in May 2018.
• Community engagement is strong, but participation in decision making of women isinsufficient.
| P a g e 42
Demonstrated Capacity at Central and Sub-National Levels to Manage the 
Programme
145. The HGSMP has been implemented through transfer of funds to schools by the 
government, based on the same criteria as the Free Primary Education (FPE) funds, i.e. 
number of pupils enroled. With these funds schools purchase food locally, in adherence to 
government procurement procedures. By 2016, the GoK had reached the target of 950,000 
children under this programme.25 To effect implementation of the programme, the MOE has 
designated staff in charge of SMP at sub-county and county level, although they are still faced 
with problems of inadequate resources. This includes the establishment of School Meals 
Committees (SMC) which play a key role in the management of school meals at local level, 
with support from the BOMs.
146. Challenges include capacity at local level for management of processes and funds. This is 
recognized by all partners as being a concern. Capacity gaps analyses have been conducted by 
joint WFP and MOE teams in a number of countries in 201826 to map out areas that require 
strengthening to make the programme more responsive to the needs of school children. The 
capacity gap assessment has identified a significant gap in terms of monitoring and evaluation, 
managing data, and making sure data informs decisions. In addition, WFP has committed to 
providing a Technical Assistance Officer to be seconded to MOE for a period at least one year 
to support the School Health, Nutrition and Meals Unit. This officer had been recently been 
put in place at the time of the midline data collection. As these initiatives are too recent for the 
mid-term evaluation to judge their effectiveness.
147. From the evaluation interviews management capacity in terms of SMP knowledge and skills 
was strong at the county and sub-county levels, reflecting annual training done by WFP. 
However, capacity at school level is found to be weak and this was made worse by lack of 
information to schools affecting the preparedness for transition and handover. Officers at sub￾county level, from the counties that took part in the evaluation, expressed concern that head 
teachers’ capacity was not adequately developed, in particular in areas related to financial 
management, accountability, record keeping, project management and procurement.
148. While training at school level, and especially for head teachers is important for capacity 
building, there were clear indications that there was limited capacity at this level. At the time 
of the evaluation, one of the issues raised was the mass transfer of head teachers and 
appointment of new ones, under the delocalisation policy of the MOE. Capacity at school level 
was identified, not only as an issue of lack of knowledge and skills but also a problem of 
overburdened roles for head teachers.In the arid areas, this becomes more pronounced, where 
head teachers have multiple responsibilities including covering for shortage ofteachers.
149. Another area identified was inadequate capacity of cooks, where more training was 
required in kitchen hygiene and nutrition. As expressed clearly by one head teacher in 
Turkana: ‘There is not enough capacity building e.g. cooks have not been trained on the level 
required on kitchen hygiene ... More capacity building is required” (informant,Turkana).
150. A sustainability road map was drafted in 2017.27 The purpose of the road map is to guide 
thinking through some of these operational issues of transitioning including: capacity building 
in procurement and financial management processes to school management and parents and 
requirements of transparency and accountability; market assessment with regard to 
availability of foodstuffs and prices; remapping and retargeting of schools in the program 
areas; and further work on determining and establishing the supplier base.
Involvement and Contribution of Local Communities in Programme Implementation
25 WFP, Kenya Development Portfolio 2014-2018: Supporting National School Meals Programme. 26 Capacity needs assessments (3 reports in total) were conducted in Marasabit, Turkana, West Pokot and Barringo (see 
bibliography).
27 MoE & WFP (2017). Sustainability roadmap for school meals programme.
| P a g e 43
151.The roles of the different stakeholders are clearly defined, in particular at the school level. At 
the school level, SMCs have been established, with representation from teachers and parents. 
These committees, which are separate from the BoM, have the responsibility of ensuring the 
right procedures are followed in the procurement process. From FGDs with parents and 
teachers and KII with BoM chairmen and head teachers, it was evident that representation of 
parents in these committees gave them a sense of ownership in the programme. Parents in
HGSMP and in schools under the CTS reported that they participated fully in the entire
process: from budgeting, to tendering, to purchasing and then checking food supplied for 
quality. Once they are assured the quantity and quality is right, they then authorize the
issuance of the cheque to the supplier. According to them, their participation in the process
ensures accountability and transparency. The limited presence of women in these groups, and 
in particular in the decision making was evident from discussions, as almost all head teachers,
chairpersons of BoMs, and MOE staff in the evaluation counties are male. This clearly reduces 
the level of influence that women can have on the decisions.
152. At the local level, parents and communities have shown their commitment and ownership 
by contributing in kind and in cash to support the SMP. They also support the construction of 
kitchen and stores, provide firewood and water, payment of cooks’ salary and NHIF 
contributions, and at times buying of cooking oil. In some cases, because of limited financial 
capacity of parents, schools under the HGSMP have allowed parents to provide their 
contribution in terms of labour and have used parents as cooks for school meals. As noted 
earlier, while this may provide a solution in terms of the inputs that are required from the 
community, there are also some evident concerns related to lack of training in food 
preparation, hygiene and management.
Adequacy and Timely Disbursement of Funds for the Purchase of Food under HGSMP
153. Although structures and mechanisms have been put in place, from national to school levels 
for the implementation of HGSMP, the programme has had challenges in funding, in terms of 
inconsistency in total allocation for the budget. For example, in the financial year 2014/2015 
allocation was KES 2.3b and this rose to KES 2.6b in 2015/2016. However, the allocation 
declined to KES 2.5b in 2017/18 (which could be linked to national election). It has gone even 
lower during the financial year 2018/2019 which started in July 2018, reducing to KES2b.
154. At school level, the government provides money for the food, based on capitation, at KES
11.00 per child per day. Although this amount has increased from KES 9,00 in 2009, across 
the different counties, schools under HGSMP reported that the problem with this allocation 
was that the funds are not adequate and reflect the fact that the different contexts are not taken 
into consideration.
155. The reality according to the informants, was that food prices differ in different locations 
and are higher in arid counties, due to distances and poor road networks, so while KES 11.00 
may be adequate in some areas, it is inadequate to others. This fixed amount also does not 
take into consideration fluctuations of prices of food, according to the time of the year. The 
challenge of fluctuations of prices is articulated by an officer in one of the sub-counties in 
Turkana, who said: “there will be an allocation of KES 11.00 per child, which is not adequate 
because of cost of food in the area and issue of transportation. 1 bag costs KES 6,000 and the 
distances and roads in the county pose a challenge to the cost of food. Too little money to 
cater for purchase of food, compared to other counties such as Trans Nzoia”28 (informant, 
sub-county Turkana).
156. In addition, schools under the WFSMP and HGSMP experience in-year fluctuations in 
enrolment, with children migrating from schools that are not implementing the programme. 
These schools have to stretch their allocation to cover the higher enrolment than what was 
submitted to the MOE. Parents in some schools then are forced to cover for deficit as the 
money cannot cover the total number of days in a term. Information from WFP, however,
28 Trans Nzoia is an agriculturally productive county, known for its high production of maize which is staple food in Kenya.
| P a g e 44
indicated that there was a banding system that ensured allocation of funding took into account 
the particular reality and context of the county or location. The evaluation team did not come 
across the banding system in the schools visited, where none of the interviewees were aware 
of its existence.
157. Delays and the particular time of the school calendar the national government disburses 
funds is another factor that affects the regularity and timeliness of the school meals. One of 
the County Accountants interviewed indicated that money is disbursed from the National 
Treasury to schools in October, which means three months from the beginning of the financial 
year which ends in June of every year. The second tranche is disbursed in May of the following 
calendar year. October happens to be the last month before the end of school calendar as the 
national examinations take place in October/November, and schools close in November. The 
schools can only purchase food for a few weeks, since there is very little learning going on in 
schools during the third term of the school calendar. At school level, the head teachers and 
chairs of BoM indicated that the money gets to school in the middle or towards the end of the 
term; meaning that schools go without food for more than a month every term. In some 
schools where the parents can afford to do so, they provide the food to address thedeficit.
158. These issues are recognized by the MOE and WFP as concerning. With the frequency of 
droughts, the MOE has lobbied for increased funding, to stretch the number of days over which 
they can provide school feeding as normally they only have sufficient budget for a portion of 
days. MOE concerns about the price of food, have led to the decision that for some counties 
the government would do central procurement and distribute the food (rather than using cash 
transfers). Feedback from informants at county and sub-county level was that this modality is 
also appreciated. However, the modality does not go in favour of local production/markets 
and local farmers and traders. Some parents reported that this change was not in all ways seen 
as positive as it reduces the level of involvement of parents and community.29 Most schools 
reported that the cash model is more efficient and considered preferable.
159. Various actions are foreseen in the aforementioned sustainability road map, and through 
the capacity gap monitoring, to address the overall challenges to sustainability by building 
capacity of staff at all levels. A gap remains, however, in terms of the government budgeting 
process which is not aligned with the school calendar. It is not clear what actions are 
envisioned to address this important area which results in food reaching schools very late and 
contributes to the inflation of costs because food is procured at times when it isexpensive.
Strengthening of the Policy Framework Supporting HGSMP within the Project Period
160. WFP has launched a new country strategy for the period 2018 – 2023, which prioritizes 
technical support to government to take over fully the school meals programme. Within the 
wider government planning, the Vision for Economic Growth (known as the ‘Big Four’) was 
unveiled in 2017, to be implemented over the period 2017-2022. The four key pillars of the 
strategy include food security and nutrition, alongside manufacturing, universal health 
coverage housing and affordable housing.
161. The launching of Kenya’s first School Feeding and Nutrition strategy in 201830 – signed by 
three ministries (education, agriculture and health) - is considered a very important 
development as it formalizes a commitment that the GoK has been making to SF. It gives a 
clear framework and a vision that all counties in Kenya can work towards, and embodies a 
political commitment to School Feeding as key safety net, as well as its role in achieving 
educational outcomes.It also provides the framework for involvement of different government 
ministries in SF by encouraging inter-ministerial coordination, multi-sectoral planning, stable 
funding and monitoring and evaluation for school meals to all children in Kenya. The strategy 
envisages a robust, nationally owned, sustainable and cost-effective set of school meal
29 The MOE is cognisant of this problem and has asked WFP to do a market assessment to look at various options. 30 MOE & WFP. Report on School Feeding National Conference and Launch of School Meals and Nutrition Strategy (2017-
2022) – May 2018
| P a g e 45
initiatives that will address the key outcomes of different sectors, such as enrolment, retention 
and transition rates, food and nutrition insecurity, and health and hygiene practices.
The evaluation was able to establish that there is good awareness of the existence of the 
strategy at national and sub-national levels. It is too early to be able to assess its 
implementation. However, interviews at national level highlighted continued challenges in 
terms of commitment by other ministries (with the exception of nutrition) in spite of the 
strategy being in place.
2.5. Evaluation Question 7 – What factors affected the results?
162. External and internal factors have affected the implementation of the intervention. Each 
are discussed in turn below.
a) External factors
163. The school year 2017/2018 has seen some particular external events – different from other 
years – which will have compounded external factors that were already present.
164. Climate hardship in 2017 and 2018 has affected the regular functioning of schools. In 2017, 
the effects of a third consecutive year of drought affected food security for families, and 
contributed to population displacement, in particular for nomadic populations which 
impacted the amount of time children spent in schools. In 2018 droughts were replaced by 
severe floods which in many cases led to the interruption of schools as these were used (in 
some cases for multiple weeks) as temporary shelters.
165. Between August and December 2017, the regular functioning of schools was also affected 
by the elections (with schools and education staff being used for electoral registration and 
voting). After the contested election results, insecurity and violence continued to destabilize 
the functioning of schools, and also disrupted the cash transfers to schools as regular 
government activity was affected.
166. Insecurity caused by conflict has affected education and livelihoods in some of the counties, 
in particular in the last two months (May and June 2018). Schools are not a target in most 
cases, but in some cases have been used as shelters (Marakwet, West Pokot, Turkana). In some 
schools, children were reported to have been absent for extended periods of time because of 
insecurity.
167. Distances and difficult transport and road conditions contribute to a hostile environment 
for transportation of food (for schools receiving in-kind deliveries). Where cash transfers are
Summary EQ 7
• Enhanced policy commitment, strong government ownership and a strong relationship with WFP 
has facilitated the transition process.
• External factors that have affected the programme include droughts and floods, as well as insecurity 
related to elections in 2017 and cattle rustling. Poverty, combined with nomadic lifestyle, has also 
affected enrolment and participation in schools, and has specifically affected participation by girls.
• Food prices have affected capacity of schools to purchase food.
• Delays in transfers of cash grants by the government, complex procurement processes, and capacity 
challenges have affected timeliness and regularity of school meals.
• Inadequate information about school feeding has negatively affected implementation and 
accountability. Food sharing has reduced the quantity of the meals for beneficiaries.
• At school level the existence of multiple initiatives, and the effect of the delocalisation of teachers 
and introduction of a new curriculum in the same period, have created challenges for the 
management of the education process.
| P a g e 46
used, road conditions may in some cases also affect the transportation of food by farmers and 
vendors.
168. The pastoralist lifestyle which is specific to the northern area of Kenya (and which does not 
feature in the control areas) brings with it increased chances of population movement.In these 
areas food insecurity is higher and coping strategies include taking food home for other 
siblings. Cultural factors also affect school participation, in particular for girls.
169. Joint WFP/MOE monitoring as well as interviews by the evaluation team identified 
gender issues affecting enrolment and participation. Thus, in West Pokot and Barringo, girls 
are more absent from school than boys because of household chores. In the same counties, 
there are also higher drop-out rates for girls compared to boys – due to early marriages, with 
a high dowry payment for a less educated girls.
170. Poverty makes it difficult for parents and communities to pay the required monetary 
contributions to the school feeding activities, and food insecurity, and the aforementioned 
drought and floods put further stress on parents and guardians’ capacity to contribute in kind 
(through food and labour) as expected in the school feeding programme. These factors 
featured prominently in the interviews that were done across the different counties.
171.Price fluctuation on the market - which reflect food availability issues - have affected the 
capacity to purchase food in the quantities needed for school meals. Higher prices reduce the 
amount that can be purchased and delays in transfer of funds have meant that food is bought 
at unfavourable prices.
172. Accountability issues lie at the heart of some of the challenges for the school feeding 
programme as will be discussed below. In addition to internal factors which reduce 
accountability and which are discussed next, from an external perspective accountability, it is 
also affected by the fact that teachers, and head teachers, are accountable to the Teacher 
Service Commission in Kenya, rather than to the Ministry of Education. This is an external 
factor that makes the management of the education system a complex affair in Kenya.
b) Internal factors
173. WFP has a long standing and solid relationship with the MOE and the GoK. Interviews at 
all levels highlighted the strong linkages that have been built up over time and underscored 
appreciation for WFPs commitment to making the transition programme work.
174. The process of transition assumes a transitioning of management, monitoring and 
accountability responsibilities to the local government and school structures. At the level of 
counties, sub-counties and schools, however, the data collection at mid-term consistently 
revealed that while ownership is considerable, there is inadequate information about different 
aspect of the school feeding programme. Many interviewees regretted the lack of clarity on 
criteria for the selection of beneficiary schools for the HGSMP.In addition, across the different 
counties and sub-counties there was a lack of information on expected and actual transfers of 
government funds for purchasing of food, which was perceived as having considerable 
consequences for the capacity at different levels of the government system to monitor the 
programme, and also is felt to run counter to efforts to promote accountability (i.e. if school 
BOM are not aware of the timing and volume of the grants then it is difficult for parents to 
participate in the monitoring). The delays in transfers also undermine any initiatives that 
schools (together with sub-county government) might want to take to avoid excessive food 
prices. In addition, WFP’s monitoring reports, as well as this team’s visits to schools, highlight 
that record keeping at school level continues to be poor which also impacts on accountability.
175. WFP scaled up its monitoring of school feeding interventions, doing this jointly with the 
government. The joint monitoring has provided an opportunity for collective learning and 
insight into areas that need correction, and have been appreciated by the different parties 
involved. However, in the assessment of the evaluation team, there is room for the 
recommendations of these monitoring visit to be less ‘inspection oriented’ and more learning 
and solution focussed. The monitoring visits could also more comprehensively involve the
| P a g e 47
school BOM in seeking solutions to the problems identified, and should involve members of 
other ministries such as the Ministry of Finance (MoF) given the impact that the delays in 
funding have for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school feeding.
176. Capacity building is central to the transitioning of responsibilities to the GoK. At central 
level this has involved the placement of a WFP staff member at the MOE to support the 
transitioning process. This position is considered very valuable and is appreciated but it is too 
early to assess the full impact. In terms of the training that WFP has organized ahead of the 
formal transition, overall beneficiaries of WFP capacity building exercises have been 
appreciative of the type and quality of these interventions, although training is reported tobe 
shorter than would be desired. There were also some concerns that the use of cascade training
– with WFP training government staff who train colleagues at sub-county and school level –
reduces the effectiveness and leads to a diluting of content. The interviews with county staff 
also highlighted that there are opportunities for involving government staff who have 
supervisory and support functions in the training, but that these officers are currently not 
systematically integrated. This includes the quality assurance officers who have a role vis-à￾vis school feeding, as well as the new created position of government gender officers at county 
level (recruited by the Ministry of Social Affairs), who have a prominent role in dealing with 
gender across different sectors.
177. On the other hand, and interestingly, schools that have benefited from the School 
Improvement Programme (SIP) which is funded by USAID were found to face less problems. 
The SIP provides strong support to strengthening management and accountability and county 
officers felt that the type of training and support provided has helped overcome some of the 
challenges that school face in managing the school feeding programme.
178. Capacity at school level has been affected by the delocalization initiative of the MOE 
(initiated in January 2018). The initiative has resulted in a substantial number of head 
teachers rotating away to schools outside the area covered by the school feeding programme. 
This has meant valuable capacity and continuity in school feeding management has been lost. 
School reported that this affected the understanding of processes, and reduced the impact of 
the capacity development and ultimately affected the quality of the interventions.
179. At school level, the management of school feeding is a substantial task. The lack of 
coordination of different government initiatives which ‘descend’ on schools in an 
uncoordinated and often unannounced manner further complicates matters. Head teachers 
report losing time and not being able to provide adequate attention to their classes. In 
addition, 2018 saw the introduction of a new curriculum for the education sector. The impact 
of this introduction is not clear at this stage but the process was perceived as complex by 
schools, sub-county and county level informants, and has added a further burden on schools.
180. Food sharing is a reality in all schools and affects the amount of food that children consume 
(and the actual nutritional and calorie content). This encompasses a variety of issues. Budgets 
allocated to schools by government are based on enrolment numbers in first term. However, 
the movement of pupils from non-supported to supported schools, means that in reality the 
grants (and the corresponding food) are distributed over much larger number of pupils. In 
addition, the pre-primary (ECD) section which exists in all schools is not counted as part of 
the enrolments although the food is shared with these children, in order to respect cultural
practices which, require that younger children should benefit from any food that is available.
181. WFP has invested – as part of the transitioning strategy – in efforts to enhance government 
and public support for school feeding and to improve the policy environment. WFPs work in 
this area – for example through the support to the drafting of Kenya’s first National School 
Feeding Strategy31, and through the organization of a School Feeding National Conference in
31 Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (2018). National School Meals and 
Nutrition Strategy.
| P a g e 48
May 2018 is much appreciated by partners. Nonetheless the engagement of other sector 
ministries continues to be challenging.
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions
182. Across the spectrum, the McGovern-Dole supported interventions have been relevant to 
the beneficiaries. The programme has also seen WFP successfully engaging at policy level with 
the government, and has seen a growing financial contribution by the GoK to the HGSMP, 
although the financial commitment and policy engagement still need considerable further 
strengthening.
183. The mid-line highlights that school feeding provided under the McGovern-Dole 
supported SMP has output and outcome level effects for girls and boys. The effects are 
classified into two main effects; 1) effect of WFPSMP on indicators, 2) sustainability of 
indicators once the programme transitioned to the HGSMP, and Annex 11 provides summary 
tables on both.
184. Thus, one year since rollout of the intervention in 2016, the results at midline have shown 
strong evidence of positive effect of the school meals programme (SMP) on most of indicators. 
The tables in Annex 11 show that the WFPSMP has had a strong positive effect on highest level 
of numeracy, concentration in class, parent/guardians reporting children ate before and after 
school, parent/guardians reporting children consumed school meals in current school year 
and in the week of the survey, passing scores on safe food preparation, existence of a kitchen 
for food preparation, and existence of sufficient fuel saving stoves. Conversely for the 
sustainability of indicators by HGSMP only three indicators had a positive or marginal effect 
namely: parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school, 
parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary 
education, and children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important 
hygiene methods. Thus, after transitioning of schools from WFP to the government HGSMP, 
a number of key outcome indicators appear to decline.
185. The assessment at this stage is necessarily partial as the transition process from WFP 
supported SMP to HGSMP is still on-going, and as noted earlier the full effects of the 
transitioning will only be clear for some HGSMP schools when the current stock of WFPfood 
runs out. All findings will therefore need to be re-examined at endline.
186. Relevance and appropriateness (EQ 1 and 2): At midline, the relevance of school 
feeding continues to be manifest. The intervention is well aligned with the priorities of the 
GoK as outlined in the NDP and various sector strategies. It is also well aligned with the 
priorities of other education development partners and national actors, and with the goals of 
WFP as stated in its country strategy.
187. The intervention is also relevant to the needs of girls, given evidence of considerable 
challenges to the participation of girls in schools because of cultural issues and high levels of 
poverty and food insecurity, which may make it difficult for children to access schools, and 
may lead girls to be married early. In these contexts school feeding provides an incentive for 
participation in schools
188. Across the spectrum, interventions have been relevant to the beneficiaries at the time of 
design and continues to be relevant in implementation as confirmed by the stakeholder 
interviews and school visits. Dependency on school feeding is, however, a concern. The 
targeted areas suffer from considerable food insecurity, which has been aggravated by other 
factors including insecurity and the recent drought, followed by floods in some areas. This 
makes beneficiaries particularly vulnerable to discontinuation of this kind of support.
| P a g e 49
Interviews with parents and children underscored that school meals are for many children and 
families of critical importance, and sometimes is the only full meal they receive in a day.
189. The midline group discussions and informant interviews highlighted that the transition to 
cash grants to schools is an appropriate choice transfer modality which is also in line with the 
Government’s strategy. The cash-based model SF is reported at community level to be 
beneficial to local farmers and traders because it provides a ready market, with potential to 
boost the local economy. However, the government set procurement regulations stand in the 
way of this benefit extending to the community level farmers/traders who are less organized 
but for whom the benefits might be greater.
190. The programme appropriately sought to involve communities and parents in the design, 
identification of priorities and now in the management. Parents contribute to the school 
meals, although high levels of poverty are a barrier. While women are part of the consultation 
and decision-making structures, the midline highlights that their relative position in these 
structures (they are rarely in decision making roles as most structures - community and in the 
government) - are male dominated which is not conducive to women being able to influence 
priorities and choices.
191. Effectiveness and emerging impact (EQ 3 and 5): At mid-line the quasi￾experimental design finds strong support for the importance of school feeding output and 
outcome level:
• Most of the set output targets were achieved with minimal variations. Compared to the 
baseline, the midline points to an increased number of children accessing food through 
school meals programme and more so in WFP supported schools.
• School feeding is associated with higher FCS. Compared to the control schools, more 
households with children in schools supported by WFP are within the acceptable FCS 
indication more frequent access to and diverse variety of foods.
• School feeding is also associated with reduced coping strategies. Examined across the 
three study arms, households with children in WFP supported schools appear to be 
employing less severe food coping strategies compared to HGSMP and the controls. 
However, attribution of the findings on higher FCS and reduced coping strategies to the 
intervention are not possible at this stage, as the improvement could also be due to 
improved harvests in the year between the baseline and midline, or to other factors.
• The survey comparison of baseline and midline does not show an association with higher 
enrolment, attendance or improved attentiveness. This is a surprising result which may 
in part be due to the short time lag between the baseline and midline as well as the external 
factors that have been identified above (drought, floods, elections, etc.) which are likely to 
have created significant disturbance in terms of the educational process.
• WFPSMP was significantly associated with improved numeracy. In addition, though not 
significant, there was improvement on literacy for English and Kiswahili.
192. Analysis by arms shows that the results of the HGSMP appear to be dropping. Across a 
range of indicators including numeracy and literacy scores, access to food by children before 
attending HGSMP schools perform less well compared to SMP schools. The reasons for this 
drop are not entirely clear. The drop may in part be due to less rigor in the application of the 
school feeding model in the HGSMP (i.e. reduced monitoring, less support, and insufficiently 
regular funding). The drop in terms of access to food may be associated to the recent drought 
floods. Though the drought affected most locations in which HGSMP and WFP supported 
schools are located, more of the drought response was focused to the regions with WFP 
supported schools which may have left the HGSMP schools disadvantaged.
193. In terms of improving facilities, schools with WFPSMP and HGSMP have experienced 
improvements in terms of classrooms, kitchens, storerooms, water storage and other 
conditions, due to a combination of WFP inputs and inputs by government. However, 
observation visits also underscore the sub-optimal conditions under which meals are often
| P a g e 50
prepared and served and the on-going challenges in the provision of a coordinated/integrated 
package of support to schools.
194. Efficiency (EQ 4): Qualitative findings suggest that transfers of grants to HGSMP schools 
are irregular, which results in infrequent feeding, and a smaller number of school feeding days. 
The evaluation notes that the only school that is ‘efficient’ in terms of the cash-based model is 
the WFP pilot school where the regular and timely WFP cash transfer has created conditions 
for a regular supply of food, and has allowed the school to purchase food at competitive prices. 
In other schools, delays in the transfer of funds have contributed to food being bought in 
periods where prices are very high. This suggests that regular transfers, together with 
consistent support is critical to an effective school meals programme. Efficiency is also reduced 
by ‘loss’ of commodities prior to delivery of schools, which are noted to affect some of the 
WFPSMP schools.
195. In terms of modality, the evidence suggests the cash transfers are better (versus in kind). 
But there are issues/ loopholes to be solved, in particular in terms of timelines and sufficiency 
of funds, and also oversight by the community of those who handle the money i.e. the head 
teacher.
196. HGSMP actors appear not quite conversant with the process of what they need to do to 
improve programme implementation. WFP has played a significant role in improving the 
capacity of government to plan and implement school feeding, however, there is a clearly 
evidenced and expressed need for further capacity building.
197. Sustainability (EQ 6): the evaluation is unable to conclude that there are sufficient 
conditions in place for sustainability. Issues of sustainability are reflected in the fact that after 
transitioning of school from WFP to government, the anticipated results in terms of learning 
outcomes, capacity and food consumption show evidence of a negative effect on most of the 
indicators. While government and beneficiary commitment to school feeding is in evidence 
and strong, and while government funding has increased over time, there are concerns that 
the technical capacity still needs considerable strengthening in particular for monitoring and 
support to schools, and that there are insufficient financial (and technical) resources for 
oversight and supervision which has traditionally been a strength of WFP and has allowed the 
programme to function. In addition, the grants by government are not sufficient to cover a full 
number of school feeding days.
3.2.Lessons Learned and Good Practices
198. The evaluation findings highlight the importance of strong communication and 
timely information sharing of the flows of funds and disbursement of funds to the 
schools. The experience in this programme shows that it is essential to ensure transparency 
and accountability and to allow communities to take ownership of the programme. The 
challenges in this respect highlight that the lack of communication makes it impossible for the 
established oversight structures (at the levels of schools, and at the level of the county 
management) to supervise and demand accountability.
199. The other key lesson relates to the importance of attention to gender in the design of the 
programme. As noted earlier in this report there were no specific gender analysis at the start 
of the programme and no gender indicators were identified at the design phase although it has 
been picked up in the recent joint monitoring work of WFP and the MOE. A gender analysis 
of key aspects of the programme at the start of the intervention (at the level of 
possible constraints for beneficiaries, involvement in management and decisions making, and 
anticipated differential effects on girls and boys) would have allowed the programme to take 
into account some of the issues that were mentioned in the report such as the characteristics 
of nomadic communities which affect girls’ participation in schools, and the involvement of 
women in management and decision making (in particular through school structures such as
| P a g e 51
the SMC, and BOM).It would also have allowed for more systematic monitoring of gender and 
protection concerns.
3.3. Recommendations
200. The findings and conclusions at midline stage – although only one year after the previous 
measurement, suggest that there are a number of areas that will need attention in the coming 
phase. Each of the recommendations the evaluation team has a time-frame for 
implementation and a responsible partner. Recommendations have been placed in order of 
priority.
201. Recommendation 1: Support the MOE to strengthen the communication and 
accountability measures for the HGSMP by reinstating, from next school year
(2018/2019) mandatory circulars for information sharing on the details of grants 
provided to each school. WFP Kenya and MOE. Timeline: by January 2019, and at the 
beginning of each school year for subsequent years.
202. This recommendation, together with Recommendation 2 below, targets a key aspect that 
was identified as a weakness by this evaluation, namely insufficient information sharing about 
grants to schools, and the need to enhance accountability for the funding.
203. Recommendation 2: Prioritize the establishment of an independent 
complaints hotline for the HGSMP and ensure annual reporting on complaints 
received and how these were addressed. Responsible entity: MOE and the intersectoral 
committees at national and county levels, with technical support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: 
by the first quarter of 2019.
204. This recommendation is complementary to recommendation 1. The hotline should allow 
concerned citizens to channel their complaints or concerns and improve transparency of the 
allocation process and reduce malpractice. Information on the availability of the hotline 
should be shared to county, sub-county, school and community level and communicated to 
schools and beneficiaries. By integrating information on the hotline in reporting the MOE will 
be able to envision specific actions at institutional level to address any problems.32
205. Recommendation 3: Commission a review of the current strategy for training 
SMC and school heads and use this to improve the training approach and content 
moving forward. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya, in consultation with MOE. Timeline: by 
the end of the first semester of 2019.
206. Capacity at school level was identified by the majority of informants, as weak. Capacity 
building needs to focus on financial management, school strategic planning, procurement and 
issues around pricing, and understanding of accountability processes and procedures for 
lodging complaints. The evaluation has highlighted some challenges with the use of the 
cascade training model, as well as opportunities to learn from the experience of other projects. 
In particular, WFP and MOE should look closely at the SIP approach and see whether this can 
be adapted to the WFP provided training.
207. Recommendation 4: Advocate with the Treasury to: a) increase funding to the 
monitoring of the HGSMP; and, b) decentralize the disbursement of funds for 
the HGSMP to the county levelto ensure thatfunds are received in a more regular 
and timely manner. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya and MOE. Timeline: End of the first 
semester of 2019.
208. This recommendation targets the challenges that were noted by this evaluation in timely 
availability of cash to schools for the HGSMP. Advocacy with central level institutions 
responsible for budget allocations and funding flows is critical to ensuring that bottlenecks in 
the system are addressed. The decentralization of funding to the county level should be
32 The government has had experience using the service of a hotline; with the Helpline – Number 116 which serves the 
Department of Children Services, operated by Childline Kenya. The line is used for reporting cases of child abuse.
| P a g e 52
seriously considered. In the transition phase, WFP could also consider providing funds to fill 
the funding gap which results from delayed transfers by the GoK, through a ‘cash advance’ to 
schools. This would ensure timely delivery of food to schools while the GoK reviews its system 
to ensure timely transfers.
209. Recommendation 5: Secure strong involvement of audit, quality assurance, 
and gender staff at county level in the monitoring of the HGSMP programme. 
Responsible entity: MOE, with technical support from WFP Kenya. Timeline: by the end of the 
current project (2020).
210. WFP monitoring of the SMP is highly regarded at all levels. However, with the transitioning 
to the HGSMP, the regularity and quality of the monitoring has reduced. WFP needs to 
support the MOE to build capacity in this area by revising terms of reference for staff involved 
in monitoring, providing additional training on HGSMP monitoring, and ensuring that there 
are clear and solution oriented guidelines for monitoring the HGSMP schools. Monitoring 
should also seek to involve county gender officers (see Rec. 7). Finally, staff of the Ministry of 
Finance could be involved in supervision given the impact that the delays in funding have for 
the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school feeding (see also Rec. 4).
211. Recommendation 6: During the transition phase, enhance technical support 
provision at county and sub-county levels by placing WFP funded consultant staff 
at county level to reinforce training at the level of county offices and sub-county 
offices on HGSMP management and supervision. Responsible entity: WFP Kenya in 
partnership with the MOE. Timeline: continuously until the end of the programme.
212. Capacity issues continue to be a considerable constraint for the effectiveness and 
sustainability of the programme (see also preceding recommendation). WFP should seek 
additional resources from USDA or another donor to strengthen its approach to capacity 
development. As part of this process it should conduct a review of the effectiveness of cascade 
training and consider placing one or more consultants in county education officers to support 
school level management of school feeding. A similar experience of doing this in a MGD 
supported programme in Ethiopia produced important results in terms of capacity 
strengthening. These consultants would provide real-time assistance on issues and would 
work in liaison with the MOE school feeding unit.
213. Recommendation 7: Strengthen the integration of gender into the transition 
by carrying out a gender analysis as a follow up to the midline evaluation and 
identifying key aspects to include in capacity building and monitoring. Responsible 
entity: WFP Kenya, in consultation with MOE. Timeline: By the start of the 2019/2020 school 
year.
214. It will be important to ensure integration of gender concerns in the planning of the final 
phase of the MGD SMP, and the transition and handover process. This could be supported by 
a gender analysis carried out as a follow up to the midline evaluation. Gender should also be 
an integral part of the capacity building plan and process (and therefore link to Rec 3 and Rec 
8), and the SMP monitoring framework should be strengthened to include specific gender 
indicators which reflect participation of women in priority setting and decision-making.
215. Recommendation 8: Establish clear targets for female participation and 
representation in the SMC to ensure gender balance and women representation 
in decision making and ensure that gender considerations are integrated in all 
capacity building activities and included in monitoring by WFP and MOE. 
Responsible entity: WFP Kenya and MoE. Timeline: By the end of the first quarter of2019.
216. Decision making for SF at school and community level is mostly in the hands of men 
because of inadequate representation of women in decision making structures. Adequate
| P a g e 53
representation of women should be assured in the SMCs to ensure that women are able to 
participate in decision making and supervision at par with male community members.
217. A review of the composition of the SMC should guide the sub-counties and schools in a 
review of all SMCs to ensure that women are adequately represented and have an equal say in 
decision- making. Involvement of county gender officers should be sought to strengthen the 
involvement of women (see Rec. 5).
218. Recommendation 9: Improve the transparency and rationale of selection of 
SMP schools by reviewing the criteria for school selection in coordination with 
communities who have a better knowledge of the challenges that each individual 
school faces. Responsible entity: MOE at various levels, with technical support from WFP 
Kenya. Timeline: by the next school year (2019/2020).
219. There was a general view that it was not clear what criteria were used to select some schools 
to be in the programme while others within the same geographical area were not selected. The 
resultant factor was that there was student migration from schools without school meals to 
those in the SMP. This recommendation aims at establishing - through a consultative process
- ways of ensuring that all schools within the same geographical area have the school meals 
programme.
220. Recommendation 10: Strengthen the monitoring of HGSMP by linking the 
monitoring system to the Education Management Information System (EMIS) 
and to the Free Primary Education (FPE) funding, to reduce the incidence of 
ghost schools and pupils. Responsible entity: MOE, with technical support from WFP 
Kenya. Timeline: by the end of 2019.
221. In parallel with efforts to improve the selection of schools, it will be important to eliminate 
wastage of resources which arises from the allocation of funds to pupils and schools that do 
not exist (referred to as ‘ghost schools’ and ‘ghost pupils’)The importance of a strengthened 
monitoring system, linked to the EMIS and to the FPE funding, therefore cannot be over￾emphasised. Regular monitoring has to be an integral part of the SMP, if the programme is to 
be sustained. Of key importance, is regular feedback to the various levels that will contribute 
to the continuation of the programme, i.e. school level, sub-county and county education 
offices and the national level, including the MOE and MoF.
| P a g e 54
Annexes
| P a g e 55
Annex 1 – Agreed terms of reference
Terms of Reference 
MID-TERM evaluation of
USDA McGovern -Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Program’s Support in Kenya from 2016 to 2020
WFP Kenya Country Office
Introduction
1. This Terms of Reference (TOR) is for a mid-term activity evaluation of USDA McGovern-Dole 
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program (McGovern-Dole) in Kenya,
2016-2020. This evaluation is commissioned by World Food Programme (WFP) Kenya Country 
Office. The evaluation objective is to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the 
performance of the school feeding project at mid-term so that WFP and its partners can adjust 
course as necessary for the remainder of the project term. McGovern-Dole is funded and 
administered by USDA, and aims to support education, child development and food security in 
low-income, food-deficit countries around the globe. The program provides U.S. produced 
agricultural commodities and financial assistance, and supports capacity development and 
enhanced monitoring and reporting. Sustainability is an important consideration, and the 
grantees are expected to work to support government and community ownership. School feeding 
in Kenya is a multi-donor funded project.
2. These TOR were prepared by Beatrice Mwongela, Evaluation Manager (EM) from Monitoring 
and Evaluation (M&E) unit WFP Kenya 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.
Reasons for the Evaluation
The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below.
Rationale
3. USDA is one of the long-standing, key donor to WFP School feeding in Kenya. USDA awarded 
WFP Kenya a total of US$ 28 million of support for the period 2016-2020. The grant agreement 
incorporates specific performance indicators and results indicators against which performance 
of the programme will be measured (Annex 4). In the evaluation plan agreed with USDA, WFP 
commits to conducting a mid-term evaluation to assess progress so far and feed into plans for 
the remaining project period.
Objectives
4. The main objective of the mid-term evaluation is to provide an evidence-based, independent 
assessment of the performance of the school feeding project so that WFP and its partners can 
adjust course as necessary for the remainder of the project term. Specifically, the mid-term 
evaluation will:
 review the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and sustainability;
 collect performance indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level results;
 assess whether the project is on track to meet the results and targets;
 Identify any necessary mid-course corrections.
5. The mid-term evaluation will also focus on the implementation of the program with the 
evaluation findings targeted at adjustments or program management decisions aimed at helping 
improve implementation. As such, the evaluation will look at interim or anticipated results,
| P a g e 56
partnerships, implementation arrangements and systems, and any factors affecting the results 
achieved at the mid-point.
6. The evaluation will serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and 
learning.
• Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the mid-term values of the 
USDA McGovern-Dole support to WFP School Feeding Programme in Kenya from 2016 to
2020.
• Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not 
to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning as the programme 
transitions to HGSMP. 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. The evaluation will use a quasi￾experimental design set up at baseline.
Stakeholders and Users
7. A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the 
evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below 
provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team 
as part of the inception phase. 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.
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation 
report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office 
(CO) Kenya
Responsible for the country level planning and operations 
implementation, it has a direct stake in the evaluation and an 
interest in learning from experience to inform decision-makingfor 
the remaining implementation period. It is also called upon to 
account internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for 
performance and results of its operation.
Regional Bureau 
(RB) Nairobi
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and 
support, the RB management has an interest in an independent 
account of the operational performance as well as in learning from 
the evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country
offices.
Office of 
Evaluation (OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver 
quality, useful and credible evaluations. OEV management has an 
interest in providing decision-makers and stakeholders with 
independent accountability for results and with learning to inform 
policy, strategic and programmatic decisions.
WFP Executive 
Board (EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about 
the effectiveness of WFP operations. This evaluation results will not 
be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into corporate 
learning processes.
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a 
stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is appropriate and
| P a g e 57
effective. As such, the level of participation in the evaluation of 
women, men, boys and girls will be determined and their respective 
perspectives will be sought. More specifically, teachers, parent￾teacher associations and students should be considered in key 
informants interviews or focus group discussions.
Government, 
National and 
County Levels
Both county and national governments have a direct interest in 
knowing whether WFP activities in the country are aligned withits 
priorities, harmonised with the action of other partners and meet 
the expected results. The Government has the overall ownership of 
the school feeding programme, and shares the interest in learning 
lessons for design of future programmes, including transition to the 
HGSMP (Home Grown School Meals Program) model. The key line 
Ministries are: Ministry of Education, Ministry of Agriculture, 
Ministry of Health, Treasury including relevant Ministries at 
county level. County and Sub-county Education Officers, School 
Management Committees are also key as they are involved in
programme implementation and policy support.
United Nations 
and Development 
Partners
The Kenya United Nations Development Assistance Framework 
(UNDAF) should contribute to the realisation of the government 
developmental objectives. Kenya United Nations Country Team 
(UNCT) has therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP operation 
is effective in contributing to the United Nations concerted efforts. 
WFP implements the programme within a wider UN system of 
support to government priorities. The partner agencies are 
interested in learning to what extent WFP interventions are 
contributing to the overall outcomes committed to in the UNDAF 
particularly UNICEF, UNESCO, FAO, UNDAF thematic working
groups, the Education Sector Development Partners Group.
Non￾Governmental 
Organizations 
(NGO)
Some NGO’s like Feed the Children, are members of the national 
school feeding technical committee where coordination and joint 
monitoring of the overall national programme - of which this 
project fits within, is done.
USDA This evaluation is focused on schools meals programme activities 
funded by USDA. As such, USDA has an interest in knowing 
whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if funded 
activities have been effective and contributed to the expected 
results.
Other donors 
(Australia, 
Germany, Russia, 
Private donors)
WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. 
The school feeding programme is a multi-donor initiative in which 
USDA’s support is complemented by other donors. As such, other 
donors will have an interest in knowing if WFP’s work on school 
meals programme has been effective and contributed to their 
strategies and programmes.
8. The primary users of this evaluation will be:
• The Kenya country office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to programme 
implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships
• This mid- term evaluation and subsequently the final evaluation will contribute to the body 
of knowledge on McGovern-Dole. USDA, as the funder of the evaluation, will use findings 
and lessons learned to inform program funding, design, and implementation decisions
| P a g e 58
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use the 
evaluation findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight
• WFP HQ may use evaluation for wider organizational learning and accountability
Context and Subject of the Evaluation 
Context
9. Kenya has a population of 44 million people. It has diverse natural resources and highly varied 
terrain. The country's highlands comprise one of the most successful farming regions in Africa; 
the port of Mombasa is a major regional hub; and the unique geography supports abundant and 
diverse wildlife of great economic value.In September 2014, the World Bank reclassified Kenya's 
economy as lower-middle income. However, poverty, food insecurity, under-nutrition and 
income inequality remain high; 45.6 percent of Kenyans live below the national poverty line. 
The most severe conditions exist in the arid north, which is underdeveloped, drought-prone and 
is often disrupted by local conflicts. Food availability is constrained by poor transport 
infrastructure and long distances to markets. Kenya is a food-deficit country, ranking 145 of 188 
countries in the 2015 Human Development Index (two positions up from previous year).33 The 
country's 2015 Global Hunger Index was 24, ranking 67th out of 117 assessed countries. Many 
parts of the county, especially the arid and semi-arid lands which comprise 80 percent of Kenya's 
land area, are characterized by undernourishment, wasting, stunting, and child mortality. 
Global acute malnutrition among children aged 6 - 59 months in arid areas often exceeds 15 
percent while micronutrient deficiencies are above 50 percent.
10. Poverty is linked with worsening droughts and flooding that force poor households to resort to 
negative coping mechanisms such as withdrawing children from school and selling productive 
assets. Kenya has a ten-year Ending Drought Emergencies plan (2013-2022) which aims to 
create “a more conducive environment for building drought resilience” by investing in 
infrastructure, security, human capital and improved financing for drought risk management.
11. Kenya has several social-assistance programmes which cover only 27 percent of the poor; 90 
percent of the funding comes from development partners. In the 2012 Government of Kenya 
(GOK) formulated a social-protection policy that aims at increasing access to services for 
vulnerable populations, incorporating school feeding as a major social safety net.
12. Education is fundamental to the Government’s strategy for socio-economic development. In
2010, national net enrolment in primary education was 93 percent for boys with 88 percent 
completion, and 92 percent for girls with 78 percent completion.34 In the north-eastern counties 
net enrolment dropped to 40 percent with 35 percent completion, and adult literacy was 8 
percent;35 education in these areas is frequently disrupted by conflict, drought and flooding. 
Girls’ enrolment improved from 0.96 in 2008 to 1.0 in 2012, but gender disparities persist.36
Retention and educational quality are ongoing challenges. Early childhood development (ECD), 
education and care are weak and reach only half of pre-school-age children.
13. The National Education Sector Support Programme (2013–2018)37 aims to enhance basic 
education in terms of access and quality. The 2010 National School Health Strategy includes 
access to safe water and sanitation components.
14. Of children under 5, 84 percent are deficient in vitamin A, 73 percent in iron and 51 percent in 
zinc; a quarter of children have inadequate iodine intake. Iron deficiency affects 55 percent of 
pregnant women38. Many households cannot afford a nutritious diet, and an estimated 1.8 
million children are chronically undernourished.
33 United Nations Development Program (2014). “Human Development Report 2015”. 34 MOE administrative data. 35 Government of Kenya (2015). “National Education Sector Plan: Volume One”. Nairobi: MOE. 36 Government of Kenya. (2012). “Second Medium Term Plan, 2013–2017” Nairobi. 37 Government of Kenya (2015). “National Education Sector Plan: Volume One”. Nairobi: MOE. 38 Kenya National Micronutrient Survey (2011), Ministry of Health
| P a g e 59
15. The nutritional status of under-five children with respect to stunting, wasting and underweight 
has improved over time (1998 – 2018)39. High stunting levels persist; 26 percent of Kenya’s 
children (6-59 months) are stunted. Stunting is higher in rural (29 percent) than in urban areas
(20 percent). The highest rate is in West Pokot County (45.9 percent) and Kitui County (45.8 
percent) whereas the lowest rates are recorded in Nyeri and Kiambu Counties at 15.1 percent 
and 15.7 percent, respectively. National wasting prevalence is at 4% and Turkana County has the 
highest prevalence of wasting at 22 percent followed by Mandera at 14.8 percent and Wajir 
County at 14.2 percent. The lowest rates of wasting and in Siaya and Kisumu Counties at 0.2
percent and 0.8 percent, respectively40.
16. Immediate causes of malnutrition in Kenya, particularly for children under five, are inadequate 
food intake and presence of diseases. In addition, a host of poverty-related underlying factors 
contribute to malnutrition, including food insecurity, poor water and sanitation, as well as 
limited access to health services. Not least, food safety plays an important role, as large amounts 
of food are produced, stored and traded in informal settings with limited capacity for ensuring 
that food is safe to consume. This, matched by limited consumer awareness of food safety, leads 
to disease and unhealthy lifestyles. The roots of the underlying factors can vary from conflict to 
climate change and scarce natural resources to high and volatile food prices and have different 
influence on different indicators of malnutrition.
17. The connection of nutrition to other targets and SDGs is highlighted below41:
• Target 2.1: good nutrition requires access to sufficient quantity and quality of food; as access 
is linked to affordability, there are also links to employment and income generation, and not 
least social protection programmes which integrate nutritional outcomes (cash plus agenda, 
soft conditionalities).
• Target 2.2 is directly linked with poverty (SDG 1), which limits access to adequate food and 
also has direct effects on hygiene, meal preparation, and the micronutrient context.
• Target 2.3 (production) is linked with nutrition by defining the quantity, quality and 
diversity of food being produced and consumed. Nutrition sensitive agriculture could be 
promoted through education and skills training to produce more diversified food, 
potentially complemented by institutional procurement programmes (for example school 
meals) enhancing the stable demand of such food to reduce risks and enableinvestments.
• Target 2.4: better performing food systems improve people’s access to food by improving 
market functioning and integration. Food quality and safety standards, as well as the 
capacity to adhere to them, and their enforcement are important to avoid the contamination 
of food with, for example aflatoxins and pesticides. The inputs used for food production, as 
well as the processes and infrastructure used for post-harvest handling have a direct bearing 
on non-communicable diseases.
• Target 2.5: Genetic diversity - increased knowledge, skills, and more systematic use of 
traditional crops adapted to conditions in Kenya can improve food security, help households 
diversify diets, and make important micronutrients better available at low cost and effort.
18. The 2012 National Food and Nutrition Security Policy aims to: i) improve nutrition; ii) ensure 
that adequate food is accessible and affordable; and iii) protect vulnerable populations through 
safety nets linked to long-term development. It prioritizes the prevention of nutrition-related 
vulnerabilities in the first 1,000 days of life and links nutrition education with targeted nutrition 
interventions. Kenya joined Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) in 2012, and is developing its second 
National Nutrition Action Plan (2018 – 2022).
Subject of the evaluation
19. This program provides daily school lunch to a total of 358,000 primary school children in 
targeted arid and food insecure counties of Kenya as shown in the table 2 below. Details of actual 
numbers reached are provided in annex 8.
39 Kenya Demographic Health Survey, 2003, 2008 and 2014 40 Kenya Demographic Health Survey, 2014 41 Toward zero hunger strategic review, 2018 (draft)
| P a g e 60
Table 2: Target Numbers per County
No. Name of County
Number of 
schools Boys Girls Total
1. Baringo 114 8,174 6,394 14,568
2. Garissa 163 32,782 20,598 53,379
3. Mandera 211 58,574 28,232 86,806
4. Turkana 248 60,284 54,702 114,986
5. Wajir 218 37,785 22,407 60,191
6. West Pokot 120 15,003 12,941 27,944
Total 1,074 212,602 145,274 357,874
Figures 
rounded off
213,000 145,000 358,000
It builds on more than three decades of joint WFP-Government of Kenya school feeding efforts 
and over nearly two decades of USDA support that has been provided in a series of distinct 
programs . USDA funding to WFP Kenya between 2004 and 2018 is approximately USD 130 
million.
20. The current programme commenced in October 2016 and end in September 2021. In the first 
three years of the 2016-2020 program, WFP will combine the direct provision of meals in the 
arid lands with technical assistance to support the Government to sustainably expand the 
Government-financed and -managed HGSMP in these areas; and in the last two years, after full 
hand-over of the project areas to the HGSMP, WFP will fully shift to technical assistance to 
strengthen institutional structures and capacities required for quality home-grown school meals 
in Kenya.
21. The five years (FY2016 to FY2020) will cover a total of eight counties i.e. Baringo, Garissa, 
Mandera, Turkana, Wajir and West Pokot, Marsabit with Tana River not receiving food but 
benefitting from complementary activities. Hot lunch with food from McGovern-Dole funds is 
served for 120 out of the 190 school days, comprising 150 grams of bulgur wheat, 40 grams of 
green split peas, 5 grams of vegetable oil (fortified with vitamin A and D), and 3 grams of iodized 
salt –procured separately by WFP. The number of children reached is progressively decreasing 
as counties are handed over and by the end of 2019, all the counties will have fully transitioned 
to the Government’s HGSMP.
22. Throughout the five-year program, WFP is collaborating with literacy actors and other partners 
to ensure that the meals contribute to tangible learning results. Specifically, Kenya is 
implementing Tusome, a nation-wide early grade literacy and numeracy programme (2014 -
2018)42 that is supported by USAID and other donors that targets all the schools that WFP 
reaches through school feeding (100% overlap). WFP is facilitating the development of the 
revised School Health Policy and of the policy framework and operational guidelines for the use 
of micronutrient powders in school meals, as well as on the integration of nutrition into the 
school curriculum. WFP and UNICEF jointly work to contribute to the UN Development 
Assistance Framework (UNDAF) (2014-2018) for Kenya, Strategic Result Area on Human 
Capital (Education), 43 and UNDAF 2018- 2022 Which is currently under development.
42 The Tusome Early Grade Reading Activity is implemented by Ministry of Education (MOE) and RTI International, and 
supported by USAID and DIFD. For a project overview, see http://www.education.go.ke/home/images/Project￾KPED/Brief%20on%20TUSOME%20.pdf 43 https://www.unops.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Information-disclosure/UNDAFs/Kenya-UNDAF-2014-2018.pdf
| P a g e 61
23. The program uses McGovern-Dole commodities and cash funding to contribute directly towards 
both of the McGovern-Dole’s highest-level Strategic Objectives, McGovern-Dole SO1: Improved 
Literacy of School-Aged Children; and, McGovern-Dole SO2: Increased Use of Health and 
Dietary Practices.44 The following activities (See Annex 3 for activity details) contribute toward 
the achievement of McGovern-Dole SO1: Providing school meals; building capacity of national 
and county-level actors to manage school feeding; raising awareness on the importance of 
education; advocacy for increased government support and investments; and, supporting the 
increased engagement of local organizations and communities.
24. To contribute towards the achievement of McGovern-Dole SO2, the following activities are being
/planned to be undertaken: conducting on-job training to increase knowledge of safe food 
preparation and storage practices; conducting nutrition and hygiene education activities; 
carrying out information, education and communication on nutrition, sanitation and hygiene; 
building/rehabilitating 24 model kitchens with storage and energy saving cooking stoves in six 
target counties; strengthening the beneficiary complaints and feedback mechanisms; and, 
promoting food safety and quality in HGSMP through supply chain analysis, training, 
monitoring and coaching, and provision of blue boxes.
25. WFP has also incorporated a strong focus on capacity building to ensure sustainability by 
targeting the following McGovern-Dole Foundational Results: McGovern-Dole 1.4.1/2.7.1:
Increased Capacity of Government Institutions; McGovern-Dole 1.4.2/2.7.2 Improved Policy 
and Regulatory Framework; McGovern-Dole 1.4.3/2.7.3: Increased Government Support and 
McGovern-Dole 1.4.4/2.7.4 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community 
Groups. Activities that contribute to these Foundational results include: strengthening 
governance and multi-sectoral coordination and collaboration for the school meals programme; 
advocacy and dialogue to ensure adequate and regular budget allocations and to maintain 
political commitment to the programme; strengthening oversight and management functions; 
empowering communities to manage school feeding activities through trainings for school 
managers, teachers, and parents in order to ensure a solid level of awareness about school 
feeding implementation principles. At the school-level, WFP will train education officials to 
monitor school feeding and train trainers among local education, health and agriculture officers, 
equipping them to facilitate school feeding management trainings at the sub-county level.
26. WFP and the MOE, building upon three decades of excellent partnership, jointly implement the 
project. WFP continues to manage the commodity pipeline and ensure timely delivery of food 
from WFP’s central warehouse in Mombasa to extended delivery points within the target 
counties. MOE then transport commodities from sub county (former District Education Officers’ 
(DEO)) warehouses to the schools. In this manner, transportation costs are shared between the 
two organisations.
27. At the school level, Boards of Management, head teachers and school meals program teachers 
manage commodity storage, meal preparation and serving. With support from WFP field 
monitors, MOE officers at the county level are responsible for monitoring the program, 
mobilizing communities, and supervising day-to-day implementation.
28. Several evaluations were undertaken during the period under the FFE-615-2013/041-00 
agreement (2013-2016). A baseline was conducted from May to July 2014, a mid-term 
evaluation in October 201545 covering the period September 2013 to Dec 2014 and the final 
evaluation was launched in June 2016 . In addition to this, an evaluation of the transitional Cash 
Transfer to Schools (CTS) pilot in Isiolo County was done in 201546. In 2017, a baseline was done 
for this current grant. The substantive findings and methodological lessons generated from the 
above evaluations and baseline will feed into the midterm and final evaluation. The midterm
44 See Annex 1: Results framework 45 https://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/Kimetrica%20%20-
%20SFP%20Kenya%20Mid%20TerM%20Evaluation%20final%20final%2016%20Oct%20%2715%20Final.pdf
46https://www.wfp.org/sites/default/files/External%20Evaluation%20of%20WFPs%20Cash%20Transfers%20to%20Sch
ools%20Pilot%20Project.pdf
| P a g e 62
evaluation will be guided by the WFP Evaluation Policy 2016-202147 and the USDA Monitoring 
and Evaluation Policy 201348.
Evaluation Approach
Scope
29. This evaluation will focus on McGovern-Dole-supported, WFP School feeding activities 
implemented from 2016 to 2020 in the arid counties of Baringo, Garissa, Mandera, Turkana, 
Wajir, West Pokot, Marsabit and Tana River. The evaluation team will use quasi experimental 
design developed during the projects baseline. The detailed methodology can be found in Annex
1. The methodology clearly outlines the sample design, sample size calculations that 
incorporates sex and age considerations, counterfactual group and method of analysis.
30. The evaluation will provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the performance of 
the school feeding project so that WFP and its partners can adjust course as necessary for the 
remainder of the project term. Specifically, the mid-term evaluation will (1) review the project’s 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and sustainability; (2) collect performance 
indicator data for strategic objectives and higher-level results; (3) assess whether the project is 
on track to meet the results and targets and (4) identify any necessary mid-course corrections. 
The evaluation will be conducted during the 2018 second school term, while schools are in 
session i.e. from May 2018, the same time period as the baseline
31. The evaluation will also focus on the implementation of the program with the evaluation findings 
targeted at adjustments or program management decisions aimed at helping improve 
implementation. As such, the evaluation will look at interim or anticipated results, partnerships, 
implementation arrangements and systems, and any factors affecting the results achieved at the 
mid-point.
Evaluation Criteria and Questions
32. The evaluation will assess the project for relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and 
sustainability, appropriateness, coherence, coverage and connectedness. In all applicable areas, 
the assessment will consider gender elements through collection of sex disaggregated data, as 
far as possible. The table below provides key evaluation questions relevant to these focus areas, 
and the relevant data sources:
Table 3: Preliminary Key Mid-term Evaluation Questions
Focus Area Key Questions Data Source
Relevance To what extent is the programme approach and activities 
relevant to the Government and other key stakeholders?
To what extent is the activity aligned with WFP, partner UN 
agency and donor policies and priorities?
Is the package of interventions coherent and relevant? 
Is the investment in the right, relevant areas?
To what extent is WFP’s activity coherent with key 
policies/programming of other partners operating in the 
context?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
47 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/eb/wfP277482.pdf 48 http://www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/evalpol.pdf
| P a g e 63
Effectiveness To what extent are the outcomes or objectives of the 
intervention likely to be achieved?
What are the major factors influencing progress in achievement 
or non-achievement of the outcomes/objectives of the 
intervention?
To what extent does the intervention deliver results various 
groups of beneficiaries
Monitoring data 
Document review
key informant intervie 
with stakeholders
Efficiency Is the programme implemented in a timely way?
Are the activities cost-efficient? Is the programme implemented 
in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? Were the 
project strategies efficient in terms of financial and human 
resource inputs as compared to outputs?
Does the monitoring system efficiently meet the needs and 
requirements of the project?
What are the management strengths, including technical and 
financial, of this project?
Monitoring data 
Document review
key informant intervie 
with stakeholders
Impact What are the medium term effects?
What are the medium term effects of transition and handover?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
Sustainability To what extent is the government taking ownership of the 
programme? (e.g. demonstrated commitment and contribution 
to the programme);
What is the demonstrated capacity at central and sub-national 
levels to manage the programme?
How are local communities involved in and contributing to the 
implementation of the programme?
Is the HGSMP adequately funded? Was disbursement of cash to 
schools for the purchase of food under HGSMP done in atimely 
manner and at an adequate level?
Has the policy framework supporting the HGSMP been 
strengthened within the project period?
What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non￾achievement of sustainability of the program?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
Monitoring data
Complaints and 
Feedback Mechanism 
data
General What are lessons learned from the project up to this point?
Are there any recommendations for mid-course corrections to 
improve the project’s relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, 
and sustainability?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
Appropriateness Is the intervention approach chosen the best way to meet the 
food security/nutrition needs of beneficiaries and the capacity 
gaps of key institutions?
Are the adopted transfer modalities and choice of 
complementary activities the best way of meeting beneficiary 
needs?
Are protection needs met?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
| P a g e 64
To what extent is the intervention based on a sound gender 
analysis? To what extent is the design and implementation of 
the intervention gender-sensitive?
Connectedness To what extent has the programme been situated within an 
analysis of longer-term and interconnected problems ofthe 
context?
To what extend has the project successfully coordinated and 
collaborated with key stakeholders including the Government of 
Kenya, NGOs, other international organizations and the private 
sector?
To what extend had the project collaborated with partners and 
leveraged complementary resources by collaborating with the 
USAID-supported MOE-led literacy program Tusome, 
UNICEF’s child friendly schools and school infrastructure 
activities and the Ministry of Health’s de-worming programs? 
What impact have these collaborations had, if any, on the 
implementation of the school feeding programme, the school 
environment and on learning?
Document review, key 
informant interviews 
with stakeholders, foc 
group discussions with 
communities
Data Availability
33. The evaluation will entail qualitative and quantitative primary data collection that the evaluation 
team will be responsible for as per the PMP (See annex 4 and annex 1). The primary data will be 
complemented by available secondary information and data. The following is a list of data and 
or information available for the evaluation team. It is expected that the team will expand this at 
inception phase.
 Baseline study reportfor the USDA Word Food Programme McGovern -Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program’s Support in Kenya from 2016 to2020
 Evaluation, mid-term and final evaluation reports for FFE-615-2013/041-00 Kenya
 Kenya Country Programme 200680 (2014-2018) project document and log frame
 School feeding handbook
 WFP School feeding policy
 2016 and 2017 Standard Project Reports (SPRs).
 Strategy to Strengthen & Expand the Home Grown School Meals (HGSM) Programme into 
the Arid Lands of Kenya (Validated version 2013)
 USDA commitment letter for Agreement
 Evaluation Plan
 Government of Kenya Education related policies and strategies
 UWEZO annual reports
 Process monitoring reports
34. Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should:
• Assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding on the 
information provided in section 4. This assessment will inform the data collection
• Systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information 
and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
Methodology
| P a g e 65
35. This evaluation will build on the methodology including a quasi-experimental design developed 
and used for the baseline study included in this TOR as Annex 1 and detailed in the baseline 
inception report that will be provided to the evaluation team. The Research question and 
testable hypotheses that underpin the quasi –experimental design will allow WFP, USDA and 
its partners to examine whether the baseline, mid-term and end-term primary education 
outcomes (literacy and numeracy levels) and other educational indicators (enrolment, 
attendance, completion, parental involvement, etc.) are the same in schools included in 
WFP/USDA-McGovern-Dole school meals programme (2016 -2020) as those not included. This 
will be done through testing of four different hypotheses at Mid-term and End term evaluation 
for each indicator (see detailed baseline methodology in annex 1)
36. The evaluation team will enhance the methodology during inception phase to ensure it 
addresses additional data requirements for this evaluation.
37. The evaluation will also take a programme theory approach49 based on the results framework. 
This will ensure that the follow up results for all the indicators contained in the results 
framework are obtained. This is important as it will show progress in achieving set results at 
mid-term.
38. The evaluation will use mixed methods and triangulate information from different methods and 
sources to enhance the reliability of findings. In particular, the evaluation will combine 
qualitative and quantitative approaches to collect data and information from both treatment and 
comparison groups. Separate questionnaires will be applied to the different primary sources of 
information, focusing on infrastructure, staff, enrolment and attendance, exam scores, 
completion rates and community involvement in the programme.
39. The qualitative component of the evaluation will seek to maximize participation of local 
stakeholders. This should be done through key informant interviews and focus groups with head 
teachers, school management committee members, pupils, and education and other 
government officers.
40. The methodology will be enhanced and fully developed by the evaluation team at inception 
phase. In doing this, the evaluation team consider challenges and or risks and their mitigation 
measures for the evaluation e.g. access challenges to some of the project areas due to security 
related issues. The final methodology will be expected to:
 Demonstrate impartiality and lack of bias by relying on a cross-section of information sources 
(stakeholder groups, beneficiaries, etc.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to 
demonstrate impartiality.
 Using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) to ensure triangulation of 
information.
 Ensure through the use of mixed methods that women, girls, men and boys from different 
stakeholder’s groups participate and that their different voices are heard and incorporated into 
the evaluation process. This may include, for example conducting female-only focus groups so 
that women feel comfortable and encouraged to participate.
 Take into account data availability challenges, budget and timing constraints.
 Mainstream gender equality and women’s empowerment as per WFP’s evaluation principle of 
Gender equality.50
Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment
49 A programme theory explains how an intervention (a project, a programme, a policy, a strategy) is understood to 
contribute to a chain of results that produce the intended or actual impacts. It is represented by a log frame, results 
framework or theory of change. The approach looks into how the intervention is contributing to the chain of results 
presented in the results framework.
50 http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/reports/wfP279331.pdf (pg 11)
| P a g e 66
41. 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. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) 
and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the international 
evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to 
best practice.
42. DEQAS will be systematically applied, to this evaluation. The evaluation Manager will be 
responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Step by Step Process 
Guide and for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their 
finalization.
43. WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This 
includes Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation/evaluation products. The 
Checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and 
outputs.
44. In addition, to enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an external reviewer 
directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter will provide:
a) systematic feedback on the quality of the draft inception and evaluation reports; and
b) Recommendations on how to improve the quality of the evaluation.
45. This quality assurance process does not interfere with the views and independence of the 
evaluation team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and 
convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
46. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and 
accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be 
assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive 
on disclosure of information. This is available in WFP’s Directive (#CP2010/001) on 
Information Disclosure.
Phases and Deliverables
47. The evaluation will proceed through the 5 following phases.
Date Mid-term Evaluation Activity
January –April2018
(First term)
Prepare phase:
 Draft terms of reference (WFP)
 finalize provisions for impartiality/independence (WFP)
 Quality assure, consult (WFP, USDA, GOK) and finalize TOR
 Select and Recruit evaluation team (WFP).
April –May 2018 (First 
term school holiday)
Inception phase:
 Conduct evaluation team orientation (EM)
 Desk review of key project documents (evaluation team)
 Conduct inception meetings (Evaluation team)
 Prepare draft inception report (Evaluation team)
 Quality assure the inception report (EM)
 Circulate, finalize and approve inception report (WFP)
May -June 2018
(Second term)
Data collection phase:
 Prepare evaluation field work (evaluators/WFP)
 Conduct field work and preliminary analysis (evaluators)
 Present end of fieldwork debriefing (evaluators)
July – August 2018
(Second term)
Data analysis and reporting phase:
 Prepare draft evaluation report(evaluators)
 Quality assure draft evaluation report(EM)
 Circulate draft ER to stakeholders for comments (EM)
| P a g e 67
 Finalize the evaluation report (Evaluators)
 Submit the final report for approval (EM)
September onwards Dissemination follow-up:
 Conduct workshop to share evaluation findings with key stakeholders 
(WFP)
 Share evaluation findings with USDA (WFP)
 Prepare management response (WFP)
 Implement any required project changes (WFP)
 Publish report and management response (WFP)
 Track the implementation of follow up actions to theevaluation 
recommendations (WFP , M&E unit/RB)
48.WFP anticipates finalizing the evaluation data collection by June 2018 and submitting the final 
report by the 17th August as detailed in Annex 5. This timeline is very tight, and does not 
include any flexibility or delays by any party. It will also require both the 
Evaluation committee and the Reference Group to provide their comments in a 
week as opposed to the required two weeks. Should there be required changes to 
timelines for report submission due to unforeseen issues, WFP will contact USDA 
to discuss a revised timeline.
The expected deliverables from the evaluation are the following:
a) Inception report written following WFP recommended template. The report should include but 
not limited to:
• Detailed evaluation design, sampling methodology, and sample size calculations.
• Quality Assurance Plan
• Detailed work plan, including, timeline and activities
• Bibliography of documents/secondary data sources utilised;
• Final data collection tools, data bases, analysis plan
b) Power-point on methodology, overall survey plan, timeline and activities
c) Final report, including a first draft, and a final report using WFP recommended template which 
gives guidance on what to be included in each of the following report sections : Executive 
summary, Introduction, Evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations. Annexes to the 
final report include but not limited to a copy of the final ToR, bibliography, list of sampled 
schools, detailed sampling methodology, Maps, A list of all meetings and participants, final 
survey instruments etc.
d) Clean data sets
e) Transcripts from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, etc.
f) Table of all standard and custom indicator follow up values
g) List of supported schools
h) Power-point presentation of main findings and conclusions for de-briefing and dissemination 
purposes
Organization of the Evaluation
Evaluation Conduct
49. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader (See 
annex 8 on evaluation team organization) and in close communication with the evaluation 
manager appointed by WFP senior deputy country director in accordance to the WFP evaluation 
guidelines.
50. The team members will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject 
of evaluation or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect 
the code of conduct of the evaluation profession.
| P a g e 68
Team composition and competencies
51. The Team Leader should be a senior evaluator with at least 20 years of experience in research, 
evaluation and or evaluation with demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary and 
mixed quantitative and qualitative method evaluations, complemented with good 
understanding of School Meals programme, experience in implementing evaluations with a 
quasi-experimental designs and additional significant experience in other development and 
management positions. Where possible the same team as that of evaluation will be maintained. 
The team leader should have experience working in Kenya.
52. The Team leader will also have expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and 
demonstrated experience in leading similar studies or evaluations. She/he will also have 
leadership and communication skills, including a track record of excellent writing and 
presentation skills. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) refining 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, 
the end of field work i.e. (exit)debriefing presentation and evaluation report.
53. The team must include strong demonstrated knowledge of qualitative and quantitative data, 
statistical analysis and experience with quasi experimental designs. It should include both 
women and men and at least one team member should be familiar with McGovern-Dole and 
with USDA’s M&E Policy.
54. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate 
balance of expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas:
• Education
• Quantitative methods specifically quasi experimental designs (Statistician)
• Nutrition
• Food security
• Gender
• Capacity development
55. The team will be able to communicate and write in English and have team members with ability 
to communicate in Swahili.
56. All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation 
experience and familiarity with Kenya or the Horn of Africa and at least 5 years’ experience in 
evaluation /research work.
57. 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.
58. 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).
59. All members of the evaluation team will abide by the Code of Conduct for evaluators (Attached 
to individual contracts), ensuring they maintain impartiality and professionalism, adhere to the 
UNEG ethical guidelines and other ethical consideration as detailed in Annex 1.
Security Considerations
60. Security clearance: where required is to be obtained from WFP Kenya office.
• Since the consultants will be hired through the HR option, they will be covered by the UN 
Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff 
and consultants contracted directly by WFP.
| P a g e 69
• The consultants will be required to obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling from 
designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the 
Field courses in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.51
61. However, to avoid any security incidents, the evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that:
• The WFP Country Office (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.
Roles and Responsibilities ofStakeholders 
The Kenya Country Office:
The Kenya country Office management (Senior Deputy Country director) will take responsibility 
to:
• Appoint an Evaluation Manager in line with WFP evaluation guidelines
• Compose the internal evaluation committee and the reference group
• Approve the final TOR, inception and evaluation reports
• Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages
• Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the 
evaluation subjects with the evaluation Manager and the evaluation e team
• Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external 
stakeholders
• Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes
Evaluation Manager: This evaluation is managed by WFP Kenya. Head of M&E unit has 
been appointed EM. The EM has not managed or implemented subject of evaluation in the
past.
• Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
• Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational
• Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the 
evaluation team
• Ensures expected use of relevant quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality 
support etc.)
• Ensure that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the 
evaluation; facilitate the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; set up meetings, field 
visits; provide logistic support during the fieldwork; and arrange for interpretation, if 
required.
• Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials asrequired
62. An Internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence 
and impartiality of the evaluation. The membership includes evaluation manager, technical unit 
in charge of school feeding programme, VAM, Senior deputy country director (Chair), and WFP 
Nairobi Regional Bureau Evaluation officer. The key roles and responsibilities of this team, 
includes providing input to evaluation process and commenting on evaluation products.
51 Field Courses: Basic https://dss.un.org/bsitf/; Advanced http://dss.un.org/asitf
| P a g e 70
63. An evaluation reference group has been formed, as appropriate, with representation from 
USDA/FAS, Ministry of Education , WFP Regional office and WFP Country office and will review 
the evaluation products as further safeguard against bias and influence.
64. Independent evaluation team: Under the leadership of the evaluation team leader, the 
evaluation team will be responsible for undertaking the evaluation, as per this TOR, 
independently. The evaluation team will select and interview staff from the Country Office. The 
team will also have contact with CO staff who are members of the Reference Group (RG) during 
inception and dissemination. The CO staff who are members of the RG will be required to 
provide comments on the evaluation products. The responsibilities of the evaluation manager 
are clearly stated above and will, in addition to other provisions for impartiality already put in 
place, ensure the evaluation is implemented as per the WFP decentralized evaluation quality 
assurance system. Any support e.g. logistical support, that will be required from by the 
evaluation team from the CO will be discussed with evaluation manager who will in turn follow 
up and organize with CO.
65. Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, and UN agencies) will be identified for interviews 
by the evaluation team in addition to the list provided by WFP Kenya which will be based on the 
preliminary stakeholder analysis detailed in table 1.
Communication and Budget
Communication
66. To enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on 
transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These may for example take place 
by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between 
key stakeholders.
67. Communication with evaluation team and stakeholders should go through the evaluation 
manager.
68. WFP will discuss the report with USDA and disseminate the findings and recommendations in 
various ways, including through discussions with WFP senior management and staff as well as 
with the key partners including the Ministry of Education, non-governmental partners and 
United Nations agencies and publication of both the report and management response.
69. The midterm evaluation report will be made public, per the USDA Monitoring and Evaluation 
Policy and WFP evaluation policy. The published version will be free from proprietary and 
personal identifying information.
Budget
70. The evaluation will be financed from WFP’s Country Programme (CP) 200680 budget under the 
line item USDA Mid-term Evaluation budget. The budget is sufficient for the evaluation.
| P a g e 71
| P a g e 72
Annex 2 – Map
73 | P a g e
Annex 3 – Agreed Performance Monitoring Framework
DRAFT Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP)
Kenya FY 16 Award
*NOTE: The first section includes results and performance indicators. The second section includes activities and activity outpu 
indicators. There is some overlap between the two sections where output indicators are also result indicators.
Performance Indicator 
and Activity output 
ndicator Indicator Definition and 
Unit of Measurement
Data 
Source
Method/
Approach of Data 
Collection or 
Calculation
Data Collection 
When Who
Analysis, Use and Reportin 
Why Who
Result: MGD SO1 Improved Literacy of School-Age Children
roportion of 7-13 years olds that 
an solve Class 2 numeracy and 
iteracy problems
Outcome Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization:
UWEZO, USAID, Tusome Project 
articipants)
Number of individuals benefiting 
irectly from USDA-funded 
nterventions
This indicator measures the 
proportion of children ages 7-13 that 
have attained literacy and numeracy 
at a Standard 2 level
Unit of measure: Percentage 
Disaggregation: TBD
This indicator measures the number 
of individuals directly benefitting 
from USDA-funded interventions.
UWEZO annual 
reports
WFP standard 
Project reports,
Review of UWEZO data
Review and analysis of 
project records and reports
Baseline, 
Midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Annually 
and 
quarterly
External 
evaluators
WFP and MOE
Indicates whether 
children’s’ literacy 
and numeracy 
learning outcomes 
are being 
achieved through 
the USAID-funded 
Tusome project.
This project 
overlaps with 
USDA McGovern￾Dole-targeted 
counties and the 
schools are being 
co-located for the 
achievement of 
MGD SO1
Indicates the 
breadth and scale 
of the project's
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners ,
74 | P a g e
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP and
MOE)
These individuals must come into 
direct contact with project 
interventions (i.e. goods or services).
Direct beneficiaries include: children, 
teachers, school administrators, 
parents, cooks, storekeepers, farmers, 
and government staff.
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender, 
new and continuing.
School termly 
reports
impact in the 
target districts
To inform annual 
review meetings 
with education 
stakeholders
To inform annual 
reporting to 
USDA and WFP 
HQ
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of individuals benefiting 
ndirectly from USDA-funded 
nterventions
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP and
MOE)
This indicator measures the number 
of individuals indirectly benefitting 
from USDA-funded interventions. 
These individuals will not come into 
direct contact with project 
interventions but will benefit 
tangentially.
Indirect beneficiaries assumed for 
this project are siblings of children 
receiving school meals and parents of 
children who are not direct 
beneficiaries through PTA training
Unit of measure: individuals
Survey: 
Household/pare 
nt interviews
Interviews with parents to 
determine the average 
number of children per 
household going to school. 
The average household size 
in target areas is known.
Indirect 
beneficiaries=Number of 
HH * (HH size- average 
number of children per HH 
going to school)
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
Indicates the 
breadth and scale 
of the project's 
impact.
To inform annual 
review meetings 
with education 
stakeholders
To inform annual 
reporting to 
USDA and WFP 
HQ
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Data will be disaggregated by gender
75 | P a g e
Result: MGD 1.2.1 Reduced Short-Term Hunger
Number of daily school meals 
breakfast, snack, lunch) provided 
o school-age children as a result
f USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP,
MOE)
This indicator measures the total number 
of school meals provided to students in 
MGD-supported schools, as reported by 
school managers and cooperating 
partners.
Unit of measure: no. of meals
WFP and MOE 
project records, 
School Termly 
Reports
Review and analysis of 
project records and 
reports
Bi annual 
and Annual, 
monthly 
reports by 
MOE, daily 
school 
records
School 
Administrators, 
WFP
To measure the 
number of school 
meals given to 
students.
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of school-aged children 
eceiving daily school meals 
breakfast, snack, lunch) as a 
esult of USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization:
WFP,MOE)
This indicator measures the total 
number of students receiving a daily 
cooked meal per year over the life of 
the project, as reported by school 
managers and CPs
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender, 
new and continuing
WFP and MOE 
project records, 
School records
Review and analysis of 
project records and 
reports
Bi annual 
and Annual, 
monthly 
reports by 
MOE, daily 
school 
records
School 
Administrators, 
WFP
To measure the 
percentage of 
students reached 
with a daily 
school meal
WFP, MOE Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
ercent of students in target 
chools who regularly consume a 
meal before the school day
This indicator measures what 
percentage of children receive a meal 
at home prior to the school meal at 
lunch time.
Survey: Parent 
interviews
Primary data collection by 
asking parents from 
sampled schools if their 
children eat before going to
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To measure the 
percentage of 
children who may 
experience short￾WFP, MOE Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme
ercent of students in classrooms 
dentified as inattentive by their 
eachers
Outcome Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP,
MOE)
This indicator measures the percentage of 
students in any given classroom that is 
identified as inattentive by the teacher.
Unit of measure: percent
Survey: Teachers 
interviews
Primary data collection by 
asking teachers of the 
sampled schools their 
perception of the share of 
students that appeared 
inattentive in classes
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To determine 
whether the 
interventions have 
had an effect on 
students’ ability to 
be attentive.
WFP, MoE, Don
development an 
NGO partners, 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
76 | P a g e
Outcome Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
Unit of measure: percent school and if yes, how often
i.e. always, sometimes or 
never.
term hunger 
resulting in lack of 
concentration as a 
result of not 
taking a meal 
before going to 
school
of Kenya 
institutions
ercent of students in target 
chools who regularly consume a 
meal during the school day
Outcome Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures what 
percentage of children receive a meal 
during the school day.
Unit of measure: percent
WFP and MOE 
project records, 
School records
Review and analysis of 
project records and 
reports complemented 
by monitoring reports
Bi annual 
and Annual, 
monthly 
reports by 
MOE daily 
collection by 
school
School 
Administrators
To measure 
percentage of 
students regularly 
reached with a 
daily school meal
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: MGD 1.2.1.1/1.3.1.1.Increased Access to Food (School Feeding)
Number of social assistance 
eneficiaries participating in 
roductive safety nets as a result 
f USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number 
of students who consume a daily meal 
at school
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by new, 
continuing and gender.
WFP and MOE 
project records, 
School records
Review and analysis of 
project records and 
reports
Bi annual 
and Annual, 
monthly 
reports by 
MOE, daily 
collection by 
school
School 
Administrators, 
WFP
To measure the 
number of 
students reached 
with a daily 
school meal
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
otal quantity of commodities 
rovided to students as a result of
USDA assistance.
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the total 
amount of commodities that have 
been provided as a part of this USDA￾funded intervention.
Unit of measure: MT
WFP Logistics 
Data
WFP analysis of reports Bi-annual 
report; 
quarterly
WFP To measure the 
quantity of 
commodities that 
have been 
imported and are 
to be distributed.
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: MGD 1.3 Improved Student Attendance
Number of students regularly This indicator measures the number School records Collection and analysis Baseline, Independent To track progress WFP, MOE, Don
80%) attending USDA supported of students in MGD-supported of students attendance midterm, consultants towards improved development an
lassrooms/schools schools who attend classes at least 80 data from school and final student NGO partners ,
percent of the time that school is in attendance records for a evaluation attendance
77 | P a g e
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP)
session, as reported by school 
directors
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
sample of students in 
sampled schools
other Governme 
of Kenya institu
Result: MGD 1.3.4 Increased Student Enrolment
Number of students enrolled in 
chools receiving USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number 
of students officially registered in 
MGD-supported primary schools in a 
given school year.
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
School records Collection and analysis 
of school records on 
enrolment
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation. 
Termly by 
schools, 
termly by 
WFP
through 
mVAM
Independent 
consultants, 
WFP, MOE
To track progress 
towards increasing 
student enrolment
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya institu
Result: MGD 1.3.5 Increased Community Understanding of Benefits of Education
ercent of parents in target 
ommunities who can name at 
east three benefits of primary 
ducation
Performance Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the percentage of 
parents who can name at least three 
benefits of primary education
Unit of measure: percent
Survey: Parent 
interviews
Primary data collection by 
asking parents from 
sampled schools to name at 
least three benefits of 
primary education
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To track 
communities 
understanding of 
engagement with 
their communities 
education system 
and services.
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
78 | P a g e
Number of county-level inter￾ministerial committees for 
HGSMP established
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the 
Number of county-level inter￾ministerial committees for HGSMP 
established at county level
Unit of measure: Number of committees
Committee 
meetings 
minutes
Review of committee 
minutes
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To track progress of 
strengthening 
governance and 
multi-sectoral 
coordination and 
collaboration for the 
school meals 
programme at 
county level
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of national-level inter￾ministerial coordination 
ommittees for HGSMP 
stablished
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the 
Number of county-level inter￾ministerial committees for HGSMP 
established at national level
Unit of measure: Number of committees
Committee 
meetings 
minutes
Review of committee 
minutes
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To track progress 
of strengthening 
governance and 
multi-sectoral 
coordination and 
collaboration for 
the school meals 
programme at 
national level
WFP, MOE Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: MGD 1.4.2/2.7.2 Improved Policy and Regulatory Framework
Number of educational policies, 
egulations, and/or
dministrative procedures in each 
f the following stages of 
evelopment as a result of USDA 
ssistance (Stage 5)
This indicator measures the number of 
policies/regulations/administrative 
procedures in the various stages of 
progress towards an enhanced enabling 
environment for education.
Specifically, this includes:
Government of 
Kenya policy 
related reports
Review and analysis of 
GOK policy related 
documents
Annual,
Baseline, 
Midterm 
and final 
evaluations
Independent 
consultants, 
WFP; MOE
To track progress 
made following 
advocacy and 
dialogue related 
activities to ensure
adequate and regular
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP, MOE)
1. School Nutrition and Meals Strategy
2. Revised HGSMP Guidelines
budget allocations
and maintain 
political
commitment to the
Unit of measure: no. of policies in process programme
and relevant stage
79 | P a g e
Number of child health and 
utrition policies, regulations, 
nd/or administrative procedures 
n each of the following stages of 
evelopment as a result of USDA 
ssistance (Stage 5)
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP, MOE)
This indicator measures the number of 
policies/regulations/administrative 
procedures in the various stages of 
progress towards an enhanced enabling 
environment for education.
Specifically, this includes:
1. School Health Policy (revised)
Unit of measure: no. of policies in process 
and relevant stage
Government of 
Kenya policy 
related reports
Review and analysis of 
GOK policy related 
documents
Annual,
Baseline, 
Midterm 
and final 
evaluations
Independent 
consultants, 
WFP; MOE
To track progress 
made following 
advocacy and 
dialogue related 
activities to ensure 
adequate and regular 
budget allocations 
and maintain 
political 
commitment to the 
programme
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: MGD 1.4.3/2.7.3 Increased Government Support
Value of new public and private 
ector investments leveraged as a 
esult of USDA assistance
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP, MOE)
This indicator measures the value of 
public sector resources intended to 
complement USDA-funded activities –
specifically the increased government 
investment in the HGSMP.
Unit of measure: US Dollar
Data will be disaggregated by type of 
investment
WFP and GOK 
project reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Baseline, 
Midterm 
and final 
evaluations, 
Annual
Independent 
consultants, 
WFP
To measure level of 
complementary 
support of the 
project outside of 
USDA funding.
WFP, MOE Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of public-private partnerships 
ormed as a result of USDA assistance
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP, MOE)
This indicator measures the number of 
private partnerships generated in CTS 
counties during the transition year.
Unit of measure: no of partnerships 
(suppliers/small traders, farmer 
organisations)
WFP reports; 
school tender 
data
Review and analysis of 
project records and 
reports
Annual WFP To measure level of 
complementary 
support of the 
project outside of 
USDA funding.
WFP, MOE Don
development 
partners, count 
governments; 
communities.
Result: MGD 1.4.4/2.7.4 Increased Engagement of Local Organizations and Community Groups
80 | P a g e
Number of Parent-Teacher 
Associations (PTAs) or similar 
school” governance structures 
upported as a result of USDA 
ssistance
Performance Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number of 
schools that benefit from the 
establishment and training of PTAs
Unit of measure: No. of school 
governance structures
School and 
project records
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To measure the 
effects of the 
project on 
promoting the 
capacity of 
organizations at 
school level
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: SO 2 Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices
ercent of schools in target 
ounties that store food off the 
round
Performance Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the 
number of schools where food is 
stored off the ground
Unit of measure: No. of school
Survey reports, 
Monitoring 
reports
School stores will be 
observed to check if food 
has been stored off the 
ground.
Baseline, 
Midterm and 
final 
evaluations, 
monthly 
through 
monthly 
monitoring 
visits at 
school level
Independent 
Consultants, WFP 
and MOE
To measure the 
effects of promoting 
good hygiene and 
health practises,
WFP, MOE, Don
development and 
partners , other 
Government of K 
institutions
Result: MGD 2.2 Increased Knowledge of Safe Food Prep and Storage Practices
ercent of food preparers at 
arget schools who achieve a
assing score on a test of safe food 
reparation and storage
Outcome indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the 
percentage of food preparers (cooks) 
at school who achieve a passing score 
on a test of safe food preparation and 
storage
Unit of measure: individuals
Survey report: 
Results of tests 
administered to 
cooks
Primary data collection by 
administering a test on safe 
food preparation and 
storage to cooks in 
representative sampled 
schools
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To measure effects 
of promoting safe 
food preparation and 
storage practices
WFP, MOE, Don
development and 
partners , other 
Government of K 
institutions
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Result: MGD 2.3 Increased Knowledge of Nutrition
81 | P a g e
Number of schools benefitting from 
utrition and hygiene education
Output indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the number of 
schools benefitting from nutrition and 
hygiene education
Unit of measure: No. of school
project reports Review and analysis of 
project reports
Quarterly, 
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE To measure number 
of schools that have 
received nutrition 
and hygiene related 
education
WFP, MOE, Don
development and 
partners , other 
Government of K 
institutions
Number of individuals trained in 
hild health and nutrition as a 
esult of USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
Total number of individuals trained 
in health and nutrition in MGD￾supported schools and communities, 
including Canteen Management Staff 
and School Management Committee 
members.
Unit of Measure: Individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Termly
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE Enables to know 
the number of 
people in 
communities’ 
target who have 
knowledge in 
health and 
nutrition. Sentinel 
indicator for 
project theory of 
change: people 
trained shared 
nutrition and 
health 
information 
through 
communities
WFP, MOE, Don
development an
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Result: MGD 2.6 Increased Access to Requisite Food Prep and Storage Tools
Number of target schools with 
ncreased access to improved food 
rep and storage equipment 
kitchens, storerooms, stoves, 
itchen utensils)
This indicator measures the number of 
schools fully supplied with new or 
rehabilitated kitchens, storerooms, fuel￾efficient stoves and kitchen utensils
Unit of measure: no. of schools
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project reports
Quarterly, 
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE To track s progress 
towards improving 
access to food prep 
and storage 
equipment
WFP, MOE, Don
, development a 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Output indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
Activity 1: Provide School Meals
82 | P a g e
Activity 2: Build the Capacity of National and County-level Actors to Manage School Feeding Programs
Number of parents trained or 
ertified as a result of USDA 
ssistance
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number of 
parents that have been trained as a result 
of USDA assistance
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To track progress in 
building capacity of 
school –level actors 
(BoM members) to 
manage school feeding 
programs
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of school administrators 
nd officials in target schools 
rained or certified as a result of 
USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This will measure the number of school 
head teachers trained on school meals 
programme management
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To track progress in 
building capacity of 
school head teachers 
to manage school 
feeding programs
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of school-aged children 
eceiving daily school meals 
breakfast, snack, lunch) as a 
esult of USDA assistance
This indicator measures the total number 
of students receiving a daily cooked meal 
per year over the life of the project, as
reported by school managers and CPs
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project reports
Monthly, 
quarterly 
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE To measure the 
success of school 
meals at reducing
short term hunger
WFP, MOE Dono
development and 
partners , other
Government of Ke
Output Indicator: Standard; 
Organization: WFP, MOE) Unit of measure: individuals
institutions
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
83 | P a g e
Number of county-level officials 
rained or certified as a result of 
USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This will measure the number of 
education officials trained on school 
meals programme management
Unit of measure: individuals
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To track progress in 
building capacity of 
school head teachers 
to manage school 
feeding programs
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners 
other Governme 
of Kenya
institutions
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Number of school administrators 
nd officials in target schools who 
emonstrate use of new
echniques or tools as a result of 
USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This will measure the number of school 
head teachers trained on school meals 
programme management
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To track progress in 
building capacity of 
school head teachers 
to manage school 
feeding programs
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of county-level officials in 
arget schools who demonstrate 
se of new techniques or tools as a 
esult of USDA assistance
Output Indicator: Standard; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This will measure the number of 
education officials trained on school 
meals programme management
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender.
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual WFP and MOE To track progress in 
building capacity of 
school head teachers 
to manage school 
feeding programs
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Activity 3: Raise Awareness on the importance of Education
Number of radio spots held
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the number of 
radio spots held to pass messages on 
benefits of education. These will target 
communities where the programme is 
implemented
Project reports Review and analysis of 
project reports
Monthly, 
Quarterly, 
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE To track the number 
of radio spots held
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
84 | P a g e
Unit of measure: number of radio spots
Number of community members 
enefiting from radio spots
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
Number of posters, fliers, leaflets 
istributed
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the number of 
community members in targeted counties 
(Baringo, Garissa, Mandera, Turkana, 
Wajir and West Pokot) reached through 
radio spots with messages on benefits of 
education.
This indicator will measure the number 
of posters, fliers, leaflets distributed
Unit of measure: number of posters, 
fliers, leaflets
Project reports
project reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Monthly, 
Quarterly, 
Bi-annual
Termly
Bi-annual
WFP and MOE
WFP and MOE
To track the number 
of community 
members reached 
through the radio 
spots
To track number of 
posters, fliers, 
leaflets distributed
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Activity 4: Build/Rehabilitate: Kitchens, Cook Areas and Other School Grounds or Buildings
Number of educational 
acilities (i.e. school buildings, 
lassrooms, and latrines) 
ehabilitated/constructed as a 
esult of USDA assistance
Output Indicator: standard; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the 
number of kitchens and /or storage 
facilities constructed as a result of 
USDA assistance
Unit of measure: number of kitchens
project reports 
complemented 
by monitoring 
reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Bi-annual, 
monthly 
monitoring 
reports
WFP and MOE To track number of 
kitchens constructed
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Activity 5: Provide Energy-Saving Stoves to Schools
85 | P a g e
Number of energy saving jikos 
nstalled in schools as a result of 
USDA assistance
Output indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
ThisindicatorwillmeasuretheNumber 
of energy saving jikos installed in 
schools as a result of USDA 
assistance
Unit of measure: number of energy 
saving jikos
project reports 
complemented 
by monitoring 
reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Bi-annual, 
monthly 
monitoring 
reports
WFP and MOE To track number of 
energy saving jikos 
installed at school 
level
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Activity 6: Conduct Awareness Campaigns and Trainings on Nutrition and Hygiene
Number schools benefitting from 
utrition education and hygiene
Output Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number 
of schools benefitting from nutrition 
and hygiene education
Unit of measure: number of schools
project reports 
complemented 
by monitoring 
reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Bi-annual, 
monthly 
monitoring 
reports
WFP and MOE To track the 
number of schools 
benefitting from 
nutrition 
education and 
hygiene
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Number of children benefitting 
rom nutrition education and 
ygiene
Output Indicator: Custom; 
esponsible Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number 
of children benefitting from nutrition 
and hygiene education
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender
project reports 
complemented 
by monitoring 
reports
Review and analysis of 
project reports
Bi-annual, 
monthly 
monitoring 
reports
WFP and MOE To track the 
number of 
children 
benefitting from 
nutrition 
education and 
hygiene
WFP, MOE, Don
development an 
NGO partners , 
other Governme 
of Kenya 
institutions
Activity 7: Empower the Community to Manage School Feeding Programs
Number of counties where 
eneficiary feedback has been has 
een incorporated into
ommunity training and 
wareness activities
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator will measure the number of 
counties where beneficiary feedback has 
been rolled out
Follow up to increase awareness on 
the helpline will include radio spots, 
public meetings and distribution of 
posters and leaflets
Unit of 
measure: 
Number of 
counties
project reports 
complemented by 
monitoring reports
Review 
and 
analysis of 
project 
reports
Quarterly, Bi￾annual, 
monthly 
monitoring 
reports
WFP and MOE To track the number 
of counties with 
beneficiary 
feedback 
mechanism in place
86 | P a g e
WFP, MOE Don
development an NGO partners , 
other Governme of Kenya 
institutions
87 | P a g e
t
t
Activity 8: Promote Food Safety and Quality in the HGSMP
Number of officials trained on food 
uality in HGSMP supply chain
Output Indicator: Custom; 
Organization: WFP, MOE)
This indicator measures the number 
of officials (County Public Health 
Officers, County School Meals 
Programme Officers, School Meals 
Procurement Committee and traders
)trained on food quality in HGSMP
supply chain
project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual, WFP and MOE To track to the 
number of officials 
trained on food 
quality in HGSMP 
supply chain.
WFP, MOE, Don
development and 
partners , other 
Government of K 
institutions
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender
Number of farmer organizations 
rained on food quality
This indicator measures the number of 
farmer organizations trained on food 
quality
Unit of measure: farmer organizations
project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual, WFP and MOE To track to the 
number of farmer
WFP, MOE, MO
Donors, developm
organizations and NGO partner
Output Indicator: Custom; trained on food other Governmen
Organization: WFP) quality Kenya institutions
Number of traders trained on food 
uality
This indicator measures the number of 
traders trained on food quality
Unit of measure: individuals
Data will be disaggregated by gender
project reports Review and analysis of 
project training reports
Bi-annual, WFP and MOE To track to the 
number of traders
WFP, MOE, MO
Donors , develop
trained on food and NGO partner
Output Indicator: Custom; quality other Governmen
Organization: WFP) Kenya institutions
88 | P a g e
Number of individuals who 
emonstrate use of new safe food 
reparation and
torage practices as a result of USDA 
ssistance
Outcome Indicator: Standard ; 
Organization: WFP)
This indicator measures the number of 
farmer organization, officials and traders 
applying improved food quality practises 
after undergoing training on food quality.
Unit of measure: Number of farmer 
organizations , officials and traders
Data will be disaggregated by farmer 
organizations, officials and traders
Survey reports 
complemented 
by project 
reports
Primary data collection 
through observation and 
interviewing traders and 
farmer organization 
representatives on what 
improved food quality 
practises they are 
applying that they did 
not before the training
Baseline, 
midterm, 
and final 
evaluation
Independent 
consultants
To measure 
effectiveness of the 
training
WFP, MoE, Dono 
development and 
partners, other 
Government of K 
institutions
Number of testing kits (Blue Boxes) 
istributed to public health officials
Output Indicator: Custom;
This indicator will measure the number of 
testing kits (Blue Boxes) distributed to 
public health officials
project reports Review and analysis of 
project reports and blue 
boxes distribution 
reports
Bi-annual, 
annual
WFP and MOH To track to the 
number of testing 
kits (Blue Boxes)
distributed to public
WFP, MOE,MOH
MOALF, Donors, 
development and 
partners, other
Organization: WFP) Unit of measure: Number of blue 
boxes
health officials Government of K 
institutions
89 | P a g e
Annex 4 – Logical framework
WFP Kenya FY2016 McGovern-Dole Proposal: Results Framework #1
90 | P a g e
Annex 5 – Evaluation matrix
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
KQ 1 – Relevance: How relevant is the programme?
1. To what extent is the programme 
approach and activities relevant to the 
Government?
• Degree of alignment of programme 
choices and approaches with strategies 
and approaches of Government
Interviews of education 
staff at national and 
county and sub-county 
levels
WFP staff 
Documentation review
• Compare needs as interpreted in 
the design and implementation of 
the programme with the 
interpretation of expert analytical 
informants and with normative 
documents of the Government
• Strength of evidence: good
2. To what extent is the activity aligned 
with WFP, partner UN agency and 
donor policies and priorities?
• Degree of alignment with strategies 
and normative guidance of WFP, UN 
agencies and donors
Interviews national 
level with WFP, other 
UN agencies, USDA
Documentation review 
including UNDAF 
planning and reporting
• Compare needs as 
interpreted in the design and 
implementation of the 
programme with the 
interpretation of expert 
analytical informants and with 
normative documents of this 
group of stakeholders
• Strength of evidence: good
3. Is the package of interventions coherent 
with the needs of boys, girls, and 
parents of school-age children?
• Extent the programme has been 
situated within an analysis of longer￾term and interconnected problems of 
the context
• Quality of the design in light ofthe 
context, policies and priorities
Interviews national 
level
Documentation review
• Compare needs as summarised 
in formal documentation with 
those expressed by target group.
• Strength of evidence: good
91 | P a g e
4. Is the investment in the right, relevant 
areas?
• Degree of satisfaction of different 
stakeholders with the priority areas of 
funding and intervention of the 
programme
Interviews at national, 
county, sub-county and 
school levels (KII’s)
• Triangulation among the views of
different categories of 
stakeholders, including 
beneficiaries.
• Strength of evidence: good
92 | P a g e
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
KQ 2 - Appropriateness: How Appropriate is the programme?
5. Is the intervention approach chosen the 
best way to meet the food 
security/nutrition needs of male and 
female beneficiaries and the capacity 
gaps of key institutions
• Choice of transfer modalities against 
analysis of the context and needs of 
beneficiaries
• Logic of complementarity between 
transfer modalities and other activities
Survey
School management, 
sub county officials 
(education and maybe 
nutrition and 
agriculture)
Beneficiaries (FGD’s)
Beneficiary and 
householdinterviews
• Triangulation among the views of
different categories of 
stakeholders, including 
beneficiaries.
• Strength of evidence: good
6. Are protection needs met for male and 
female beneficiaries?
• Analysis of programme design against 
WFP and UN policies on protection 
and accountability of affected 
populations
• Existence of a complaintsmechanism 
for beneficiaries
• Evidence that beneficiaries are not 
harmed by the intervention
Programme 
documents
WFP and UN 
corporate documents
Survey for existence of 
complaints mechanism
School Management 
Beneficiary interviews
• Triangulation between beneficiary 
views and with norms and 
standards of WFPand UN
• Strength of the evidence: good.
7. To what extent is the intervention based 
on a sound gender analysis? To what 
extent is the design and 
implementation of the intervention 
gender-sensitive?
• Analysis of programme priorities for 
attention to gender and equity
• Quality of gender and equity strategies 
compared to accepted standards 
(national, international and WFP)
• Interviews with Key Informants (KI) at 
county, sub-county and school level
• Survey population sample and 
participation reflects gender equality
Documentation review 
(programme 
documents, WFP and 
UN corporate 
documents)
School management
Survey (for the role of 
girls and boys and men 
and women in the
• Compare issues as summarised 
in formal documentation with 
those expressed by target group.
• Compare the views of GoK, 
WFP, other UN and donor
informants
• Strength of evidence: Good, 
documentation mostly 
available. Remaining 
information to be collected
93 | P a g e
through interviews.
94 | P a g e
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
implementation of the 
SMP)
KQ 3 – Effectiveness: What are the results of the programme?
8. To what extent are the outcomes or 
objectives of the intervention likely to 
be achieved and what have been the 
gender and equity dimensions of the 
programme's results?
• Comparison of outcome data 
(achievements) at midline with 
baseline values
Survey • Cross-check recorded output and
outcome data with 
programme/government 
documentation and informants in 
GoK and at schools visited in field
• Triangulate views on the key
outcomes between different 
informant groups
• WFP monitoring data and 
survey results will be 
triangulated to evaluate data 
reliability and consistency
• Strength of evidence: good
9. What are the major factors influencing 
progress in achievement or non￾achievement of the outputs 
outcomes/objectives of the 
intervention?
Analysis of:
• Internal factors (within control of 
programme) e.g. processes, systems, 
tools, capacity etc.
• External factors: the external 
environment, funding climate, etc.
Interviews at national, 
county, sub-county 
levels and school 
management 
(including PTA)
• Cross-check views of different
informants against performance 
of the programme
• Strength of evidence: good
95 | P a g e
10. To what extent does the intervention 
deliver results various groups of 
beneficiaries?
Analysis of beneficiary views on the 
results of the programme
Survey
Interviews and FGDs
• Cross-check recorded output and
outcome data with 
programme/government 
documentation and informants in 
GoK and at schools visited in field
• Triangulate views on the key
outcomes
between different informant groups
96 | P a g e
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
• Strength of evidence: good
KQ 4: Efficiency – How efficiently was the programme implemented?
11. Is the programme implemented in a 
timely way?
Analysis of:
• Timely availability of programme 
resources
• Timeliness of delivery
• Pipeline breaks
Project reporting
Survey (pipeline 
breaks)
School management
• Compare WFP data with records 
at school and county levels
• Strength of evidence: good
12. Are the activities cost-efficient? Is the 
programme implemented in the most 
efficient way compared to alternatives? 
Were the project strategies efficient in 
terms of financial and human resource 
inputs as compared to outputs?
Analysis of:
• Extent to which programme 
management practices and tools were 
adequate to implement the 
programme
• Cost-efficiency (relevant unit costs 
comparisons)
• Value for Money
Unit cost data
Value for Money (VfM 
analysis)
• Compare assessment by 
responsible WFP personnel and 
views of external stakeholders and 
observers and compare views at 
different levels
• Strength of evidence: Moderate 
as a full assessment of the cost 
data still needs to be done.
13. Does the monitoring system efficiently 
meet the needs and requirements of the 
project?
• Review quality of WFP, MGD 
monitoring and reporting against key 
objectives of the programme and 
standards of good practice
• Assess to what extent M&E was used 
to adapt/modify approaches or 
implementation
Documentation review
(M&E system and 
reporting)
Interviews
• Compare assessment by WFP 
staff and GoK
• Strength of evidence: Good
97 | P a g e
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
14. What are the management strengths, 
including technical and financial, of this 
project?
• Extent to which programme and 
financial management was part of 
design
• Evidence of good technical and 
financial management practices
Documentation review
Interviews with MOE 
(national and county 
level) and WFP, school 
management 
interviews
Survey
• Compare and contrast the 
assessment by WFP staff and 
GoK at different levels (central 
and decentralized)
• Strength of evidence: Good
KQ 5 – Impact: What are the impact level results of the programme so far?
15. What are the medium-term effects? • Comparison of outcome data (effects) 
with baseline Survey results at 
outcome level
KII
• Comparison of survey and KII
results
KQ 6 – Sustainability: To what extent are the project results sustainable?
16. To what extent is the government 
taking ownership of the programme?
• Qualitative analysis of views expressed 
by government staff at national, 
county and sub-county levels
Interviews at national, 
county and sub-county 
levels
WFP views
• Compare the views of WFP, 
GoK and other policy and 
programme observers
• Strength of evidence: Good
17. What is the demonstrated capacity at 
central and sub-national levels to 
manage the programme?
• Qualitative analysis of views expressed 
by government staff at national, 
county and sub-county levels
Interviews at national, 
county and sub-county 
levels
WFP views
and FGDs at school 
level
• Compare the views of WFP, GoK 
and other policy and programme 
observers at different levels
• Strength of evidence: Good
18. How are local communities involved in 
and contributing to the implementation 
of the programme?
• Extent of food and non-food 
contribution (e.g. firewood, money)
Survey
Sub-county and school 
management 
interviews
• Compare the evidence from 
interviews and survey of the 
community contribution.
• Strength of evidence: Good
98 | P a g e
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
• Integration of the programme into 
other community structures and 
programmes
Secondary Data: 
Document review
HGSM reports and 
evaluation reports
Control group 
comparison
19. Is the HGSMP adequately funded? • Evolution of funding by Government 
and donors
• Timeliness of disbursement of cashto 
schools
• Number of school feeding days and 
evolution over last years
Government data on 
funding levels and 
flows
Schools management 
Sub- county officials
• Document review and analysis of
financial data to judge the 
trajectory of sector funding 
against components with 
commitments, track record, 
political outlook…
• Strength of evidence:
Weak/moderate
KQ 7 – General: What factors affected the results and what lessons can be learned from the implementation so far?
20. What are the major factors influencing 
the achievement or non-achievement of 
sustainability of the program?
• Qualitative analysis of views expressed 
by informants Interviews and focus 
groups at national, 
county, sub-county, 
and school levels
• Compare assessment of factors 
by WFP CO and field staff
• Compare assessment of factors 
by WFP and GoK staff
• Compare assessment of factors 
by WFP staff and 
community/school level 
informants
Strength of evidence: Good
99 | P a g e
21. What are lessons learned from the 
project up to this point?
• Analysis of evidence at mid-point and 
of views expressed by informants Interviews and survey 
WFP
County, sub-county, 
school level 
management
• Compare and contrast points 
of view offered by different
stakeholders
• Strength of evidence: Good
100 | P a g 
Sub - Questions Indicators Main data source (s) Triangulation approach and strength 
of evidence
22. Are there any recommendations for 
mid-course corrections to improve the 
project’s relevance, efficiency, 
effectiveness, impact, and
sustainability?
• Analysis of evidence at mid-point and 
of views expressed by informants, and 
comparison with lessons from other 
SF programmes
Interviews and survey
County and sub-county 
interviews
96
Annex 6: Details of quantitative methodology including hypotheses
A quasi-experimental design
1. Mirroring the baseline, a quasi-experimental design (for which the rationale was explained in the 
Inception Report (IR) for the baseline) will be employed in this study to demonstrate the theory of 
change attributable to the intervention. In the approach, the ‘double difference’ will be measured as 
a more accurate measure of effect size as opposed to the single difference. This approach will measure 
both the difference before and after the intervention at midline in the treatment and control groups, 
and also the difference-in-differences between control and treatment groups.
2. The quasi experimental design as proposed in this survey is feasible in situations where it is practically 
impossible to randomize units to a particular group and therefore impractical to employ a pure 
experimental design. In a situation like the WFP/USDA-MGD midline in question - where one or 
more intervention groups are pre-selected (in this case WFP SMP and HGSMP) - it is feasible to 
identify a comparable control that is theoretically known to account for any extraneous factors. The 
control helps in removing the effect due to factors other than the intervention.
3. The Research question & testable hypotheses that will underpin the quasi –
experimental design will be: Are baseline vs. mid-term, and end term primary education 
outcomes (literacy and numeracy levels) in the ASAL areas of Kenya the same in schools included in 
WFP/USDA-MGD School meals programme (2016 -2020) as those not included (controls andthose 
transitioning to HGSMP)?
4. Differences between baseline, and mid-term and end term measures will be analysed for the following 
indicators:
• Enrolment
• Attendance rate
• Primary school completion rate
• Literacy and numeracy
5. Hence, four different hypotheses are formulated and proposed for testing at Mid-term and End term 
evaluation for each indicator:
Indicator 1:
• H0: Enrolment in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP ≠ Enrolment in schools not included 
in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
• H1: Enrolment in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP= Enrolment in schools not included 
in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
Indicator 2:
• H0: Attendance rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP≠ Attendance rate in schools 
not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
• H1: Attendance rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP = Attendance rate in schools 
not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
Indicator 3:
• H0: Primary school completion rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP ≠ Primary
97
school completion rate in schools not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
• H1: Primary school completion rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP = Primary 
school completion rate in schools not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
Indicator 4:
• H0: Literacy/numeracy rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP ≠ Literacy/numeracy 
rate in schools not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
• H1: Literacy/numeracy rate in schools included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP = Literacy/numeracy 
rate in schools not included in WFP/USDA-MGD SMP
6. The Midline evaluation will compare baseline with midline values. The comparison will involve an 
intervention, control, and a HGSMP group.
Design of the study
7. The study will adopt a quasi-experimental design, with three comparison groups namely;
• WFPSMP: Selected schools located in counties where WFPSMP under the USDA –
MGD funding is currently being implemented.
• HGSMP: Selected schools located in counties where WFPSMP was being implemented 
but now transitioned to HGSMP.
• Control: Selected schools located in counties where neither WFPSMP nor HGSMP is 
to be implemented.
8. The three-arm approach involving schools targeted by WFP school feeding programmes, the HGSMP, 
and the controls where there is no form of school feeding programmes will allow for the measurement 
of the impact of the WFP school feeding programmes in targeted schools against a control. It will also 
allow for the measurement of sustainability of numeracy and literacy indicator estimates after the 
transition of the WFP run SMP to the HGSMP.
9. Since the WFPSMP was running in all schools located within the six selected ASAL counties (Baringo, 
Garissa, Turkana, Mandera, West Pokot, and Wajir)52, the control schools were selected from the 
neighboring counties with comparable socio-economic activities - livelihood zones - so as to ensure 
similarity in terms of vulnerability and food insecurity. Similarly, the HGSMP schools were selected 
from the neighboring counties with comparable socio-economic activities. Selected control and 
HGSMP schools were matched against WFPSMP schools. This process was done at baseline before 
intervention was commenced.
10. Group comparison based on schools: The process took place before data collection where propensity 
score matching (PSM) was used to compare and match schools using selected school characteristics 
derived from the EMIS tool. Selection of matching characteristics was based on theoretical 
background knowledge of confounders of the measurement indicator(s). Theoretical background 
knowledge refers to knowledge about factors that are plausible or known to confound the relationship 
between the outcome(s) and the intervention. They are potential or are confirmed to be independently 
related to the outcome(s). The matching characteristics are unrelated (unaffected) by the proposed
52 Isiolo, Nairobi, Samburu, and Tana River which were targeted under the previous phases of the USDA support will not be 
included. These counties were excluded from the HGSMP group for the following reasons. Nairobi was excluded because of 
urban context issues. The majority of the counties of focus are in the Arid, rural areas, consequently, there were hardly any 
common contextual similarities that will match Nairobi with them. The other three have been beneficiaries of the Cash 
Transfers to schools Model developed and implemented by WFP before being handed over to HGSMP – consequently their 
evolution modality and short history of the same does not approximate to a pure HGSMP modality of government that has 
been going on in some of the counties selected since 2009.
98
intervention (WFPSMP or HGSMP). The propensity scores was constructed using the ‘participation 
equation’, derived from a logit regression53 with programme participation as the dependent variable 
coded as follows:
• WFPSMP school = 1, versus Control school = 0, and
• HGSMP school = 1, versus WFPSMP school = 0.
11. Each school belonging to a specific group was matched to one school of the comparison group by 
matching each to their ‘nearest neighbor’ using propensity score.
12. Control and HGSMP schools were matched against WFPSMP schools using PSM. Selected school 
characteristics derived from the MOE Education Management Information System (EMIS) tool 
assisted in facilitating matching of schools using PSM. Characteristics (covariates) that were used in 
matching included: boy to girl ratio; average pupils/class; pupils to teacher ratio; and residence type 
(rural/urban). These characteristics are generally known to influence academic performance in 
schools and thus were identified and/or computed to carry out the PSM.
13. Schools in the first group with a propensity score lower than the lowest observed value in the second 
group were discarded. Similarly, schools in the second group with a propensity score higher than the 
highest observed value in the first group were also discarded. The same approach was used for the 
control group. The remaining schools were in the ‘region of common support’ from which 
participating schools were selected. This process resulted in the identification of three groups of 
schools that were as similar as possible in terms of characteristics that influence academic 
performance.
14. Figure 1 and 2 demonstrate comparison of schools before and after matching.
53A Logistic regression is a statistical method for analyzing a dataset in which there are one or more independent variables 
that determine an outcome. The outcome is measured with a dichotomous variable (in which there are only two possible 
responses).
99
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
HGSMP (
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
15. Figure 1 - Selection of Control and WFPSMP schools using PSM
16.
17. Figure 2 - Selection of WFPSMP and HGSMP schools using PSM
18.
0.000 - 0.100 - 0.200 - 0.299 0.300 - 0.400 - 0.500 - 0.600 -
0.099 0.199
WFPSMP (n=23)
0.399 0.499
HGSMP (n=
0.599
23)
0.699
19. Group comparison based on children: This process will take place after midline data collection where 
different variables will be compared between the groups to identify those which are significantly 
different. A propensity score will be constructed using those variables. This score will be used to 
leverage and ensure comparability of pupils (between the groups),therefore eliminating selection bias
100% Distribution of schools by PSM Before
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
0.000 - 0.100 - 0.200- 0.300 - 0.400 - 0.500 - 0.600 - 0.700 - 0.800 - 0.900 -
0.099 0.199
0.299
0.399 0.499 0.599 0.699 0.799 0.899 1.000
CONTROL(N=305) WFPSMP (N=899)
100% Distribution of schools by PSM After
50%
0%
0.100 - 0.199 0.400 - 0.499 0.600 - 0.699 0.700 - 0.799 0.800 - 0.899 0.900 - 1.000
CONTROL(n=23) WFPSMP (n=23)
0.000 - 0.100 - 0.200 - 0.300 - 0.400 - 0.500 - 0.600 - 0.700 - 0.800 - 0.900 -
0.099 0.199 0.299
WFPSMP 0.399 0.499 0.599 0.699 N=
0
2
.
4
7
1
9
)
9 0.899 1.000
100
(the possibility that those enrolled in a particular group are systematically different from those 
enrolled in another group). The variables to be used for computing the propensity score are unaffected 
by the intervention (WFPSMP or HGSMP). Like in school comparison, the propensity scores for 
children comparison will be computed using the ‘participation equation’, derived from a logit 
regression with programme participation as the dependent variable coded as follows;
• WFPSMP = 1, versus Control = 0.
• HGSMP = 1, versus WFPSMP = 0.
The same technique will apply at final evaluation. The computed propensity score will be used as a an 
adjustment factor that will leverage the comparison during analysis.
Survey sample size
20. The envisages realization of two results as follows:
1. Results framework #1: MGD Strategic Objective (SO)1 Improved Literacy of School-Age 
Children.
2. Results framework #2: MGD SO2 Increased Use of Health and Dietary Practices.
21. Since MGD SO2 is a function of MGD SO1, the sample size is calculated based on MGD SO1 that seeks 
to address the overall programme outcome. The midline estimate aligned to MGD SO1 is the 
proportion of children ages 7-13 that have attained literacy and numeracy of a Standard 2 level. 
Other quantitative indicators to be estimated using children sample size include:
• Number of individuals benefiting indirectly from USDA-funded interventions – Source 
parents
• Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal before the school day –
Source children
• Percent of students in target schools who regularly consume a meal during the school day –
Source children
• Percent of parents in target communities who can name at least three benefits of primary 
education (disaggregated by male and female) – Source parents
• Number of school-aged children receiving daily school meals (breakfast, snack, lunch) as a 
result of USDA assistance – Source WFP, MOE and school records
• Number of radio spots held – WFP
• Number of community members benefiting from radio spots– Source parents
• Number of posters, fliers, leaflets distributed– Source WFP
22. The midline evaluation is anchored on the baseline sample design. Calculation of baseline sample 
size was informed by UWEZO54 Kenya Sixths Learning Assessment Report December 2016, which 
outlines the learning outcome by selected counties on Class 3 who can do Class 2/Standard 2 level 
work. The estimated proportions in the proposed intervention areas range as follows; Wajir – 9.9%, 
Mandera – 10.1%, Turkana – 11.4%, Garissa – 12.9%, West Pokot – 15.4%, and Baringo –16.6%.
23. Due to variation in estimates across selected counties and with potential variation in other 
measurement indicators, we proposed to use a 50% conservative estimate as the proportion of 
children ages 7-13 that have attained literacy and numeracy of a Standard 2 level- Standard 2
competencies in literacy and numeracy. The UWEZO tests are set according to the Standard 2 level
54 Uwezo is a five year initiative that aims to improve competencies in literacy and numeracy among children aged 6-16 years 
old in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, by using an innovative approach to social change that is citizen driven and accountable to 
the public.
101
1
curriculum, which is the level attained after two years of primary education. Thus, assuming 
education quality standards are maintained, one should expect pupils at Standard 3 or above to 
correctly answer all test questions. This is termed as a “pass” in the presentation of the results. The 
50% proportion optimizes the sample size to allow for estimation of all indicators devoid of the risk 
of low sample size calculation. The study presumes a 20% effect size on the primary indicator.
24. The minimum sample size was calculated using Fleiss, et al (15) formula as follows:
(Z + Z )2 *(P (1− P) + P (1− P ))
n = D* 1−α / 2 1−β 1 1 2 2
25. Where;
(P2 − P )
2
Performance indicators presented as percentages (P1, 
P2)
P1 (estimated value of indicators at baseline) 50%
P2 (estimated value of indicators at final evaluation) 70%
P2-P1 (estimated change over time) 20%
α (Type 1 error) 0.05
β (Type 2 error) 0.10
Zα (Z score at desired statistical significance) 0.975 1.96
Zβ (Z score at desired statistical power) 0.90 1.28
D (design effect = 1 + δ (m – 1); where m is the average 
enrolment per school (200) and δ is the estimated 
intra-class correlation coefficient, referenced from 
literature (0.02))
The sample size (n) of measurement unit - number of
5.0
620
26. In order to address gender mainstreaming and women’s empowerment as per WFP’s evaluation 
principle of gender equality, the evaluation will be conducted with a view to elucidating the effect of 
the intervention (WFPSMP or HGSMP) among boys and girls. To the greatest extent possible, the 
consultants will ensure both men and women are targeted as respondents. Therefore, the overall
sampled children ages 7-13 in Standard 3 to 8
Allowing for 10% non-response, the sample size is 
adjusted upwards (n/ (1-L) where L is the provision of 
10% non-response).
Adjusted sample size = 620/ (1-0.1) = 688.88889, 
rounded upwards to 689 children.
Therefore; number of sampled children per study arm 
(without replacement) 689
Overall sample size in both intervention and control 
arms 2,067
102
sample size in both interventions (WFPSMP and HGSMP) and control arms will triple to 4,134 (2067 
boys (689 HGSMP, 689 WFPSMP, 689 Controls); 2,067 girls (689 HGSMP, 689 WFPSMP, and 689
Control). As each pupil questionnaire also includes questions for a corresponding parent (see Annex 
6), there will be an equal number of parental responses.
27. While the documentation reviewed for the baseline and midline suggest that the programme was not 
designed with a strong gender focus, the evaluation will explore how each of the interventions have 
benefitted girls and boys and women and men. Questioning will be particularly focussed on any 
differences in terms of access, results and impact on girls and boys. This is particularly important 
because some of the interventions (e.g. increasing the availability of latrines in schools) can make a 
difference to girls’ education. Care will be taken to have at least 40 percent female parents 
participating in the study. At community level, due efforts will be made to reflect gender 
considerations both in terms of questioning and in the targeting of beneficiaries, while interviewing 
direct and indirect beneficiaries.
Survey sample design
28. A two-stage sampling procedure will be employed at the WFPSMP sites as follows:
• First stage: will involve selection of 46 primary sampling units (PSUs) which are schools, across 
the five selected counties (Garissa, Turkana, Mandera, West Pokot, and Wajir).55 Using 
probability proportionate to size (PPS) method, the 46 PSUs will be distributed across the -five 
counties. Selection of schools within counties will be done using simple random sampling, with 
application of a random number generator.
• Second stage: will involve selection of secondary sampling units (SSUs) which are children ages 
7-13 years in class 3 to 8, across the forty-six selected schools. Total number of males and females 
will be determined per school. Distribution of school specific sample size allocation will be done 
across gender and school grade using PPS, where gender specific samples across school grade will 
be drawn. Selection of children within gender and across school grade will be done using simple 
random sampling, with application of a random number generator.
29. The selection of a matching HGSMP and control for the WFPSMP schools (PSUs) will be picked from 
the neighbouring counties with comparable socio-economic activities – same livelihood zones. A total 
of twenty-three (23) schools across 9 counties (Elgeyo Marakwet, Embu, Kajiado, Kitui, Laikipia, 
Machakos, Makueni, Nyeri and Taita Taveta) will be selected to represent HGSMP and twenty-three 
schools (23) across another 8 counties (Elgeyo Marakwet, Kajiado, Kitui, Laikipia, Machakos, 
Makueni, Nyeri and Taita Taveta) will be selected to represent the control arm of the study. The 
Selection of PSUs (schools) and SSUs (children ages 7-13 years in class 3 to 8) will be done as 
described in the first and second stage sampling.
30. Annexes 8a and 8b illustrate the sample design structure to be applied in both interventions 
(WFPSMP and HGSMP) and control sites.
Statistical analysis plan
31. Data analysis will be done using IBM SPSS version 24.0 and any other relevant data analysis software.
55 Isiolo, Nairobi, Samburu, and Tana River counties were excluded from the HGSMP group for the following reasons. Nairobi 
was excluded because of urban context issues. The majority of the counties of focus are in the arid, rural areas, consequently, 
there were hardly any common contextual similarities that will match Nairobi with them. The other three have been 
beneficiaries of the Cash Transfers to schools Model developed and implemented by WFP before being handed over to HGSMP
– consequently their evolution modality and short history of the same does not approximate to a pure HGSMP modality of 
government that has been going on in some of the counties selected since 2009.
103
MS-Excel will be used to generate graphical presentation of specific findings.
32. Univariate analysis: Descriptive statistics such as measures of central tendency (mean, standard 
deviations, median, and range) will be used for analysis of continuous variables, while frequencies 
and percentages for categorical variables.
33. Bivariate analysis: Pearson’s Chi-square or Fisher Exact test (depending on the mean expected 
count) will be used to compare the distribution of indicator variables and other observable 
characteristics between interventions and control groups. T-test will be used to compare mean 
difference between intervention and control groups. Where normality assumptions are violated, 
appropriate non-parametric methods will be used.
34. Multiple regression analysis: Binary logistic regression will be used to estimate the difference 
in the proportion of children ages 7-13 that have attained literacy and numeracy for a Standard 2 
level adjusting for midline characteristics, identified to be significantly different between intervention 
and control groups at bivariate analysis. Threshold for statistical significance will be set at p<0.05.
35. Estimation of programme effects: Difference-in-differences (DID), also known as the ‘double 
difference’ method, will be used to compare the changes in outcome (effect size) over time between 
specific intervention (HGSMP and WFPSMP) and control group. Applying the Difference in Differnce 
(DID) method will remove the difference in the outcome between both interventions (HGSMP and 
WFPSMP) and control group at baseline.
36. Effect of WFPSMP: In order to identify the effects of WFPSMP at midterm and final evaluation, the 
difference in the measurement indicator between WFPSMP and control groups will first be calculated 
at baseline, midterm and final evaluation. The calculated baseline difference will then be differenced 
from the midterm and final evaluation differences to ascertain the accurate difference attributable to 
the WFPSMP at midterm and final evaluation.
37. Evaluating sustainability of SMP:In order to determine whether transitioning schools from WFPSMP 
to HGSMP sustains school performance, the comparison of HGSMP and WFPSMP will be done. The 
indicators were measured at baseline, this will be measured and compared again at midterm and final 
evaluation. Owing to its rigorous programme implementation, the bench mark will be WFPSMP. 
Propensity score matching will be used as an adjustment factor at every step of analysis.
38. An overview of the sampled locations and the needs in terms of supervisors and enumerators is 
provided in the table.
Table 2 - Overview of counties, sampled locations by interventions and needs in 
terms of supervisors, enumerators
County Sub county (ies) Number of 
schools
WFP School meals Programme
Garissa Lagdera, Garissa and Ijara 6
Wajir Wajir East, Wajir West, Habaswein, 
Wajir South
10
Turkana Loima, Turkana East, Turkana West, 
Turkana Central, Turkana South, 
Turkana North
11
Mandera Mandera West 8
104
West Pokot Pokot North 11
Home Grown School Meals Programme
Elgeyo Marakwet Marakwet East 4
Embu Embu East 3
Kajiado Kajiado West 4
Kitui Tseikuru 3
Laikipia Laikipia East 2
Machakos Matungulu 2
Makueni Mbooni East 1
Nyeri Kieni East/West 3
Taita Taveta Taveta 1
None WFP SMP/HGSMP
Kajiado Kajiado West 3
Elgeyo Marakwet Keiyo South/North 4
Kitui Tseikuru 3
Laikipia Laikipia East 1
Machakos Matungulu 4
Makueni Mbooni East 6
Nyeri Kieni East 1
Taita Taveta Taveta 1
Table 3 – logistics requirements
Team No of 
schools Supervisor(s) Enumerators Vehicles
# of 
tablet 
required
Note
Turkana 11 1 7 1 8
Wajir 10 1 6 1 7
Mandera 8 1 4 1 5
West Pokot 11 1 7 1 8
Garissa 6 1 4 1 5
Elgeyo Marakwet 8 1 6 1 7
Embu/Nyeri/Laikipia 10 1 7 1 8
Machakos/Kitui 12 1 7 1 8
Kajiado/Taita 
Taveta 9 1 5 1 6
Makueni 7 1 4 1 5
105
Team No of 
schools Supervisor(s) Enumerators Vehicles
# of 
tablet 
required
Note
Qualitative Date 
team (Muriel and
Warue)
Various 0 3 2
One vehicle to Warue 
and anotherto Muriel
(forweekof11th June)
Study team (Moses 
and Ernest) Various 0 0 2
Supervision schedule 
will be provided for 
availability of vehicles
Totals 10 60 67
106
Annex 7 : Procedure and criteria for selection of enumerators
1. Enumerators will be will be drawn from the WFP established pool of enumerators. The consultant 
team will do the selection and WFP will support with the contracting. Care will be taken to ensure 
that recruitment conforms to the criteria that have been drawn up and training focused on ensuring 
objectivity and independence of data collection. Where possible the team will work with enumerators 
that participated in the baseline although it is anticipated that there will be some new recruits. For 
the new recruits, key criteria for selection will be identical to those at baseline, namely:
• Post-secondary education qualifications in education or social sciences will be preferable.
• Good interpersonal skills – in particular ability to create rapport with learners and other 
stakeholders at the school level.
• A track record of participation in at least 2 similar surveys with one targeting ASALS in 
particular.
• Language skills in alignment with the areas where data is being collected.
• Availability during data collection.
2. Teams of enumerators will need to be gender balanced to ensure that interviews with girl pupils can 
be done by female enumerators to the extent possible.
3. Each team of enumerators will be headed by a supervisor. In addition to overseeing the data collection 
process and quality assurance the supervisors will also provide technical guidance to the teams and 
do any trouble shooting on digital data gathering technology.
4. Given the critical importance of the supervisors for the overall quality of the study the evaluation team 
will identify and propose candidates for these positions. The following criteria will be used for the 
selection of the supervisors (these too are identical to the baseline phase):
a. Completed or currently in a University.
b. Having had at least 3 data collection experiences
c. Comfortable with use of mobile devises using an Android application
d. Have had an experience with mobile data collection using Kobo collect or ODK (Must have 
knowledge of ODK configuration and troubleshooting)
e. Have had an experience in facilitating focused group discussions
f. Have had experience in team leadership and planning on behalf of the team.
g. Keen on details and have excellent communication abilities
h. Ability to work under pressure and maintain professional relationships
107
Annex 8 – Characteristics of respondents
In this part of the report, an overall picture of population and school characteristics for the three-arm 
target population baseline and midline survey is presented.
Table 1 - Study population in the three arm target counties
Characteristic Baseline Midline
Number of Counties 14 14
Number of Schools 90 90
WFSMP schools 44 44
Control Schools 23 23
HGSMP Schools 23 23
Number of Pupils sampled for the survey 5130 5301
Boys 2558 2550
Girls 2572 2751
Head Teachers Interviewed 34 90
Male 25 71
Female 9 19
Teachers Interviewed 56 188
Male 34 105
Female 22 83
Parents Interviewed 5130 5301
Male 1446 1667
Female 3684 3634
Parent Teacher Associations (PTA) and BoMs reached 90 9
Table 2 presents the distribution of study pupils by study arm and grade. Enrolment per study arm at 
baseline (control (1396), WFPSMP (2221), and HGSMP (1513)) was approximately in the ratio of 1:2:1, 
while that of gender (boys (2558), girls (2572)) was approximately 1:1. Enrolment by grade was almost 
equal across class 3 to 7, with class 8 slightly lower. Similarly, enrolment per study arm at midline (control 
(1396), WFPSMP (2221), and HGSMP (1513)) was approximately in the ratio of 1:2:1, while that of gender 
(boys (2558), girls (2572)) was approximately 1:1. Enrolment by grade was almost equal across class 3 to 
7, with class 8 slightly lower. Overall distribution structure was comparable between baseline and 
midline.
108
Table 2 - Study pupils' characteristics
Variable
Boys Girls Total
Baseline 
(n=2558)
Midline 
(n=2550)
Baseline 
(n=2572)
Midline 
(2751)
Baseline 
(n=5130)
Midline 
(n=5301)
Study arm
Control 675(26.4%) 675(26.5%) 721(28.0%) 722(26.2%) 1396(27.2%) 1397(26.4%)
WFPSMP 1146(44.8%) 1143(44.8%) 1075(41.8%) 1110(40.3%) 2221(43.3%) 2253(42.5%)
HGSMP 737(28.8%) 732(28.7%) 776(30.2%) 919(33.4%) 1513(29.5%) 1651(31.1%)
Grade
Class 3 438(17.1%) 416(16.3%) 459(17.8%) 457(16.6%) 897(17.5%) 873(16.5%)
Class4 443(17.3%) 434(17.0%) 464(18.0%) 496(18.1%) 907(17.7%) 930(17.5%)
Class 5 472(18.5%) 462(18.1%) 428(16.6%) 485(17.6%) 900(17.5%) 947(17.9%)
Class 6 455(17.8%) 441(17.3%) 439(17.1%) 485(17.6%) 894(17.4%) 926(17.5%)
Class 7 442(17.3%) 457(17.9%) 438(17.0%) 453(16.5%) 880(17.2%) 910(17.2%)
Class 8 308(12.0%) 340(13.3%) 344(13.4) 375(13.6%) 652(12.7%) 715(13.5%)
Overall distribution structure was comparable between baseline and midline. A detailed comparison of 
background and other characteristics of parents and children is presented in Annexes 7a, 7b, 8a and 8b. 
Annex 10a examines the effect of WFPSMP on specific indicators, while Annex 10b examines the 
sustainability of specific indicators after transitioning schools to HGSMP. The analysis of 
change across target arms both at baseline and midline using difference-in-difference method elucidates 
the findings.
109
Annex 9: Data collection tools
Tool 1 – Individual interview: classroom teacher
Suggested introduction: Hello my name is ___________________. I am seeking information
that will facilitate the implementation of the forthcoming school meals project. The purpose of this 
interview is to determine what the conditions are like prior to the start of the project. This will allow the 
Ministry of Education, WFP and the donor to measure what changes take place during the project. I 
would like to ask you some questions that will help in understanding what the situation is like in the 
school today. Your answers will be kept confidential in that we will not be reporting who said what in 
any of our reports. The interview will take about 45 minutes. You may refuse to participate in the 
interview, or you may choose at any time not to answer one or more of the questions.
Important prior instruction to interviewee: if the teacher teaches more than one class then ask 
him/her to identify one class (e.g. Std 5 Science) and then to reply to all the questions as if they were 
referring only to this particular group of pupils.
Please make sure to interview teachers separately and to obtain responses for each of the questions.
Basic information about the interview:
Name/code of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Name of school:
Name of sub-county:
Name of country:
Information about the interviewee:
a) Gender of the teacher:
• Male
• Female
b) Grade/class taught:
c) Educational level of the teacher: 
Completed primary school
Did not complete secondary school/undertaking secondary education 
Completed secondary school
Did not complete certificate course/undertaking certificate course 
Completed certificate course
Did not complete diploma course/undertaking diploma course 
Completed diploma course
Did not complete degree course/undertaking degree course 
Completed degree course
Did not complete post graduate course/undertaking post graduate course 
Completed post graduate course
Others
d) Number of years of teaching experience:
Questions
110
From your assessment as a class teacher, do you feel attentiveness/inattentiveness is an issue in 
your class?
Yes 
Somehow 
No
1. What is the % (proportion) of children in class you would confidently consider to be paying 
attention in class in your last lesson you have just taught?
______
In your observation between boys and girls, which is commonly inattentive in class? 
Boys
Girls 
Both
2. In your observation, on averare what percentage of students in your classes would you 
confidently say were inattentive in class last term (term 1 2018)?
____________
3. What are some of the factor you think could be contribution to inattentiveness in among children 
in your class?
• The class work is too difficult
• The class work is too easy
• Pupils don’t find the material/topic interesting
• Pupils are hungry
• Pupils are worried about some other family issues
• External activities that take their attention away from class
• When the pupil is sickness
• Pupils are tired from work or domestic chores
• They can’t hear/see what the teacher is explaining/children with disability
• Other (please specify) __________
111
4. In your teaching experience, during which time of day is pupil attentiveness in class lowest?
• Early Morning
• Mid-Morning
• Early after noon
• Mid after noon
• Early evening
• Late evening
• There is no difference
5. What in your view are some of the factors that promote attentiveness in class?
• The children not hungry or not worried about what they will eat
• The children coming to school after having enough rest at home.
• Interesting topics for the children
• Good educational content delivery methods
• Appropriate support from the teachers
• Quiet and conducive school environment
• The children are not required to work at home/in the field
• The class size is not too big
• Other (please specify) __________________
6. During the last term (1st term of 2018), are you aware of students who dropped out of this school, 
left or joined this school from other schools
• Yes
• I am not sure
• No
The largest proportion of leaving or drop puts were boys or girls?
• Boys
• Girls
• No difference between boys and girls
7. If yes, what are the reasons why students left this school for another school or dropped out of 
school?
• They had problems at home
• Hunger/ No food to eat
• School fees/lack of money
• Sickness of the child
• Insecurity in the village or the area
• Distance of the school was too long
• The school performed poorly in exams
• The child was withdrawn from school by the parent
• Not applicable
• Other (please specify) _____
8. If some students joined this school from other schools, what we were some of the reasons whythey
112
joined this school?
• This school serves school meals
• This school offers better safety
• The school performed well in the last examination more than other schools in the area
• The school is closer to the students
• The parents decided that the children to join this school
• The teachers are friendly and knows how to teach.
• This school has better facilities (buildings, etc.)
• The school offers higher grades than other schools in the vicinity
• For personal reasons (family moving etc.)
• Other (please specify) _____
9. What proportion of pupils in your class would you confidently say attends school regularly?
_________
10. Between boys and girls, which groups are more consistent with attendance of school??
• Girls
• Boys
• There is no difference
• I am not able to assess
11. Have you received any training on health and hygiene promotion??
• Yes
• No
How long ago did you receive the training?
• This year
• Within the past one year
• 1 -3 three years ago
• More than three years ago
113
12. Do you hold discussions with pupils on issues related to health and hygiene?
• Yes
• No
13. If yes, what did you talk about?
• Deworming
• Hand washing
• General bodily hygiene/cleanliness
• How to use the latrine properly
• How to keep the environment clean
• Importance and water treatment methods
• Causes of diarrhoea
• Other (please specify)
14. How often do you discuss hygiene with your pupils?
• Frequently – Every week
• Occasionally (less than every week but more than once a month)
• Rarely (once a month or less)
• Never
15. Do you hold discussion with your pupils on nutrition?
• Yes
• No
• sometimes
16. If yes, what did you talk about?
• Food types
• Food sources
• Nutrients and their functions
• Common signs of poor nutrition
• Common consequences of poor nutrition
• Balanced diet
• Anemia
• Other (please specify) ______
17. How often do you discuss nutrition with your pupils?
• Frequently – Every week
• Occasionally (less than every week but more than once a month)
• Rarely (once a month or less)
• Never
114
What in your view are the main barriers to learning/ seeking education in this community?
• Ignorance in general
• Ignorance of the importance of girl’s education
• Hunger
• Poverty
• Insecurity
• Distance to the school
• Cultural barriers
• Other (please specify)
In your view what are the promoters to seeking education in this community
• Better future for the children
• Need for certificate to get a job
• It’s a government policy
• There is nothing children are doing at home so they go to school
• It is the trend of nowadays
Thank you for your collaboration/assistance in this interview.
115
Tool 2 – Head teacher school audit tool
Tool 2 – Individual interview - head teacher
Suggested introduction: Hello my name is _________________ _.I am seeking information that
will facilitate the implementation of the forthcoming school meals project. The purpose of this interview 
is to determine what the conditions are like prior to the start of the project. This will allow the Ministry 
of Education, WFP and the donor to measure what changes take place during the project. I would like to 
ask you some questions that will help in understanding what the situation is like in the school today. Your 
answers will be kept confidential in that we will not be reporting who said what in any of our reports. The 
interview will take about 45 minutes. You may refuse to participate in the interview, or you may choose 
at any time not to answer one or more of the questions.
Important prior instruction to interviewee: to be inserted as necessary ….
Basic information about the interview:
Name/code of interviewer:
Date of interview:
Name of school:
Name of sub-county:
Name of country:
Information about the interviewee:
116
a) Gender of the respondent:
• Male
• Female
How many years have you been employed as a teacher? 
How many years have you been a head teacher?
b) Have you been trained or learnt on the management of school meals program?
• Yes
• No
c) How long ago was the training?
• Within this year 2018
• Within the past 1 year
• Between 2 – 3 years ago
• More than 3 years ago 
Who offered the training?
• The central government
• The county government
• World Food programme (WFP)
• Non-governmental organization
• Other organizations
• I taught myself
• Others
d) Are you aware of any policies and guidelines relating to school feeding programme?
• Yes
• No
If yes, which guidelines or policies are you aware of?
• SFP financial management
• Procurement of commodities guidelines
• Food rations and preparation guidelines
• Others
117
Has your school had school feeding programme for primary pupils in the past?
• Yes
• I am not sure /I am new in this school
• No
How long ago was the school feeding program active?
• The programme is currently active
• Last term
• Third term 2017
• Second term 2017
• First term 2017
• In 2016
• Others (2015 and beyond)
If yes, what was or is the current source of the support for the school meals programme?
• The central government
• County government
• World food program (even if implemented by partners)
• Non-Governmental organization
• Well wishers
• Parents
• Religious organizations
• Others
If the school meals programme is currently active, what is the modality of main support?
• Cash
• Commodities
• Both cash and commodities
Do you feel the current modality of SMP support is the best model for your school?
• Yes
• I am not sure
• No
Do the parents make any contribution to the school meals programme?
• Yes regurlaly
• Yes but not regularly
• No
Of the total budget requirement of the school meals program, what proportion if contributed to by the
118
parents (whether in cash/in kind/or by work force)
What contribution do the parents make?
• Money
• Labor
• Commodities (Maize, beans, etc)
• Firewood and water
• Utensils
• Others
Does your school benefit from the books funds provided by the government?
• Yes
• No
Are the books currently available in school sufficient for the pupils?
• 100% sufficient
• 75% sufficient
• 50% sufficient
• 25% sufficient
• Not sufficient
Are there any activities carried out by any organization or entity in your school that complements primary 
school feeding programme?
• Yes
• No
What are the activities are implemented?
• Water support
• School garden
• Health and hygiene promotion
• Nutritional promotion
• Others
During the start of the year (2018) are there pupils who were supposed to be in school but dropped out?
• Yes
• No
Approximately what proportion of pupil’s population dropped out of this school?
Were the pupils who dropped out predominantly boys or girls?
• Boys
• Girls
• Both
119
If yes, what are the reasons why students left this school for another school or dropped out of school?
• They had problems at home
• Hunger/ No food to eat
• School fees/lack of money
• Sickness of the child
• The pupil was pregnant
• Insecurity in the village or the area
• Distance of the school was too long
• The school performed poorly in exams
• The child was withdrawn from school by the parent
• Not applicable
• Other (please specify) _____
At the beginning of this school year, did you receive new students to your school?
• Yes
• No
Approximately what proportion of the student’s population are new admissions for this school year?
If some students joined this school from other schools, what we were some of the reasons why they 
joined this school?
• This school serves school meals
• There were attending nursery in this school
• This school offers better safety
• The school performed well in the last examination more than other schools in the area
• The school is closer to the students
• The parents decided that the children to join this school
• The teachers are friendly and knows how to teach.
• This school has better facilities (buildings, etc.)
• The school offers higher grades than other schools in the vicinity
• For personal reasons (family moving etc.)
• Other (please specify) _____
Is this school’s PTA involved in any way in the school meals programme (if the school meals is currently 
active)?
• Yes
• Somehow
• No
How would you rate their level of involvement in the school meals programme (very high being 5 and
120
very low being 1)?
• Very high
• High
• Medium
• Low
• Very low
What activities are the PTA members mainly involved in?
• Mobilizing contributions from parents
• Preparation so schedules of school feeding programme (including cooking)
• Receiving /procuring of commodities
• Management of SFP funds
• Others
Is this school’s board of management involved in the management of the school meals programme?
• Yes
• Somehow
• No
How would you rate their level of involvement in the school meals programme (very high being 5 and 
very low being 1)?
• Very high
• High
• Medium
• Low
• Very low
What are the major activities the schools board of management are involved in?
• Receiving of cash or commodities from the supporting organization
• Mobilization of resources including from the government
• Procurement of commodities
• Financial management of the school meals programme
• Audit of the school meals programme
• Structural improvement for the school meals programme
• Others
Complaints management
Does this school have in place a mechanism in which any parent or child not happy with how the school
121
meals programme is handled can raise their concerns or complaints?
• Yes
• No
If yes, what is the channel?
• Suggestion box
• School complaints committees
• Telephone line
• Walk in to the office/dedicated school staff
• Dedicated PTA/BOM member
• Children’s parliament
• Sub county education office
• Others 
School population
Males Females Totals Number of 
streams
Class 1
Class 2
Class 3
Class 4
Class 5
Class 6
Class 7
Class 8
Number of teachers
PTA teacher Tsc teacher volunteers
Males
Female
Average termly Teacher attendance rates
Average termly Pupil attendance rates
Approximate proportion of pupils starting school who complete the last grade of 
primary school?
How new pupils were enrolled in this school at the start of this year?
Storage facility
Does the school have a dedicated storage facility for the school meals programme?
1) Yes
2) No
122
Is this a separate room/store, or is one of the classrooms being used for storage for 
all items?
1) Separate room
2) Classroom converted to storage
3) Another building converted to a store
If yes, what is the condition of the storage facility?
1) In a good condition
2) Needs slight repair
3) Needs major repairs
4) There is need for a new as it cannot be repaired
What is the roof made of?
• Grass
• Iron sheets
• Asbestos
• Tiles
• Others
What are the walls of the store made of
• Mud
• Bricks
• Stones
• Blocks
• Iron sheet
• Wood/timber
• Others
What is the floor of the store made of
• Cement
• Stones
• Mud
• Timber
• Tiles
• Others
Is the storage room lockable?
1) Yes
2) No
How is the ventilation of the store?
• Well ventilated
• Averagely ventilated
• Poorly ventilated
• Not ventilated at all
Is the storage room free of humidity/water?
1) Yes
2) No
123
Does the storage room have pallets for stacking the stored items?
1) Yes –enough for commodities in store
2) Yes but not enough for commodities in store
3) No
Does the storage facility have a weighing scale?
1) Yes
2) No
a) Kitchen
Does the school have a kitchen for pupil’s school meals program?
• Yes –Dedicated to pupil’s meals only
• Yes – Used for all cooking’s in the school
• No
If yes, what is the condition of the kitchen?
• In a good condition
• Needs slight repair
• Needs Major repairs
• There is need for a new as it cannot be repaired
Does the kitchen have fuel efficient stoves?
• Yes – enough quantity
• Yes – but the quantity is not enough
• No
Which fuel does the school use to cook the pupils school meals?
• Wood
• Charcoal
• Cow dung
• electricity
• Others (please specify)
What is the main source of water used for cooking in the school?
• Water tank/tap in the school
• Children carry water from home
• A water source around the school (well, spring, dam)
• Water tracking to the school
• Public tap within the community
• Others
Does the kitchen have sufficient utensils and pans to prepare meals for the pupils in 
the school?
• Yes – sufficient
• Yes but not sufficient
• No – The utensils and pans are brought by parents/pupils
Latrines
Does the school have latrines/toilets for pupils?
124
• Yes enough
• Yes but not enough
• No
Do girls have separate toilets from boys?
• Yes
• No
How many latrines/toilets are available for use by:
1) Female pupils
2) Male pupils
Is there a dedicated hand washing station for children to wash their hands after using 
the latrines?
• Yes –functional
• Yes – But not functional
• No
School garden
Does the school have a school garden?
• Yes
• No
How many acres is the school garden area?
• What are the food items that were harvested from the school garden last 
harvest season?
• Maize
• Beans
• Sorghum
• Fruits
• Potatoes
• Onions and tomatoes
• Others
What is the main use of the food produced in the school garden?
• The food is sold
• The food is used for school feeding
• The food is used for teachers
• Other use (please specify)
Other observations
Instructions for interviewee:please interview one cook per kitchen. Ifthere is a 
female cook then please make sure you interview the female cook.
Sex of respondent:
1) Male
2) Female
For how long have you been a cook?
125
Have you been trained in safe food preparation?
1) Yes
2) No
If yes how long ago year?
1) Less than 1 month ago
2) Less than 3 months ago
3) Less than 6 months ago
4) Less than one year ago
5) More than one year ago
Have you been trained in food storage and handling?
1) Yes
2) No
If so in what year?
1) Less than 1 month ago
2) Less than 3 months ago
3) Less than 6 months ago
4) Less than one year ago
5) More than one year ago
Do you have a valid health certificate?
1) Yes
2) No
If not what is the reason?
1) Cannot afford the fee
2) Did not have time to go to the health sector
3) Do not know how to get one
4) Do not think I need one
5) No-one told me to get one
6) Other (specify)
To your knowledge, do children always wash their hands before the meals?
1) Yes all
2) Yes most
3) Yes a few
4) No
Do you have a uniform or apron to use in the kitchen?
1) Yes
2) No
At what times do you clean the kitchen? (multiple options possible)
1) Every morning before food preparation
2) After food preparation
3) At the end of the week
4) Whenever there is water
5) Other (please specify)
Do you wash your hands in the process of food preparations?
126
Yes 
No
Sometimes
At what points in the food preparation process do you wash your hands?
1) Before handling food
2) During food preparation whenever necessary
3) After using the latrine
4) After finishing food preparation
5) Before serving food
6) After serving food
7) Whenever I have water
8) Never
9) Other (please specify)
Do you ensure that the food commodities are clean before cooking? 
Yes
No
Sometimes
How do you ensure the food is clean before cooking?
1) If the food looks clean I will cook it
2) Rinse in water and cook
3) Remove foreign matters and cook
4) Use clean containers to collect food from store, remove foreign matters and 
then wash with clean water thoroughly before cooking
5) Others
Do you verify that the food is of quality before or in good condition before cooking? 
Yes
No
Sometimes
How do you verify that food is in good condition/quality for cooking?
1) Look at expiry date
2) Smell the food
3) Color of food
4) Check if there are signs of infestation by pests
5) Other (please specify)
Do you keep food for some period before serving to the pupils? 
Yes
No
Sometimes
How do you store food prior to serving it?
1) Store cooked food in covered cooking pots in a clean, safe place before serving 
the pupils
2) Store cooked food in open containers
3) Store cooked food outside the kitchen without covers
127
4) Other (please specify)
128
Tool 1 - Parent/child questionnaire
Suggested introduction: Hello my name is ___________________. I am seeking information 
that will facilitate the implementation of the forthcoming school meals project. The purpose of this 
interview is to determine what the conditions are like prior to the start of the school meals project. I 
would like to ask you some questions that will help in understanding what the situation is like in the 
school today and what challenges families face in supporting their children’s education. Your answers 
will be kept confidential; we will not be reporting who said what in any of our reports. The interview will 
take about 45 minutes. If you don’t want to you participate you may refuse or you may choose at any time 
not to answer one or more of the questions.
Basic information about the interview:
Name/code of interviewer:
Study arm
1. Intervention
2. HGSMP
3. Control
Name of county:
Name of sub-county:
Name of school:
Date of interview:
Information about the interviewee:
What is the gender of the respondent?
1) Male
2) Female
What is your relationship to the child? 
Parent
Guardian 
Brother/sister 
Aunt/Uncle 
Grand parent 
Neighbor
Others
How old are you?
What is your main occupation?
1) Too old to work
2) Student
3) Farmer
4) Pastoralist
5) Salaried Employee
6) Casual Laborer
7) Business person
129
8) Currently not doing any work
9) Fisherman
10) Other
What is the highest educational level you have achieved?
1) Never attended formal school school/attended Madrassa
2) Did not complete primary school
3) Completed primary school
4) Did not complete secondary school
5) Completed secondary school
6) Did not complete technical college/undertaking certificate/diploma
7) Completed technical college (certificate/diploma)
8) Did not complete or undertaking university degree
9) Completed university (degree)
10) Did not complete or undertaking graduate course (Master/PhD)
11) Completed graduate school (master/PhD)
How many male and female children (18 years and below) currently live in your household?
1) Males
2) Females
Of the children 18 years and below who currently live in your household, how many are 
currently in school?
1) Males
2) Females
If some of your children who are school going age are not going to school, what is the reason 
why?
1) Parents/family don’t think they should go to school
2) There is no money to send them to school
3) They are working
4) They are taking care of sick family members
5) They are sick
6) They failed school last year and did not return
7) They are helping with household tasks
8) Others
Questions
In the past 5 school days how many days did your child (the one who is present at the 
interview) eat BEFORE going to school? (enter number of days)
In the past 5 days, how many days did you child (the one who is present at the interview) take 
lunch during the school day?
Did your child have a meal/take breakfast today before going to school?
1) Yes
2) No
Did your child have lunch/or is going to have lunch to day? 
Yes
Not sure
No
130
Food consumptions score:
In the past 7 days, Could you please tell me how many days your household has eat any of the 
following foods: # of 
days
Main staples (Maize , maize porridge, rice, sorghum, millet pasta, bread and other cereals, 
Cassava, potatoes and sweet potatoes, other tubers, plantains)
Pulses (Beans. Peas, groundnuts and cashew nut)
Vegetables (Vegetables, leaves)
Fruits (any fruit)
Meat (Beef, goat, poultry, pork,)
Fish (any type)
Eggs
Milk (Milk yogurt and other diary)
Sugar (Sugar and sugar products, honey)
Oil (Oils, fats and butter)
Condiments (spices, tea, coffee, salt, fish power, small amounts of milk for tea)
Has your child been receiving school meals at school in the current school year (2018)?
• Yes - regularly
• Yes - not regularly
• I am not sure
• No
Is the school currently (this week) serving food?
• Yes
• No
• I am not sure
Do you feel the method through which support is given for school meals programme 
(either homegrown/government support or WFP school meals programme) is the best 
way the school meals program could be given?
• Yes
• I am not sure
• No
If yes, why,
• The food does not come late
• There is no a lot of requirements from the parents
• The food is purchased from the local community and thus is beneficial to us
• There is minimal cost involved in transporting the food
• The food commodities received/purchased are of high quality
• The parents are actively engaged in the SMP and they own it
• Other reasons
131
In not why?
• There is delays in delivery of food or cash
• It is very involving for the parents
• There commodities supplies is not enough
• There are a lot of other costs involved
• There is no ownership for the parents
• There is a lot of responsibilities to the parents
• Other reasons
If you are not happy or you have a suggestion about the school meals program, is there 
any means/channel through which you can raise your concerns on air your opinions?
• Yes
• I am not sure
• No
What are the channels?
• Through the teachers
• Through suggestion box
• Through a representative in the PTA
• Through the sub county education office
• Through calling
• Though politician
• Through WFP staff
• Others
Do you make any contribution in any form to the school meals programme?
• Yes - regularly
• Yes - sometime
• No
What do you contribute
• Utensils
• Labor (cooking/offloading food items)
• Money
• Firewood/cooking fuel
• Water
• Food commodities
• Others
If you contribute money to the school meals programme, how much do you pay per child per 
month? (Kshs)
Reduced Coping strategies
Behaviors:
In the past 7 days, if there have been times when you did not have enough food or money to 
buy food, how many days has your household had to:
# of 
days:
a. Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods?
b. Borrow food, or rely on help from a friend or relative?
132
h. Limit portion size at mealtimes?
i. Restrict consumption by adults in order for small children to eat?
k. Reduce number of meals eaten in a day?
In the last term of this year (term 1 of 2018) apart from the known public holidays, Did this 
child (one present for interview) miss a complete day of school?
• Yes
• I am not sure
• No
If Yes, approximately how many days was the child absent from school?
Why did the child miss school?
• Insecurity
• Environmental challenges including flooding
• No food/the child was hungry
• The child had to support in other household chores
• Because the school was not serving food
• The child was sick
• The parent traveled so the child had to stay home to look after the animals and otherchildren
• The child attended other social/family functions
• I just decided he/she don’t go to school
• Other reasons
Do you think education is beneficial to your children including the one in the interview?
• Yes
• Sometimes
• No
Between boys and girls, which group do you think education is most important to?
• Boys
• Girls
• Both
What in your view are the most important benefits of education? (multiple select)
• Improves literacy
• Develops social skills
• Increases ability to learn new skills (adoption oftechnology)
• Girls remain more in school and early marriages aredelayed
• Improves cohesion in the community
• The children are able to get jobs
• It helps children to be better people in the community
• Helps break the cycle of poverty
• Increases the chances of the pupils' future economic self-reliance
• Through girls' education, improves the general wellbeing of households (nutrition, 
health etc)
• Other (please specify
133
Where did you get this information on the benefits of education?
• I am learned so I know
• From spouse and other family members
• From the schools
• From the radio
• From Television
• From the local leaders
• From friends and other community members
• From politicians
• From the government and other government agencies
• From UN agencies
• From other NGO’s
• From the church
• From print media including fliers, posters, billboards
• From online platforms
• From other channels
Have you received any information on health, good hygiene and nutritional practices?
• Yes
• No
If yes, how long ago did you receive such information?
• Less than a month ago
• Between 1-3 months ago
• Between 3- 6 months ago
• Between 6-9 months ago
• Between 9 months and 1 year ago
• More than 1 year ago
If yes, from what source did you receive the message?
• I am learned so I know
• From spouse and other family members
• From the schools
• From the radio
• From Television
• From the local leaders
• From friends and other community members
• From politicians
• From the government and other government agencies
• From UN agencies
• From other NGO’s
• From the church
• From print media including fliers, posters, billboards
• From online platforms
• From other channels
• Others
Thank you for your collaboration/assistance in this interview.
134
Student section
Suggested introduction: Hello my name is ___________________. I am seeking information
that will facilitate the implementation of the forthcoming school meals project. The purpose of this 
interview is to determine what the conditions are like prior to the start of the project. I would like to ask 
you some questions that will help in understanding what the situation is like in the school today and 
what your family life is like. Your answers will be kept confidential in that we will not be reporting who 
said what in any of our reports. The interview will take about 45 minutes. If you don’t want to you 
participate you may refuse or you may choose at any time not to answer one or more of the questions.
Important prior instruction to interviewee: Please conduct each interview separately and try 
to ensure that the interview is done in a quiet place where the pupil can feel comfortable and where 
you are not interrupted or observed by other students.
NOTE: Girls be interviewed by lady enumerators/ boys by male enumerators.
Basic information about interviewee:
What is the gender of the child?
1) Male
2) Female
What is your age:
What grade/class are you in this year:
Have you repeated any classes during your learning years?
• Yes
• No
If years how many years have you repeated?
Most school days, by what means do you go to school?
• On foot
• By bicycle
• By car
• By bus/school bus
• By motorbike
• Other (please specify)
How many minutes does it take you to go to school?
Did you have a meal/breakfast today BEFORE coming to school?
1) Yes
2) No
Have you eaten lunch or will you be eating lunch today? 
Yes
Not sure
No
How many times do you normally eat per day?
• 1 time
• 2 times
• 3 times
135
• More than three times
Do you have brothers and sisters who need to be in school but are currently out of school?
• Yes
• I am not aware
• No
If you have brothers and sisters at home, why are they not going to school? (multiple 
response)
• Parents/family don’t think they should go to school
• There is no money to send them to school
• They are working
• They are taking care of sick family members
• They are sick
• They failed school last year and did not return
• They are helping with household tasks
• Other (please specify)________
In the past month or past school term, did any of your teachers talk to you and your class 
mates about hygiene?
• Yes
• I cannot remember/not sure
• No
In the past month or the past school term, did your teacher talk to you and your class mates 
about nutrition?
• Yes
• I cannot remember/not sure
• No
Do you know any important hygiene and sanitation habits?
• Yes
• No
What are some of the important hygiene and sanitation habits that you know? (multiple 
response)
• Regular deworming and its importance
• Hand washing, importance of handwashing and how to wash hands
• Importance of general bodilyhygiene/cleanliness
• Importance of using toilets and how to use toiles.
• Importance of environmental cleanliness
• Ways of treating water and importance of drinking clean water
• Causes of diarrhoea
• Other (please specify)
Do you know any good nutrition habits or practices? 
Yes
No
What are some of the nutrition habits or practices that you know about? (multiple response)
1) Different food types and their importance to the body
136
2) Sources of different nutrient for the body
3) Common signs of poor nutrition
4) Common consequences of poor nutrition
5) Dietary needs of individuals
6) Balanced diet and the importance of the same
7) Signs of anaemia and how it can be treated
8) Other (please specify)
Do you think it is important to go to school?
1) Yes
2) I am not sure
3) No
Between girl’s boys, who do you think going to school is important to? 
Girls
Boys
Both
Why do you think it is important to go to school? (multiple response)
1) Improves literacy
2) Develops social skills
3) Increases ability to learn new skills (adoption oftechnology)
4) Girls remain more in school and early marriages aredelayed
5) Improves cohesion in the community
6) Helps break the cycle of poverty
7) Increases the chances of the pupils' future economic self-reliance
8) Through girls' education, improves the general wellbeing of households (nutrition, 
health etc.)
9) Other (please specify)
If no, why do you feel it is not important to go to school?
• It wastes time
• It gives teachers an opportunity to harm the children
• Those who have gone to school have no difference in their life
• Those who have not gone to school are doing better in life than those who have gone 
to school
• It is not enjoyable
• Children do not get food in school
• Because parents say it is not important
• Because if fail in school
• others
During last term of this year (term 1 of 2018), did you miss full day of school?
1) Yes
2) No
How many days in the last term did you miss school?
Why did you miss school?
1) I was sick
2) Someone else in the house was sick
137
3) I had to work
4) My parents did not want me to go
5) The teacher was not there
6) It was dangerous to come to school/security issues
7) I did not have any transportation
8) Other (please specify)
Do you find it easy to concentrate in class? 
Yes - always
Yes - sometime
No
Whenever you don’t concentrate in class, what is it that is bothering you? (Multiples select)
1) The work is too difficult
2) The work is too easy
3) I don’t find the material/topic interesting
4) I am worried about some other things like how to get money
5) I am hungry
6) When I am feeling sick
7) I am tired from work or domestic chores
8) I can’t hear/see what the teacher is explaining
9) When some other children are making noise
10) When the environment around the school is not peaceful
11) When there is insecurity in my village
12) Other (please specify) __________
Learners assessment (to be carried out using the UWEZO learner’s assessment booklet and 
administered to pupils between 6 – 16 years)
What is the English literacy level if the child? (Please choose the highest level)
1) Nothing
2) Letter
3) Word
4) Paragraph
5) Story
What is the comprehension level of child in English Q1 (administer only if the child can read 
story)?
1) Can do
2) Cannot do
What is the comprehension level of child in English Q2 (administer only if the child can read 
story)?
1) Can do
2) Cannot do
What is the Kiswahili literacy level if the child? (Please choose the highest level)
1) Nothing
2) Letter
3) Word
4) Paragraph
5) Story
138
What is the comprehension level of child in Kiswahili Q1 (administer only if the child can 
read story)?
1) Can do
2) Cannot do
What is the comprehension level of child in Kiswahili Q2 (administer only if the child can 
read story)?
1) Can do
2) Cannot do
Please record the child numeracy level (tick the highest level)
1) Nothing
2) Counting and matching
3) Numerical rec. between 10-99
4) Which one is greater
5) Addition
6) Subtraction
7) Multiplication
8) Division
Can the child do the bonus question 1
1) Yes
2) No
Can the child do the bonus question 1
1) Yes
2) No
Can the child do the bonus question 1
1) Yes
2) No
Thank you for your collaboration/assistance in this interview
139
Annex 10: Annexes for Quantitative analyses
Midline Data analysis – Annexures
140
Annex 10a: Comparing distribution of specific variables between study arms stratified by gender of child at Baseline
Table 1a: Socio-demographic of parents/guardians distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
p 
valu 
e
CON
(n=
TROL 
721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Age of guardian in years
0.59
<20 1 0.1% 3 0.5% 0.534 1 0.1% 2 0.4% 3 2 0.1% 5 0.4% 0.183
8
20 - 29 71 10.5% 70 12.1% 90 12.5% 2 14.5% 161 11.5% 152 13.3%
2
39.2 0 40.8
30 - 39 279 41.3% 227 % 290 40.2% 8 36.8% 569 % 435 38.0%
1
28.4 30.6 6
40 - 49 192 % 177 % 200 27.7% 9 29.9% 392 28.1% 346 30.2%
6
50 - 59 84 12.4% 70 12.1% 87 12.1% 9 12.2% 171 12.2% 139 12.2%
3
60 and above 48 7.1% 32 5.5% 53 7.4% 5 6.2% 101 7.2% 67 5.9%
Gender of the guardian
1
28.9 20 6 0.03 26.2 0.00
Male 195 % 0 34.5% 0.032 171 23.7% 3 28.8% 7 366 % 363 31.7% 2
4
48 0 103
Female 0 71.1% 379 65.5% 550 76.3% 2 71.2% 0 73.8% 781 68.3%
Relationship of guardian to the
child
4
86.2 83.9 5 0.00 <0.0
Mother/Father 582 % 486 % 0.001 620 86.0% 8 81.1% 2 1202 86.1% 944 82.5% 01
2
Brother/Sister 11 1.6% 25 4.3% 19 2.6% 5 4.4% 30 2.1% 50 4.4%
3
Uncle/Aunt 19 2.8% 24 4.1% 19 2.6% 4 6.0% 38 2.7% 58 5.1%
141
2
Grand parent 49 7.3% 22 3.8% 45 6.2% 5 4.4% 94 6.7% 47 4.1%
2
Guardian 14 2.1% 22 3.8% 18 2.5% 3 4.1% 32 2.3% 45 3.9%
Guardian was the household head
3
4 0.88 60.3 0.59
Yes 395 58.5% 354 61.1% 0.345 447 62.0% 8 61.6% 2 842 % 702 61.4% 0
2
28 38.9 1
No 0 41.5% 225 % 274 38.0% 7 38.4% 554 39.7% 442 38.6%
Main occupation of the guardian
<0.00 2 <0.0 <0.0
Too old to work 18 2.7% 22 3.8% 1 14 1.9% 0 3.5% 01 32 2.3% 42 3.7% 01
Student 4 0.6% 2 0.3% 6 0.8% 2 0.4% 10 0.7% 4 0.3%
40.6 4 40.6
Farmer 274 % 40 6.9% 293 40.6% 9 8.7% 567 % 89 7.8%
8
Pastoralist 31 4.6% 87 15.0% 19 2.6% 7 15.4% 50 3.6% 174 15.2%
1
Salaried employee 19 2.8% 27 4.7% 25 3.5% 2 2.1% 44 3.2% 39 3.4%
22.8 5
Casual laborer 154 % 60 10.4% 183 25.4% 7 10.1% 337 24.1% 117 10.2%
5
Self-employed business 51 7.6% 42 7.3% 42 5.8% 6 9.9% 93 6.7% 98 8.6%
2
40.4 1
Not currently working 110 16.3% 234 % 115 16.0% 6 38.2% 225 16.1% 450 39.3%
6
Others 14 2.1% 65 11.2% 24 3.3% 6 11.7% 38 2.7% 131 11.5%
Education level of the guardian
4
<0.00 5 <0.0 <0.0
Never attended school 114 16.9% 447 77.2% 1 95 13.2% 4 80.4% 01 209 15.0% 901 78.8% 01
1
Madrasa/Adult learning center 0 0.0% 25 4.3% 0 0.0% 8 3.2% 0 0.0% 43 3.8%
142
30.5 4
Did not complete primary school 206 % 41 7.1% 228 31.6% 2 7.4% 434 31.1% 83 7.3%
33.8 1 34.4
Completed primary school 228 % 20 3.5% 252 35.0% 9 3.4% 480 % 39 3.4%
Did not compete secondary 37 5.5% 11 1.9% 58 8.0% 9 1.6% 95 6.8% 20 1.7%
1
Completed secondary school 59 8.7% 17 2.9% 59 8.2% 1 1.9% 118 8.5% 28 2.4%
1
Completed technical college 30 4.4% 15 2.6% 19 2.6% 2 2.1% 49 3.5% 27 2.4%
Completed university/graduate school 1 0.1% 3 0.5% 10 1.4% 0 0.0% 11 0.8% 3 0.3%
143
Table 1b: Socio-demographic of parents/guardians distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n
PSMP
=541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456) p value
Age of guardian in years
<20 5 0.8% 2 0.3% 0.004 4 0.7% 2 0.3% 0.212 9 0.8% 4 0.3% 0.001
20 - 29 61 10.3% 77 10.8% 63 11.6% 75 10.1% 124 10.9% 152 10.4%
30 - 39 225 37.9% 297 41.7% 211 39.0% 325 43.7% 436 38.4% 622 42.7%
40 - 49 204 34.4% 183 25.7% 164 30.3% 202 27.2% 368 32.5% 385 26.4%
50 - 59 66 11.1% 91 12.8% 69 12.8% 84 11.3% 135 11.9% 175 12.0%
60 and above 32 5.4% 63 8.8% 30 5.5% 55 7.4% 62 5.5% 118 8.1%
Gender of the guardian
Male 211 35.6% 180 25.2% <0.001 156 28.8% 177 23.8% 0.043 367 32.4% 357 24.5% <0.001
Female 382 64.4% 533 74.8% 385 71.2% 566 76.2% 767 67.6% 1099 75.5%
Relationship guardian to the child
Mother/Father 487 82.1% 606 85.0% <0.001 434 80.2% 627 84.4% <0.001 921 81.2% 1233 84.7% <0.001
Brother/Sister 23 3.9% 12 1.7% 35 6.5% 14 1.9% 58 5.1% 26 1.8%
Uncle/Aunt 29 4.9% 16 2.2% 27 5.0% 19 2.6% 56 4.9% 35 2.4%
Grand parent 20 3.4% 55 7.7% 21 3.9% 56 7.5% 41 3.6% 111 7.6%
Guardian 34 5.7% 24 3.4% 24 4.4% 27 3.6% 58 5.1% 51 3.5%
Guardian was the household head
Yes 371 62.6% 431 60.4% 0.435 326 60.3% 463 62.3% 0.455 697 61.5% 894 61.4% 0.974
No 222 37.4% 282 39.6% 215 39.7% 280 37.7% 437 38.5% 562 38.6%
Main occupation of the guardian
Too old to work 23 3.9% 11 1.5% <0.001 15 2.8% 9 1.2% <0.001 38 3.4% 20 1.4% <0.001
Student 3 0.5% 5 0.7% 5 0.9% 4 0.5% 8 0.7% 9 0.6%
Farmer 41 6.9% 279 39.1% 30 5.5% 297 40.0% 71 6.3% 576 39.6%
Pastoralist 91 15.3% 29 4.1% 65 12.0% 23 3.1% 156 13.8% 52 3.6%
144
Salaried employee 24 4.0% 34 4.8% 18 3.3% 41 5.5% 42 3.7% 75 5.2%
Casual laborer 78 13.2% 166 23.3% 50 9.2% 187 25.2% 128 11.3% 353 24.2%
Self-employed business 40 6.7% 89 12.5% 59 10.9% 83 11.2% 99 8.7% 172 11.8%
Not currently working 239 40.3% 87 12.2% 247 45.7% 89 12.0% 486 42.9% 176 12.1%
Others 54 9.1% 13 1.8% 52 9.6% 10 1.3% 106 9.3% 23 1.6%
Education level of the guardian
Never attended school 466 78.6% 118 16.5% <0.001 427 78.9% 105 14.1% <0.001 893 78.7% 223 15.3% <0.001
Madrasa/Adult learning center 30 5.1% 1 0.1% 24 4.4% 0 0.0% 54 4.8% 1 0.1%
Did not complete primary school 31 5.2% 212 29.7% 28 5.2% 202 27.2% 59 5.2% 414 28.4%
Completed primary school 22 3.7% 224 31.4% 22 4.1% 264 35.5% 44 3.9% 488 33.5%
Did not compete secondary 6 1.0% 58 8.1% 8 1.5% 53 7.1% 14 1.2% 111 7.6%
Completed secondary school 26 4.4% 61 8.6% 17 3.1% 80 10.8% 43 3.8% 141 9.7%
Completed technical college 10 1.7% 34 4.8% 14 2.6% 37 5.0% 24 2.1% 71 4.9%
Completed university/graduate school 2 0.3% 5 0.7% 1 0.2% 2 0.3% 3 0.3% 7 0.5%
145
Table 2a: Number of males and females in the household distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p
valu 
e
CONTROL 
(n=1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Total males in the household
<0.00 <0.00 <0.00
None 6 0.9% 1 0.2% 1 35 4.9% 21 3.7% 1 41 2.9% 22 1.9% 1
26.5 35.4 22.2
1 to 2 187 27.7% 104 18.0% 307 42.6% 150 % 494 % 254 %
46.8 39.8 47.6 43.2
3 to 4 316 % 273 47.2% 287 % 269 % 603 % 542 47.4%
26.4 18.8 22.6
5 to 6 136 20.1% 153 % 74 10.3% 106 % 210 15.0% 259 %
7 to 8 30 4.4% 48 8.3% 18 2.5% 19 3.4% 48 3.4% 67 5.9%
Total females in the household
<0.00
None 26 3.9% 23 4.0% 1 2 0.3% 4 0.7% 0.021 28 2.0% 27 2.4% 0.002
46.8 20 26.2 37.0
1 to 2 316 % 8 35.9% 200 27.7% 148 % 516 % 356 31.1%
38.5 48.0 43.4 43.2
3 to 4 260 % 259 44.7% 346 % 235 41.6% 606 % 494 %
5 to 6 70 10.4% 74 12.8% 135 18.7% 145 25.7% 205 14.7% 219 19.1%
7 to 8 3 0.4% 15 2.6% 38 5.3% 33 5.8% 41 2.9% 48 4.2%
Total males between 7-18 years
attending school
<0.00 <0.00
None 15 2.2% 13 2.2% 0.028 196 27.2% 100 17.7% 1 211 15.1% 113 9.9% 1
65.5 62.8
1 to 2 477 70.7% 368 63.6% 438 60.7% 351 62.1% 915 % 719 %
24.3 30.2
3 to 4 164 % 175 % 77 10.7% 101 17.9% 241 17.3% 276 24.1%
146
5 to 6 12 1.8% 20 3.5% 9 1.2% 11 1.9% 21 1.5% 31 2.7%
7 to 8 7 1.0% 3 0.5% 1 0.1% 2 0.4% 8 0.6% 5 0.4%
Total females between 7-18 years
attending school
28.0
None 203 30.1% 162 % 0.065 24 3.3% 31 5.5% 0.204 227 16.3% 193 16.9% 0.516
40 60.4 65.6 64.5
1 to 2 8 % 337 58.2% 508 70.5% 401 71.0% 916 % 738 %
3 to 4 58 8.6% 68 11.7% 167 23.2% 111 19.6% 225 16.1% 179 15.6%
5 to 6 3 0.4% 10 1.7% 18 2.5% 18 3.2% 21 1.5% 28 2.4%
7 to 8 3 0.4% 2 0.3% 4 0.6% 4 0.7% 7 0.5% 6 0.5%
147
Table 2b: Number of males and females in the household distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WFPSMP 
(n=541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WFPSMP 
(n=1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Total males in the household
<0.00 <0.00 <0.00
None 5 0.8% 3 0.4% 1 26 4.8% 47 6.3% 1 31 2.7% 50 3.4% 1
30.6 29.8 47.6 23.9 39.3
1 to 2 110 18.5% 218 % 161 % 354 % 271 % 572 %
44.7 48.8 43.4 34.9
3 to 4 265 % 348 % 235 % 259 % 500 44.1% 607 41.7%
27.2 22.7
5 to 6 161 % 111 15.6% 96 17.7% 65 8.7% 257 % 176 12.1%
7 to 8 52 8.8% 33 4.6% 23 4.3% 18 2.4% 75 6.6% 51 3.5%
Total females in the household
<0.00 <0.00
None 22 3.7% 68 9.5% 1 4 0.7% 3 0.4% 0.014 26 2.3% 71 4.9% 1
33.4 44.9 26.4 38.0
1 to 2 198 % 320 % 143 % 234 31.5% 341 30.1% 554 %
26 44.5 33.8 43.3 46.6 43.9 40.3
3 to 4 4 % 241 % 234 % 346 % 498 % 587 %
22.9
5 to 6 98 16.5% 74 10.4% 124 % 121 16.3% 222 19.6% 195 13.4%
7 to 8 11 1.9% 10 1.4% 36 6.7% 39 5.2% 47 4.1% 49 3.4%
Total males between 7-18 years
attending school
<0.00 <0.00
None 13 2.2% 18 2.5% 0.168 97 17.9% 246 33.1% 1 110 9.7% 264 18.1% 1
38 65.4 55.2 63.7
1 to 2 8 % 509 71.4% 334 61.7% 410 % 722 % 919 63.1%
27.5 10.2 22.8
3 to 4 163 % 155 21.7% 96 17.7% 76 % 259 % 231 15.9%
148
5 to 6 22 3.7% 24 3.4% 13 2.4% 9 1.2% 35 3.1% 33 2.3%
7 to 8 7 1.2% 7 1.0% 1 0.2% 2 0.3% 8 0.7% 9 0.6%
Total females between 7-18 years
attending school
25.5 <0.00 20.0
None 151 % 267 37.4% 1 26 4.8% 24 3.2% 0.298 177 15.6% 291 % 0.029
59.9 70.6 73.4 65.0 62.8
1 to 2 355 % 369 51.8% 382 % 545 % 737 % 914 %
3 to 4 80 13.5% 66 9.3% 114 21.1% 145 19.5% 194 17.1% 211 14.5%
5 to 6 7 1.2% 8 1.1% 14 2.6% 26 3.5% 21 1.9% 34 2.3%
7 to 8 0 0.0% 3 0.4% 5 0.9% 3 0.4% 5 0.4% 6 0.4%
149
Table 3a: Availability of food at home distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Number of days child ate before going
to school
27.3 <0.00 <0.00 <0.00
None 104 15.4% 158 % 1 125 17.3% 153 27.1% 1 229 16.4% 311 27.2% 1
14.3 14.8 20
1 - 2 days 96 14.2% 83 % 107 % 101 17.9% 3 14.5% 184 16.1%
20 30.1 25.7 32.0
3 - 4 days 3 % 149 % 231 % 122 21.6% 434 31.1% 271 23.7%
40.3 32.6 35.8 33.5 38.0 33.0
5 days 272 % 189 % 258 % 189 % 530 % 378 %
Number of days child ate after coming
from school
<0.00 <0.00 <0.00
None 23 3.4% 36 6.2% 1 29 4.0% 35 6.2% 1 52 3.7% 71 6.2% 1
14.0
1 - 2 days 42 6.2% 81 % 48 6.7% 95 16.8% 90 6.4% 176 15.4%
20 35.6 30.3 33.0
3 - 4 days 129 19.1% 6 % 140 19.4% 171 % 269 19.3% 377 %
44.2 50 69.9 46.7 70.6 52
5 days 481 71.3% 256 % 4 % 264 % 985 % 0 45.5%
Child had a meal on interview day
before going to school
32.7 44.2 <0.00 39.8 26 46.0 <0.00 50 36.4 <0.00
No 221 % 256 % 1 287 % 0 % 1 8 % 516 45.1% 1
29 26.3 38.7 27.6 30 26.9
Yes: Not enough 8 44.1% 152 % 279 % 156 % 577 41.3% 8 %
29.5 26.4 22.3 32 28.0
Yes: Enough 156 23.1% 171 % 155 21.5% 149 % 311 % 0 %
150
Food consumption score (FCS)
24.3 37.3 <0.00 25.2 <0.00 24.8 <0.00
Poor 164 % 216 % 1 182 % 213 37.7% 1 346 % 429 37.5% 1
26 39.7 26.6 28 39.9 28.0 39.8
Borderline 8 % 154 % 8 % 158 % 556 % 312 27.3%
36.0 20 36.1 34.8 34.3 49 35.4 40
Acceptable 243 % 9 % 251 % 194 % 4 % 3 35.2%
151
Table 3b: Availability of food at home distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
541)
HGSMP 
(n=743) p value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Number of days child ate before going to
school
None 116 19.6% 90 12.6% 0.007 97 17.9% 80 10.8% <0.001 213 18.8% 170 11.7% <0.001
1 - 2 days 80 13.5% 98 13.7% 99 18.3% 103 13.9% 179 15.8% 201 13.8%
3 - 4 days 165 27.8% 224 31.4% 138 25.5% 232 31.2% 303 26.7% 456 31.3%
5 days 232 39.1% 301 42.2% 207 38.3% 328 44.1% 439 38.7% 629 43.2%
Number of days child ate after coming
from school
None 24 4.0% 41 5.8% <0.001 22 4.1% 42 5.7% <0.001 46 4.1% 83 5.7% <0.001
1 - 2 days 89 15.0% 44 6.2% 94 17.4% 41 5.5% 183 16.1% 85 5.8%
3 - 4 days 204 34.4% 125 17.5% 169 31.2% 126 17.0% 373 32.9% 251 17.2%
5 days 276 46.5% 503 70.5% 256 47.3% 534 71.9% 532 46.9% 1037 71.2%
Child had a meal on interview day
before going to school
No 209 35.2% 231 32.4% <0.001 193 35.7% 241 32.4% <0.001 402 35.4% 472 32.4% <0.001
Meal not enough 162 27.3% 312 43.8% 154 28.5% 332 44.7% 316 27.9% 644 44.2%
Enough meal 222 37.4% 170 23.8% 194 35.9% 170 22.9% 416 36.7% 340 23.4%
Food consumption score (FCS)
Poor 197 33.2% 148 20.8% <0.001 193 35.7% 156 21.0% <0.001 390 34.4% 304 20.9% <0.001
Borderline 135 22.8% 281 39.4% 125 23.1% 271 36.5% 260 22.9% 552 37.9%
Acceptable 261 44.0% 284 39.8% 223 41.2% 316 42.5% 484 42.7% 600 41.2%
152
Table 4a: Availability of food at school distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
p 
value
CON
(n
TROL
=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CON
(n=
TROL 
1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Child has been receiving school meals
at school in the current school year
(2017)
Yes 158 23.4% 322 55.6% <0.001 121 16.8% 356 63.0% <0.001 279 20.0% 678 59.3% <0.001
No 517 76.6% 257 44.4% 600 83.2% 209 37.0% 1117 80.0% 466 40.7%
The school in which the child was
learning at currently (same week)
serving food
Yes 114 16.9% 289 49.9% <0.001 113 15.7% 302 53.5% <0.001 227 16.3% 591 51.7% <0.001
No 561 83.1% 290 50.1% 608 84.3% 263 46.5% 1169 83.7% 553 48.3%
When school meals are not provided:
Child carried food from home
No 410 60.7% 573 99.0% <0.001 383 53.1% 562 99.5% <0.001 793 56.8% 1135 99.2% <0.001
Yes 265 39.3% 6 1.0% 338 46.9% 3 0.5% 603 43.2% 9 0.8%
When school meals are not provided:
Child buys lunch
No 664 98.4% 572 98.8% 0.532 711 98.6% 558 98.8% 0.818 1375 98.5% 1130 98.8% 0.546
Yes 11 1.6% 7 1.2% 10 1.4% 7 1.2% 21 1.5% 14 1.2%
When school meals are not provided:
Child goes home for lunch
No 537 79.6% 246 42.5% <0.001 558 77.4% 278 49.2% <0.001 1095 78.4% 524 45.8% <0.001
Yes 138 20.4% 333 57.5% 163 22.6% 287 50.8% 301 21.6% 620 54.2%
When school meals are not provided:
Child remains at home
No 670 99.3% 562 97.1% 0.003 715 99.2% 544 96.3% <0.001 1385 99.2% 1106 96.7% <0.001
Yes 5 0.7% 17 2.9% 6 0.8% 21 3.7% 11 0.8% 38 3.3%
153
When school meals are not provided: 
Child goes without lunch
No 255 37.8% 293 50.6% <0.001 315 43.7% 262 46.4% 0.337 570 40.8% 555 48.5% <0.001
Yes 420 62.2% 286 49.4% 406 56.3% 303 53.6% 826 59.2% 589 51.5%
Child missed a complete day of school 
during the 1st term of the year (2017)
Yes 357 52.9% 211 36.4% <0.001 360 49.9% 190 33.6% <0.001 717 51.4% 401 35.1% <0.001
No 318 47.1% 368 63.6% 361 50.1% 375 66.4% 679 48.6% 743 64.9%
Table 4b: Availability of food at school distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WFP
(n=
SMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Child has been receiving school
meals at school in the current school
year (2017)
Yes 318 53.6% 573 80.4% <0.001 313 57.9% 598 80.5% <0.001 631 55.6% 1171 80.4% <0.001
No 275 46.4% 140 19.6% 228 42.1% 145 19.5% 503 44.4% 285 19.6%
The school in which the child was
learning at currently (same week)
serving food
Yes 263 44.4% 351 49.2% 0.079 235 43.4% 399 53.7% <0.001 498 43.9% 750 51.5% <0.001
No 330 55.6% 362 50.8% 306 56.6% 344 46.3% 636 56.1% 706 48.5%
When school meals are not
provided: Child carried food from
home
No 583 98.3% 410 57.5% <0.001 537 99.3% 387 52.1% <0.001 1120 98.8% 797 54.7% <0.001
Yes 10 1.7% 303 42.5% 4 0.7% 356 47.9% 14 1.2% 659 45.3%
When school meals are not
provided: Child buys lunch
No 581 98.0% 698 97.9% 0.919 532 98.3% 732 98.5% 0.794 1113 98.1% 1430 98.2% 0.900
154
Yes 12 2.0% 15 2.1% 9 1.7% 11 1.5% 21 1.9% 26 1.8%
When school meals are not
provided: Child goes home for lunch
No 197 33.2% 557 78.1% <0.001 202 37.3% 602 81.0% <0.001 399 35.2% 1159 79.6% <0.001
Yes 396 66.8% 156 21.9% 339 62.7% 141 19.0% 735 64.8% 297 20.4%
When school meals are not
provided: Child remains at home
No 580 97.8% 707 99.2% 0.042 535 98.9% 726 97.7% 0.116 1115 98.3% 1433 98.4% 0.848
Yes 13 2.2% 6 0.8% 6 1.1% 17 2.3% 19 1.7% 23 1.6%
When school meals are not
provided: Child goes without lunch
No 376 63.4% 291 40.8% <0.001 320 59.1% 328 44.1% <0.001 696 61.4% 619 42.5% <0.001
Yes 217 36.6% 422 59.2% 221 40.9% 415 55.9% 438 38.6% 837 57.5%
Child missed a complete day of
school during the 1st term of the year
(2017)
Yes 181 30.5% 402 56.4% <0.001 186 34.4% 399 53.7% <0.001 367 32.4% 801 55.0% <0.001
No 412 69.5% 311 43.6% 355 65.6% 344 46.3% 767 67.6% 655 45.0%
155
Table 5a: Coping strategy on days when the family did not have enough food or money to buy food distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CONTROL 
(n=1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Quintiles of Coping Strategy
Index (CSI)
20.9
First 108 16.0% 130 22.5% 0.001 119 16.5% 109 19.3% 0.117 227 16.3% 239 % 0.001
20.6
Second 126 18.7% 132 22.8% 142 19.7% 104 18.4% 268 19.2% 236 %
20.7 20.4 20.6
Third 140 % 93 16.1% 147 % 121 21.4% 287 % 214 18.7%
23.9 24.0
Fourth 161 % 103 17.8% 173 % 105 18.6% 334 23.9% 208 18.2%
20.7 20.9 22.3
Fifth 140 % 121 % 140 19.4% 126 % 280 20.1% 247 21.6%
Table 5b: Coping strategy on days when the family did not have enough food or money to buy food distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Quintiles of Coping Strategy
Index (CSI)
First 178 30.0% 126 17.7% 0.001 132 24.4% 145 19.5% 0.161 310 27.3% 271 18.6% 0.001
Second 133 22.4% 132 18.5% 110 20.3% 154 20.7% 243 21.4% 286 19.6%
Third 92 15.5% 170 23.8% 100 18.5% 167 22.5% 192 16.9% 337 23.1%
Fourth 77 13.0% 165 23.1% 96 17.7% 144 19.4% 173 15.3% 309 21.2%
Fifth 113 19.1% 120 16.8% 103 19.0% 133 17.9% 216 19.0% 253 17.4%
156
Table 6a: Views on benefits of education, school absenteeism, sources of information on school feeding and hygiene distributed by CONTROL 
and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579) p value
CON
(n=
TROL 
721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CON
(n=
TROL 
1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
valu
Number of important benefits of
education mentioned by the
parent/guardian
<2 227 33.6% 78 13.5% <0.001 242 33.6% 80 14.2% <0.001 469 33.6% 158 13.8% <0.0
2 to 3 404 59.9% 310 53.5% 436 60.5% 284 50.3% 840 60.2% 594 51.9%
4 to 5 41 6.1% 104 18.0% 38 5.3% 96 17.0% 79 5.7% 200 17.5%
6 and above 3 0.4% 87 15.0% 5 0.7% 105 18.6% 8 0.6% 192 16.8%
Number of sources of information on
school feeding in the past year
mentioned by the parent/guardian
None 469 69.5% 172 29.7% <0.001 511 70.9% 164 29.0% <0.001 980 70.2% 336 29.4% <0.0
One 181 26.8% 304 52.5% 184 25.5% 302 53.5% 365 26.1% 606 53.0%
Two 19 2.8% 73 12.6% 24 3.3% 69 12.2% 43 3.1% 142 12.4%
Three and above 6 0.9% 30 5.2% 2 0.3% 30 5.3% 8 0.6% 60 5.2%
Number of sources of information on
hygiene in the past year mentioned by
the parent/guardian
None 337 49.9% 218 37.7% <0.001 361 50.1% 182 32.2% <0.001 698 50.0% 400 35.0% <0.0
One 257 38.1% 233 40.2% 288 39.9% 239 42.3% 545 39.0% 472 41.3%
Two 55 8.1% 83 14.3% 51 7.1% 99 17.5% 106 7.6% 182 15.9%
Three and above 26 3.9% 45 7.8% 21 2.9% 45 8.0% 47 3.4% 90 7.9%
Number of reasons why the child
missed a complete day of school during
the 1st term of this year
None 318 47.1% 368 63.6% <0.001 361 50.1% 375 66.4% <0.001 679 48.6% 743 64.9% <0.0
One 261 38.7% 143 24.7% 282 39.1% 118 20.9% 543 38.9% 261 22.8%
157
Two 80 11.9% 39 6.7% 61 8.5% 45 8.0% 141 10.1% 84 7.3%
Three and above 16 2.4% 29 5.0% 17 2.4% 27 4.8% 33 2.4% 56 4.9%
158
Table 6b: Views on benefits of education, school absenteeism, sources of information on school feeding and hygiene distributed by WFPSMP 
and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (n=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
541)
HGSMP p
(n=743) value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Number of important benefits
of education mentioned
<2 63 10.6% 202 28.3% <0.001 64 11.8% 183 24.6% <0.001 127 11.2% 385 26.4% <0.001
2 to 3 358 60.4% 455 63.8% 301 55.6% 500 67.3% 659 58.1% 955 65.6%
4 to 5 109 18.4% 55 7.7% 93 17.2% 57 7.7% 202 17.8% 112 7.7%
6 and above 63 10.6% 1 0.1% 83 15.3% 3 0.4% 146 12.9% 4 0.3%
Number of sources of
information on school feeding
in the past year
None 182 30.7% 299 41.9% <0.001 169 31.2% 318 42.8% <0.001 351 31.0% 617 42.4% <0.001
One 310 52.3% 357 50.1% 271 50.1% 377 50.7% 581 51.2% 734 50.4%
Two 71 12.0% 42 5.9% 66 12.2% 37 5.0% 137 12.1% 79 5.4%
Three and above 30 5.1% 15 2.1% 35 6.5% 11 1.5% 65 5.7% 26 1.8%
Number of sources of
information on hygiene in the
past year
None 235 39.6% 244 34.2% <0.001 192 35.5% 258 34.7% <0.001 427 37.7% 502 34.5% <0.001
One 217 36.6% 372 52.2% 200 37.0% 368 49.5% 417 36.8% 740 50.8%
Two 102 17.2% 76 10.7% 109 20.1% 92 12.4% 211 18.6% 168 11.5%
Three and above 39 6.6% 21 2.9% 40 7.4% 25 3.4% 79 7.0% 46 3.2%
Number of reasons why the
child missed a complete day of
school during the 1st term of
this year
None 412 69.5% 311 43.6% <0.001 355 65.6% 344 46.3% <0.001 767 67.6% 655 45.0% <0.001
One 124 20.9% 304 42.6% 124 22.9% 323 43.5% 248 21.9% 627 43.1%
159
Two 34 5.7% 76 10.7% 42 7.8% 58 7.8% 76 6.7% 134 9.2%
Three and above 23 3.9% 22 3.1% 20 3.7% 18 2.4% 43 3.8% 40 2.7%
160
Table 7a: Socio-demographic characteristics of children distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579) p value
CON
(n=
TROL 
721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CON
(n=
TROL 
1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
value
Age of child in years
7 to 8 43 6.4% 32 5.5% 0.078 67 9.3% 33 5.8% 0.002 110 7.9% 65 5.7% <0.00
9 to 10 135 20.0% 87 15.0% 158 21.9% 97 17.2% 293 21.0% 184 16.1%
11 to 12 188 27.9% 163 28.2% 202 28.0% 162 28.7% 390 27.9% 325 28.4%
13 to 14 204 30.2% 181 31.3% 210 29.1% 172 30.4% 414 29.7% 353 30.9%
>14 105 15.6% 116 20.0% 84 11.7% 101 17.9% 189 13.5% 217 19.0%
Class of the child
Third 99 14.7% 136 23.5% 0.006 116 16.1% 123 21.8% 0.001 215 15.4% 259 22.6% <0.00
Fourth 116 17.2% 94 16.2% 109 15.1% 108 19.1% 225 16.1% 202 17.7%
Fifth 122 18.1% 96 16.6% 112 15.5% 96 17.0% 234 16.8% 192 16.8%
Sixth 122 18.1% 95 16.4% 128 17.8% 95 16.8% 250 17.9% 190 16.6%
Seventh 133 19.7% 94 16.2% 135 18.7% 76 13.5% 268 19.2% 170 14.9%
Eighth 83 12.3% 64 11.1% 121 16.8% 67 11.9% 204 14.6% 131 11.5%
Time taken to get to school
Less than 15 minutes 151 22.4% 262 45.3% <0.001 153 21.2% 273 48.3% <0.001 304 21.8% 535 46.8% <0.00
Between 15 and 30 minutes 250 37.0% 189 32.6% 255 35.4% 158 28.0% 505 36.2% 347 30.3%
Between 30 and 60 minutes 219 32.4% 78 13.5% 238 33.0% 85 15.0% 457 32.7% 163 14.2%
More than 1 hour 55 8.1% 50 8.6% 75 10.4% 49 8.7% 130 9.3% 99 8.7%
Mode of travel to school
On foot 668 99.0% 574 99.1% 0.753 719 99.7% 562 99.5% 0.468 1387 99.4% 1136 99.3% 0.867
Bicycle/ Bus/ Motor cycle 7 1.0% 5 0.9% 2 0.3% 3 0.5% 9 0.6% 8 0.7%
Brothers and sisters currently
studying in the same school
Yes 484 71.7% 382 66.0% 0.029 547 75.9% 387 68.5% 0.003 1031 73.9% 769 67.2% <0.00
No 191 28.3% 197 34.0% 174 24.1% 178 31.5% 365 26.1% 375 32.8%
161
Having brothers and sisters who are 
old enough to go to school but are NOT 
currently attending school
Yes 69 10.2% 131 22.6% <0.001 62 8.6% 124 21.9% <0.001 131 9.4% 255 22.3% <0.00
No 606 89.8% 448 77.4% 659 91.4% 441 78.1% 1265 90.6% 889 77.7%
162
Table 7b: Socio-demographic characteristics of children distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
value
Age of child in years
7 to 8 28 4.7% 27 3.8% 0.001 38 7.0% 54 7.3% 0.005 66 5.8% 81 5.6% <0.001
9 to 10 83 14.0% 163 22.9% 97 17.9% 176 23.7% 180 15.9% 339 23.3%
11 to 12 184 31.0% 191 26.8% 164 30.3% 236 31.8% 348 30.7% 427 29.3%
13 to 14 206 34.7% 220 30.9% 164 30.3% 213 28.7% 370 32.6% 433 29.7%
>14 92 15.5% 112 15.7% 78 14.4% 64 8.6% 170 15.0% 176 12.1%
Class of the child
Third 125 21.1% 95 13.3% <0.001 123 22.7% 111 14.9% <0.001 248 21.9% 206 14.1% <0.001
Fourth 119 20.1% 119 16.7% 121 22.4% 122 16.4% 240 21.2% 241 16.6%
Fifth 120 20.2% 130 18.2% 95 17.6% 126 17.0% 215 19.0% 256 17.6%
Sixth 94 15.9% 139 19.5% 98 18.1% 125 16.8% 192 16.9% 264 18.1%
Seventh 84 14.2% 123 17.3% 66 12.2% 149 20.1% 150 13.2% 272 18.7%
Eighth 51 8.6% 107 15.0% 38 7.0% 110 14.8% 89 7.8% 217 14.9%
Time taken to get to school
Less than 15 minutes 298 50.3% 187 26.2% <0.001 262 48.4% 190 25.6% <0.001 560 49.4% 377 25.9% <0.001
Between 15 and 30 minutes 194 32.7% 273 38.3% 174 32.2% 306 41.2% 368 32.5% 579 39.8%
Between 30 and 60 minutes 68 11.5% 203 28.5% 67 12.4% 191 25.7% 135 11.9% 394 27.1%
More than 1 hour 33 5.6% 50 7.0% 38 7.0% 56 7.5% 71 6.3% 106 7.3%
Mode of travel to school
On foot 592 99.8% 685 96.1% <0.001 539 99.6% 720 96.9% <0.001 1131 99.7% 1405 96.5% <0.001
Bicycle/ Bus/ Motor cycle 1 0.2% 28 3.9% 2 0.4% 23 3.1% 3 0.3% 51 3.5%
Brothers and sisters currently
studying in the same school
Yes 378 63.7% 476 66.8% 0.254 355 65.6% 512 68.9% 0.214 733 64.6% 988 67.9% 0.085
No 215 36.3% 237 33.2% 186 34.4% 231 31.1% 401 35.4% 468 32.1%
163
Having brothers and sisters 
who are old enough to go to 
school but are NOT currently 
attending school
Yes 116 19.6% 56 7.9% <0.001 104 19.2% 66 8.9% <0.001 220 19.4% 122 8.4% <0.001
No 477 80.4% 657 92.1% 437 80.8% 677 91.1% 914 80.6% 1334 91.6%
164
Table 8a: Children feeding distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579) p value
CON
(n
TROL
=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CON
(n=
TROL 
1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
valu
Had a meal today BEFORE coming to
school
No 230 34.1% 221 38.2% <0.001 296 41.1% 237 41.9% 0.007 526 37.7% 458 40.0% <0.0
Yes: Not enough 252 37.3% 149 25.7% 238 33.0% 146 25.8% 490 35.1% 295 25.8%
Yes: Enough 193 28.6% 209 36.1% 187 25.9% 182 32.2% 380 27.2% 391 34.2%
Number of days child ate before going to
school
None 89 13.2% 135 23.3% <0.001 103 14.3% 124 21.9% <0.001 192 13.8% 259 22.6% <0.0
1 - 2 days 111 16.4% 93 16.1% 113 15.7% 114 20.2% 224 16.0% 207 18.1%
3 - 4 days 219 32.4% 162 28.0% 232 32.2% 159 28.1% 451 32.3% 321 28.1%
5 days 256 37.9% 189 32.6% 273 37.9% 168 29.7% 529 37.9% 357 31.2%
Number of times child normally eat per day
1 time 107 15.9% 119 20.6% <0.001 133 18.4% 118 20.9% 0.007 240 17.2% 237 20.7% <0.0
2 times 291 43.1% 292 50.4% 326 45.2% 293 51.9% 617 44.2% 585 51.1%
3 times 266 39.4% 164 28.3% 249 34.5% 147 26.0% 515 36.9% 311 27.2%
More than 3 time 11 1.6% 4 0.7% 13 1.8% 7 1.2% 24 1.7% 11 1.0%
Number of times child ate yesterday
1 time 148 21.9% 139 24.0% 0.050 196 27.2% 134 23.7% 0.024 344 24.6% 273 23.9% 0.00
2 times 276 40.9% 261 45.1% 290 40.2% 275 48.7% 566 40.5% 536 46.9%
3 times 234 34.7% 173 29.9% 220 30.5% 148 26.2% 454 32.5% 321 28.1%
More than 3 time 17 2.5% 6 1.0% 15 2.1% 8 1.4% 32 2.3% 14 1.2%
The last time meals were provided for
pupils in the school
Yesterday 82 12.1% 238 41.1% <0.001 69 9.6% 263 46.5% <0.001 151 10.8% 501 43.8% <0.0
One week ago 94 13.9% 24 4.1% 74 10.3% 18 3.2% 168 12.0% 42 3.7%
165
One month ago 9 1.3% 4 0.7% 7 1.0% 5 0.9% 16 1.1% 9 0.8%
One term ago 19 2.8% 201 34.7% 25 3.5% 186 32.9% 44 3.2% 387 33.8%
Two terms ago 5 0.7% 65 11.2% 4 0.6% 51 9.0% 9 0.6% 116 10.1%
One year ago 62 9.2% 43 7.4% 51 7.1% 39 6.9% 113 8.1% 82 7.2%
More than one year ago 404 59.9% 4 0.7% 491 68.1% 3 0.5% 895 64.1% 7 0.6%
166
Table 8b: Children feeding distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
M le (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
HGSMP 
(n=713) p value
WF
(n
PSMP
=541)
HGSMP 
(n=743)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
p 
valu
Had a meal today BEFORE coming to
school
No 175 29.5% 194 27.2% <0.001 182 33.6% 246 33.1% 0.006 357 31.5% 440 30.2% <0.0
Yes: Not enough 145 24.5% 257 36.0% 137 25.3% 244 32.8% 282 24.9% 501 34.4%
Yes: Enough 273 46.0% 262 36.7% 222 41.0% 253 34.1% 495 43.7% 515 35.4%
Number of days child ate before going to
school
None 88 14.8% 65 9.1% <0.001 78 14.4% 83 11.2% <0.001 166 14.6% 148 10.2% <0.0
1 - 2 days 111 18.7% 107 15.0% 100 18.5% 119 16.0% 211 18.6% 226 15.5%
3 - 4 days 169 28.5% 198 27.8% 165 30.5% 182 24.5% 334 29.5% 380 26.1%
5 days 225 37.9% 343 48.1% 198 36.6% 359 48.3% 423 37.3% 702 48.2%
Number of times child normally eat per day
1 time 81 13.7% 111 15.6% <0.001 92 17.0% 106 14.3% <0.001 173 15.3% 217 14.9% <0.0
2 times 275 46.4% 242 33.9% 246 45.5% 240 32.3% 521 45.9% 482 33.1%
3 times 227 38.3% 339 47.5% 193 35.7% 371 49.9% 420 37.0% 710 48.8%
More than 3 time 10 1.7% 21 2.9% 10 1.8% 26 3.5% 20 1.8% 47 3.2%
Number of times child ate yesterday
1 time 110 18.5% 126 17.7% 0.061 114 21.1% 141 19.0% 0.001 224 19.8% 267 18.3% <0.0
2 times 240 40.5% 256 35.9% 226 41.8% 242 32.6% 466 41.1% 498 34.2%
3 times 233 39.3% 305 42.8% 188 34.8% 330 44.4% 421 37.1% 635 43.6%
More than 3 time 10 1.7% 26 3.6% 13 2.4% 30 4.0% 23 2.0% 56 3.8%
The last time meals were provided for
pupils in the school
Yesterday 211 35.6% 305 42.8% <0.001 197 36.4% 352 47.4% <0.001 408 36.0% 657 45.1% <0.0
One week ago 32 5.4% 72 10.1% 27 5.0% 67 9.0% 59 5.2% 139 9.5%
167
One month ago 7 1.2% 26 3.6% 10 1.8% 22 3.0% 17 1.5% 48 3.3%
One term ago 246 41.5% 200 28.1% 225 41.6% 189 25.4% 471 41.5% 389 26.7%
Two terms ago 47 7.9% 2 0.3% 32 5.9% 4 0.5% 79 7.0% 6 0.4%
One year ago 47 7.9% 17 2.4% 47 8.7% 17 2.3% 94 8.3% 34 2.3%
More than one year ago 3 0.5% 91 12.8% 3 0.6% 92 12.4% 6 0.5% 183 12.6%
168
Table 9a: Hygiene, nutrition, concentration in class, importance of education and school absenteeism distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
WFPSMP 
(n=579) p value
CON
(n
TROL
=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
p 
value
CON
(n=
TROL 
1396)
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
p 
val
In the past month the teacher talked to
students about hygiene
Yes 582 86.2% 497 85.8% 0.845 628 87.1% 503 89.0% 0.293 1210 86.7% 1000 87.4% 0.58
No 93 13.8% 82 14.2% 93 12.9% 62 11.0% 186 13.3% 144 12.6%
Number of hygiene habits mentioned
None 64 9.5% 49 8.5% <0.001 64 8.9% 45 8.0% <0.001 128 9.2% 94 8.2% <0.0
1 to 2 479 71.0% 249 43.0% 513 71.2% 217 38.4% 992 71.1% 466 40.7%
3 to 4 127 18.8% 205 35.4% 140 19.4% 227 40.2% 267 19.1% 432 37.8%
5 and above 5 0.7% 76 13.1% 4 0.6% 76 13.5% 9 0.6% 152 13.3%
In the past month the teacher talked to
students about nutrition
Yes 460 68.1% 394 68.0% 0.970 495 68.7% 399 70.6% 0.447 955 68.4% 793 69.3% 0.6
No 215 31.9% 185 32.0% 226 31.3% 166 29.4% 441 31.6% 351 30.7%
Number of important nutrition habits
mentioned
None 251 37.2% 163 28.2% <0.001 284 39.4% 154 27.3% <0.001 535 38.3% 317 27.7% <0.0
One 267 39.6% 143 24.7% 261 36.2% 134 23.7% 528 37.8% 277 24.2%
Two 114 16.9% 126 21.8% 117 16.2% 121 21.4% 231 16.5% 247 21.6%
Three and above 43 6.4% 147 25.4% 59 8.2% 156 27.6% 102 7.3% 303 26.5%
Number of reasons why missed school
Never missed 343 50.8% 382 66.0% <0.001 366 50.8% 376 66.5% <0.001 709 50.8% 758 66.3% <0.0
One 289 42.8% 164 28.3% 304 42.2% 146 25.8% 593 42.5% 310 27.1%
Two 41 6.1% 23 4.0% 48 6.7% 27 4.8% 89 6.4% 50 4.4%
Three or more 2 0.3% 10 1.7% 3 0.4% 16 2.8% 5 0.4% 26 2.3%
Number of reasons why it was difficult to concentrate in class
169
Never missed 361 53.5% 331 57.2% <0.001 387 53.7% 343 60.7% <0.001 748 53.6% 674 58.9% <0.0
One 234 34.7% 104 18.0% 245 34.0% 98 17.3% 479 34.3% 202 17.7%
Two 72 10.7% 81 14.0% 74 10.3% 61 10.8% 146 10.5% 142 12.4%
Three or more 8 1.2% 63 10.9% 15 2.1% 63 11.2% 23 1.6% 126 11.0%
Number of most important benefits of education mentioned by the child
<2 356 52.7% 138 23.8% <0.001 383 53.1% 143 25.3% <0.001 739 52.9% 281 24.6% <0.0
2 to 3 299 44.3% 280 48.4% 306 42.4% 258 45.7% 605 43.3% 538 47.0%
4 to 5 20 3.0% 93 16.1% 32 4.4% 68 12.0% 52 3.7% 161 14.1%
6 and above 0 0.0% 68 11.7% 0 0.0% 96 17.0% 0 0.0% 164 14.3%
Table 9b: Hygiene, nutrition, concentration in class, importance of education and school absenteeism distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
WF
(n=
PSMP 
593)
HGSMP 
(n=713) p value
WFPSMP 
(n=541)
HGSMP 
(n=743) p value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1134)
HGSMP 
(n=1456) p value
In the past month the teacher talked to students about hygiene
Yes 508 85.7% 629 88.2% 0.171 462 85.4% 631 84.9% 0.815 970 85.5% 1260 86.5% 0.465
No 85 14.3% 84 11.8% 79 14.6% 112 15.1% 164 14.5% 196 13.5%
Number of hygiene habits mentioned by the child
None 39 6.6% 44 6.2% <0.001 39 7.2% 64 8.6% <0.001 78 6.9% 108 7.4% <0.001
1 to 2 248 41.8% 520 72.9% 236 43.6% 526 70.8% 484 42.7% 1046 71.8%
3 to 4 246 41.5% 139 19.5% 207 38.3% 142 19.1% 453 39.9% 281 19.3%
5 and above 60 10.1% 10 1.4% 59 10.9% 11 1.5% 119 10.5% 21 1.4%
In the past month the teacher talked to students about nutrition
Yes 413 69.6% 479 67.2% 0.341 367 67.8% 500 67.3% 0.838 780 68.8% 979 67.2% 0.404
No 180 30.4% 234 32.8% 174 32.2% 243 32.7% 354 31.2% 477 32.8%
Number of important nutrition habits mentioned by the child
None 125 21.1% 256 35.9% <0.001 118 21.8% 278 37.4% <0.001 243 21.4% 534 36.7% <0.001
One 138 23.3% 267 37.4% 120 22.2% 282 38.0% 258 22.8% 549 37.7%
170
Two 164 27.7% 109 15.3% 157 29.0% 105 14.1% 321 28.3% 214 14.7%
Three and above 166 28.0% 81 11.4% 146 27.0% 78 10.5% 312 27.5% 159 10.9%
Number of reasons why missed school
Never missed 410 69.1% 342 48.0% <0.001 359 66.4% 372 50.1% <0.001 769 67.8% 714 49.0% <0.001
One 159 26.8% 333 46.7% 143 26.4% 321 43.2% 302 26.6% 654 44.9%
Two 17 2.9% 34 4.8% 26 4.8% 48 6.5% 43 3.8% 82 5.6%
Three or more 7 1.2% 4 0.6% 13 2.4% 2 0.3% 20 1.8% 6 0.4%
Number of reasons why it was difficult to concentrate in class
Never missed 371 62.6% 390 54.7% <0.001 339 62.7% 432 58.1% <0.001 710 62.6% 822 56.5% <0.001
One 105 17.7% 249 34.9% 101 18.7% 251 33.8% 206 18.2% 500 34.3%
Two 66 11.1% 65 9.1% 63 11.6% 50 6.7% 129 11.4% 115 7.9%
Three or more 51 8.6% 9 1.3% 38 7.0% 10 1.3% 89 7.8% 19 1.3%
Number of most important benefits of education mentioned by the
child
<2 136 22.9% 342 48.0% <0.001 122 22.6% 346 46.6% <0.001 258 22.8% 688 47.3% <0.001
2 to 3 313 52.8% 337 47.3% 281 51.9% 356 47.9% 594 52.4% 693 47.6%
4 to 5 87 14.7% 34 4.8% 73 13.5% 38 5.1% 160 14.1% 72 4.9%
6 and above 57 9.6% 0 0.0% 65 12.0% 3 0.4% 122 10.8% 3 0.2%
Annex 10b – Computation of the Propensity Score at baseline
All variables whose distribution was significantly different (p<0.05) between the study arms (CONTROL, WFPSMP and HGSMP) were used to construct the 
propensity score.
The propensity score was constructed using the ‘participation equation’, derived from a logit regression with programme participation as the dependent variable coded 
as follows;
171
• WFPSMP = 1, versus Control = 0.
• HGSMP = 1, versus WFPSMP = 0.
Comparison of indicators measured from learners data was adjusted for, using the propensity score quintiles calculated at baseline. Table 10a and 10b shows distribution 
of propensity score quintiles by specific study arms stratified by gender of children.
Table 10a: Propensity score quintiles distributed by WFPSMP and Control stratified by gender of the child, atbaseline.
Variables
Male (n=1254) Female (n=1286) Total (N=2540)
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
CONTROL 
(n=675)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
565)
CONTROL 
(n=721)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1144)
CONTROL p
(n=1396) value
Propensity score quintiles
First 2 0.3% 248 36.7% <0.001 0 0.0% 258 35.8% <0.001 2 0.2% 506 36.2% <0.001
Second 7 1.2% 244 36.1% 4 0.7% 253 35.1% 11 1.0% 497 35.6%
Third 93 16.1% 158 23.4% 76 13.5% 181 25.1% 169 14.8% 339 24.3%
Fourth 230 39.7% 21 3.1% 228 40.4% 29 4.0% 458 40.0% 50 3.6%
Fifth 247 42.7% 4 0.6% 257 45.5% 0 0.0% 504 44.1% 4 0.3%
Table 10b: Propensity score quintiles distributed by HGSMP and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child, atbaseline.
Variables
Male (n=1306) Female (n=1284) Total (N=2590)
HGSMP 
(n=713)
WFPSMP 
(n=593)
p 
value
HG
(n=
SMP 
743)
WFPSMP p
(n=541) value
HG
(n=
SMP 
1456)
WFPSMP p
(n=1134) value
Propensity score quintiles
First 5 0.7% 256 43.2% <0.001 4 0.5% 253 46.8% <0.001 9 0.6% 509 44.9% <0.001
Second 25 3.5% 236 39.8% 45 6.1% 212 39.2% 70 4.8% 448 39.5%
Third 177 24.8% 84 14.2% 186 25.0% 70 12.9% 363 24.9% 154 13.6%
Fourth 246 34.5% 16 2.7% 251 33.8% 6 1.1% 497 34.1% 22 1.9%
Fifth 260 36.5% 1 0.2% 257 34.6% 0 0.0% 517 35.5% 1 0.1%
172
Annex 10a: Comparing distribution of specific variables between study arms stratified by gender of child at Midline
Table 11a: Socio-demographic of parents/guardians distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n
n
PSMP
=582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n %
p 
value
Age of parent/guardian in years
<20 5 0.8% 5 0.7% 0.648 1 0.2% 4 0.6% 0.296 6 0.5% 9 0.6% 0.180
20 – 29 60 10.0% 56 8.3% 82 14.1% 94 13.0% 142 12.0% 150 10.7%
30 – 39 215 35.9% 245 36.4% 209 35.9% 270 37.4% 424 35.9% 515 36.9%
40 – 49 175 29.2% 216 32.0% 172 29.6% 228 31.6% 347 29.4% 444 31.8%
50 – 59 93 15.5% 89 13.2% 81 13.9% 74 10.2% 174 14.7% 163 11.7%
60 and above 51 8.5% 63 9.3% 37 6.4% 52 7.2% 88 7.5% 115 8.2%
Gender of the parent/guardian
Male 245 40.9% 201 29.8% <0.001 166 28.5% 166 23.0% 0.023 411 34.8% 367 26.3% <0.001
Female 354 59.1% 473 70.2% 416 71.5% 556 77.0% 770 65.2% 1029 73.7%
Relationship of parent/guardian to the
child
Father/ Mother 488 81.5% 554 82.2% <0.001 475 81.6% 592 82.0% 0.002 963 81.5% 1146 82.1% <0.001
Brother/ Sister 36 6.0% 12 1.8% 28 4.8% 28 3.9% 64 5.4% 40 2.9%
Uncle/ Aunt 25 4.2% 21 3.1% 30 5.2% 17 2.4% 55 4.7% 38 2.7%
Grand Father/ Mother 16 2.7% 55 8.2% 18 3.1% 50 6.9% 34 2.9% 105 7.5%
Guardian 34 5.7% 32 4.7% 31 5.3% 35 4.8% 65 5.5% 67 4.8%
Main occupation of the
parent/guardian
Too old to work 38 6.3% 12 1.8% <0.001 38 6.5% 8 1.1% <0.001 76 6.4% 20 1.4% <0.001
Student 6 1.0% 3 0.4% 7 1.2% 5 0.7% 13 1.1% 8 0.6%
Farmer 35 5.8% 348 51.6% 34 5.8% 374 51.8% 69 5.8% 722 51.7%
Pastoralist 95 15.9% 23 3.4% 84 14.4% 18 2.5% 179 15.2% 41 2.9%
Salaried Employee 20 3.3% 17 2.5% 20 3.4% 31 4.3% 40 3.4% 48 3.4%
Casual Labourer 76 12.7% 107 15.9% 55 9.5% 94 13.0% 131 11.1% 201 14.4%
Self-employed business 65 10.9% 52 7.7% 66 11.3% 83 11.5% 131 11.1% 135 9.7%
173
Not currently working 245 40.9% 101 15.0% 261 44.8% 97 13.4% 506 42.8% 198 14.2%
Other 19 3.2% 11 1.6% 17 2.9% 12 1.7% 36 3.0% 23 1.6%
Education level of the parent/guardian
Never attended school 467 78.0% 98 14.5% <0.001 433 74.4% 111 15.4% <0.001 900 76.2% 209 15.0% <0.001
Adult learning centre 9 1.5% 3 0.4% 7 1.2% 1 0.1% 16 1.4% 4 0.3%
Did not complete primary school 56 9.3% 179 26.6% 70 12.0% 206 28.5% 126 10.7% 385 27.6%
Completed primary school 22 3.7% 229 34.0% 26 4.5% 240 33.2% 48 4.1% 469 33.6%
Did not compete secondary 9 1.5% 63 9.3% 11 1.9% 54 7.5% 20 1.7% 117 8.4%
Completed secondary school 16 2.7% 86 12.8% 13 2.2% 82 11.4% 29 2.5% 168 12.0%
Completed technical college 14 2.3% 16 2.4% 16 2.7% 21 2.9% 30 2.5% 37 2.7%
Completed university/graduate school 6 1.0% 0 0.0% 6 1.0% 7 1.0% 12 1.0% 7 0.5%
Table 11b: Socio-demographic of parents/guardians distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604) p
n % value
HG
(n
n
SMP
=873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n %
p 
value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
1594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n %
p 
value
Age of parent/guardian in years
<20 2 0.3% 9 1.5% <0.001 9 1.00% 6 1.1% 0.018 11 0.7% 15 1.3% <0.00
20 - 29 83 11.5% 58 9.6% 109 12.50% 84 15.1% 192 12.0% 142 12.2%
30 - 39 289 40.1% 187 31.0% 336 38.50% 193 34.6% 625 39.2% 380 32.7%
40 - 49 210 29.1% 182 30.1% 252 28.90% 134 24.0% 462 29.0% 316 27.2%
50 - 59 91 12.6% 105 17.4% 95 10.90% 90 16.1% 186 11.7% 195 16.8%
60 and above 46 6.4% 63 10.4% 72 8.20% 51 9.1% 118 7.4% 114 9.8%
Gender of the parent/guardian
Male 243 33.7% 279 46.2% <0.001 201 23.00% 177 31.7% <0.001 444 27.9% 456 39.2% <0.00
Female 478 66.3% 325 53.8% 672 77.00% 381 68.3% 1150 72.1% 706 60.8%
Relationship of parent/guardian to the
child
Father/ Mother 608 84.3% 485 80.3% <0.001 716 82.00% 418 74.9% <0.001 1324 83.1% 903 77.7% <0.00
Brother/ Sister 11 1.5% 39 6.5% 24 2.70% 39 7.0% 35 2.2% 78 6.7%
Uncle/ Aunt 19 2.6% 26 4.3% 23 2.60% 32 5.7% 42 2.6% 58 5.0%
174
Grand Father/ Mother 43 6.0% 17 2.8% 69 7.90% 24 4.3% 112 7.0% 41 3.5%
Guardian 40 5.5% 37 6.1% 41 4.70% 45 8.1% 81 5.1% 82 7.1%
Main occupation of the
parent/guardian
Too old to work 8 1.1% 41 6.8% <0.001 23 2.60% 48 8.6% <0.001 31 1.9% 89 7.7% <0.00
Student 6 0.8% 10 1.7% 4 0.50% 13 2.3% 10 0.6% 23 2.0%
Farmer 333 46.2% 30 5.0% 428 49.00% 31 5.6% 761 47.7% 61 5.2%
Pastoralist 28 3.9% 78 12.9% 15 1.70% 62 11.1% 43 2.7% 140 12.0%
Salaried Employee 46 6.4% 21 3.5% 45 5.20% 34 6.1% 91 5.7% 55 4.7%
Casual Labourer 129 17.9% 83 13.7% 148 17.00% 57 10.2% 277 17.4% 140 12.0%
Self-employed business 84 11.7% 68 11.3% 78 8.90% 67 12.0% 162 10.2% 135 11.6%
Not currently working 75 10.4% 259 42.9% 113 12.90% 225 40.3% 188 11.8% 484 41.7%
Other 12 1.7% 14 2.3% 19 2.20% 21 3.8% 31 1.9% 35 3.0%
Education level of the parent/guardian
Never attended school 112 15.5% 475 78.6% <0.001 129 14.80% 404 72.4% <0.001 241 15.1% 879 75.6% <0.00
Adult learning centre 2 0.3% 11 1.8% 0 0.00% 2 0.4% 2 0.1% 13 1.1%
Did not complete primary school 188 26.1% 49 8.1% 228 26.10% 55 9.9% 416 26.1% 104 9.0%
Completed primary school 247 34.3% 23 3.8% 297 34.00% 22 3.9% 544 34.1% 45 3.9%
Did not compete secondary 46 6.4% 7 1.2% 51 5.80% 15 2.7% 97 6.1% 22 1.9%
Completed secondary school 79 11.0% 14 2.3% 128 14.70% 25 4.5% 207 13.0% 39 3.4%
Completed technical college 43 6.0% 16 2.6% 35 4.00% 26 4.7% 78 4.9% 42 3.6%
Completed university/graduate school 4 0.6% 9 1.5% 5 0.60% 9 1.6% 9 0.6% 18 1.5%
Table 12a: Number of males and females in the household distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n % p value
WF 
(n=
n
PSMP 
181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n % p value
Total males in the household
None 3 0.5% 10 1.5% <0.001 45 7.7% 103 14.3% <0.001 48 4.1% 113 8.1% <0.001
1 to 2 203 33.9% 411 61.0% 247 42.4% 430 59.6% 450 38.1% 841 60.2%
175
3 to 4 266 44.4% 213 31.6% 221 38.0% 163 22.6% 487 41.2% 376 26.9%
5 to 6 101 16.9% 36 5.3% 62 10.7% 21 2.9% 163 13.8% 57 4.1%
7 and above 26 4.3% 4 0.6% 7 1.2% 5 0.7% 33 2.8% 9 0.6%
Total females in the household
None 50 8.3% 114 16.9% <0.001 9 1.5% 11 1.5% <0.001 59 5.0% 125 9.0% <0.001
1 to 2 285 47.6% 416 61.7% 233 40.0% 406 56.2% 518 43.9% 822 58.9%
3 to 4 203 33.9% 121 18.0% 238 40.9% 257 35.6% 441 37.3% 378 27.1%
5 to 6 49 8.2% 19 2.8% 89 15.3% 38 5.3% 138 11.7% 57 4.1%
7 and above 12 2.0% 4 0.6% 13 2.2% 10 1.4% 25 2.1% 14 1.0%
Total males between 7-18 years
attending school
None 38 6.3% 20 3.0% <0.001 121 20.8% 150 20.8% 0.010 159 13.5% 170 12.2% <0.001
1 to 2 365 60.9% 475 70.5% 332 57.0% 465 64.4% 697 59.0% 940 67.3%
3 to 4 162 27.0% 160 23.7% 117 20.1% 100 13.9% 279 23.6% 260 18.6%
5 to 6 30 5.0% 19 2.8% 11 1.9% 6 0.8% 41 3.5% 25 1.8%
7 and above 4 0.7% 0 0.0% 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 5 0.4% 1 0.1%
Total females between 7-18
years attending school
None 147 24.5% 157 23.3% 0.292 50 8.6% 33 4.6% 0.013 197 16.7% 190 13.6% 0.060
1 to 2 348 58.1% 424 62.9% 360 61.9% 479 66.3% 708 59.9% 903 64.7%
3 to 4 96 16.0% 86 12.8% 147 25.3% 191 26.5% 243 20.6% 277 19.8%
5 to 6 7 1.2% 7 1.0% 22 3.8% 15 2.1% 29 2.5% 22 1.6%
7 and above 1 0.2% 0 0.0% 3 0.5% 4 0.6% 4 0.3% 4 0.3%
176
Table 12b: Number of males and females in the household distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n % p value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n % p value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
1594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n % p value
Total males in the household
None 12 1.7% 3 0.5% <0.001 199 22.8% 40 7.2% <0.001 211 13.2% 43 3.7% <0.00
1 to 2 448 62.1% 209 34.6% 467 53.5% 235 42.1% 915 57.4% 444 38.2%
3 to 4 217 30.1% 264 43.7% 171 19.6% 202 36.2% 388 24.3% 466 40.1%
5 to 6 42 5.8% 107 17.7% 34 3.9% 74 13.3% 76 4.8% 181 15.6%
7 and above 2 0.3% 21 3.5% 2 0.2% 7 1.3% 4 0.3% 28 2.4%
Total females in the household
None 202 28.0% 50 8.3% <0.001 16 1.8% 10 1.8% <0.001 218 13.7% 60 5.2% <0.00
1 to 2 381 52.8% 271 44.9% 547 62.7% 232 41.6% 928 58.2% 503 43.3%
3 to 4 119 16.5% 217 35.9% 257 29.4% 233 41.8% 376 23.6% 450 38.7%
5 to 6 16 2.2% 58 9.6% 51 5.8% 73 13.1% 67 4.2% 131 11.3%
7 and above 3 0.4% 8 1.3% 2 0.2% 10 1.8% 5 0.3% 18 1.5%
Total males between 7-18 years
attending school
None 21 2.9% 36 6.0% <0.001 281 32.2% 105 18.8% <0.001 302 18.9% 141 12.1% <0.00
1 to 2 508 70.5% 356 58.9% 475 54.4% 312 55.9% 983 61.7% 668 57.5%
3 to 4 174 24.1% 175 29.0% 103 11.8% 121 21.7% 277 17.4% 296 25.5%
5 to 6 17 2.4% 33 5.5% 14 1.6% 18 3.2% 31 1.9% 51 4.4%
7 and above 1 0.1% 4 0.7% 0 0.0% 2 0.4% 1 0.1% 6 0.5%
Total females between 7-18 years
attending school
None 250 34.7% 147 24.3% <0.001 49 5.6% 46 8.2% 0.113 299 18.8% 193 16.6% 0.031
1 to 2 389 54.0% 337 55.8% 603 69.1% 353 63.3% 992 62.2% 690 59.4%
3 to 4 72 10.0% 108 17.9% 196 22.5% 138 24.7% 268 16.8% 246 21.2%
5 to 6 8 1.1% 11 1.8% 24 2.7% 19 3.4% 32 2.0% 30 2.6%
7 and above 2 0.3% 1 0.2% 1 0.1% 2 0.4% 3 0.2% 3 0.3%
177
178
Table 13a: Availability of food at home distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n % p value
Number of days child ate before
going to school
None 164 27.4% 80 11.9% <0.001 154 26.5% 70 9.7% <0.001 318 26.9% 150 10.7% <0.001
1 to 2 45 7.5% 91 13.5% 42 7.2% 90 12.5% 87 7.4% 181 13.0%
3 to 4 62 10.4% 177 26.3% 49 8.4% 181 25.1% 111 9.4% 358 25.6%
5 328 54.8% 326 48.4% 337 57.9% 381 52.8% 665 56.3% 707 50.6%
Child had a meal/breakfast on
interview day before going to
school
Yes 368 61.4% 479 71.1% <0.001 365 62.7% 520 72.0% <0.001 733 62.1% 999 71.6% <0.001
No 231 38.6% 195 28.9% 217 37.3% 202 28.0% 448 37.9% 397 28.4%
Food consumption score (FCS)
Poor 50 8.3% 52 7.7% 0.246 54 9.3% 51 7.1% 0.012 104 8.8% 103 7.4% 0.006
Borderline 124 20.7% 166 24.6% 97 16.7% 165 22.9% 221 18.7% 331 23.7%
Acceptable 425 71.0% 456 67.7% 431 74.1% 506 70.1% 856 72.5% 962 68.9%
179
Table 13b: Availability of food at home distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n % p value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n % p value
HG 
(n=1
n
SMP 
594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n % p value
Number of days child ate before
going to school
None 40 5.5% 109 18.0% <0.001 74 8.5% 108 19.4% <0.001 114 7.2% 217 18.7% <0.001
1 to 2 66 9.2% 31 5.1% 111 12.7% 42 7.5% 177 11.1% 73 6.3%
3 to 4 136 18.9% 59 9.8% 171 19.6% 50 9.0% 307 19.3% 109 9.4%
5 479 66.4% 405 67.1% 517 59.2% 358 64.2% 996 62.5% 763 65.7%
Child had a meal/breakfast on
interview day before going to
school
Yes 599 83.1% 447 74.0% <0.001 657 75.3% 374 67.0% 0.001 1256 78.8% 821 70.7% <0.001
No 122 16.9% 157 26.0% 216 24.7% 184 33.0% 338 21.2% 341 29.3%
Food consumption score (FCS)
Poor 37 5.1% 30 5.0% 0.161 69 7.9% 38 6.8% 0.002 106 6.6% 68 5.9% <0.001
Borderline 129 17.9% 85 14.1% 180 20.6% 77 13.8% 309 19.4% 162 13.9%
Acceptable 555 77.0% 489 81.0% 624 71.5% 443 79.4% 1179 74.0% 932 80.2%
180
Table 14a: Availability of food at school distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n % p value
WFP
(n=
n
SMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n % p val
Child has been receiving school
meals at school in the current
school year
Yes 535 89.3% 166 24.6% <0.001 528 90.7% 172 23.8% <0.001 1063 90.0% 338 24.2% <0.0
No 64 10.7% 508 75.4% 54 9.3% 550 76.2% 118 10.0% 1058 75.8%
The school in which the child was
learning at currently (same week)
serving food
Yes 433 72.3% 145 21.5% <0.001 400 68.7% 153 21.2% <0.001 833 70.5% 298 21.3% <0.0
No 166 27.7% 529 78.5% 182 31.3% 569 78.8% 348 29.5% 1098 78.7%
Child missed a complete day of
school during the 1st term of the
year
Yes 185 30.9% 321 47.6% <0.001 178 30.6% 324 44.9% <0.001 363 30.7% 645 46.2% <0.0
No 414 69.1% 353 52.4% 404 69.4% 398 55.1% 818 69.3% 751 53.8%
Table 14b: Availability of food at school distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP WFPSMP
(n=721) (n=604)
n % n % p value
HGSMP WFPSMP
(n=873) (n=558)
n % n % p value
HGSMP WFPSMP
(n=1594) (n=1162)
n % n % p valu
Child has been receiving school
meals at school in the current 
school year
Yes 597 82.8% 496 82.1% 0.745 659 75.5% 446 79.9% 0.051 1256 78.8% 942 81.1% 0.143
No 124 17.2% 108 17.9% 214 24.5% 112 20.1% 338 21.2% 220 18.9%
181
The school in which the child was
learning at currently (same week) 
serving food
Yes 528 73.2% 428 70.9% 0.338 558 63.9% 388 69.5% 0.029 1086 68.1% 816 70.2% 0.241
No 193 26.8% 176 29.1% 315 36.1% 170 30.5% 508 31.9% 346 29.8%
Child missed a complete day of
school during the 1st term of the 
year
Yes 368 51.0% 159 26.3% <0.001 472 54.1% 171 30.6% <0.001 840 52.7% 330 28.4% <0.00
No 353 49.0% 445 73.7% 401 45.9% 387 69.4% 754 47.3% 832 71.6%
Table 15a: Coping strategy on days when the family did not have enough food or money to buy food distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n % p value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n % p value
Coping Strategy Index (CSI)
None 83 13.9% 60 8.9% <0.001 88 15.1% 89 12.3% <0.001 171 14.5% 149 10.7% <0.001
1 to 9 179 29.9% 201 29.8% 165 28.4% 180 24.9% 344 29.1% 381 27.3%
10 to 19 200 33.4% 183 27.2% 160 27.5% 215 29.8% 360 30.5% 398 28.5%
20 to 29 96 16.0% 131 19.4% 127 21.8% 134 18.6% 223 18.9% 265 19.0%
30 to 39 35 5.8% 56 8.3% 39 6.7% 56 7.8% 74 6.3% 112 8.0%
40 and above 6 1.0% 43 6.4% 3 0.5% 48 6.6% 9 0.8% 91 6.5%
Table 15b: Coping strategy on days when the family did not have enough food or money to buy food distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n % p value
HGSMP 
(n=873)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n % p value
HGSMP 
(n=1594)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n % p value
Coping Strategy Index (CSI)
182
None 103 14.3% 145 24.0% <0.001 120 13.7% 124 22.2% <0.001 223 14.0% 269 23.1% <0.001
1 to 9 199 27.6% 167 27.6% 252 28.9% 143 25.6% 451 28.3% 310 26.7%
10 to 19 236 32.7% 174 28.8% 249 28.5% 172 30.8% 485 30.4% 346 29.8%
20 to 29 116 16.1% 87 14.4% 153 17.5% 86 15.4% 269 16.9% 173 14.9%
30 to 39 34 4.7% 24 4.0% 53 6.1% 27 4.8% 87 5.5% 51 4.4%
40 and above 33 4.6% 7 1.2% 46 5.3% 6 1.1% 79 5.0% 13 1.1%
183
Table 16a: Views on benefits of education, school absenteeism, sources of information on school feeding and hygiene distributed by CONTROL 
and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n
n
PSMP
=582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n %
p 
value
Number of important benefits of
education mentioned by the
parent/guardian
<2 89 14.9% 180 26.7% <0.001 100 17.2% 185 25.6% <0.001 189 16.0% 365 26.1% <0.001
2 to 3 343 57.3% 427 63.4% 299 51.4% 442 61.2% 642 54.4% 869 62.2%
4 to 5 107 17.9% 55 8.2% 126 21.6% 79 10.9% 233 19.7% 134 9.6%
6 and above 60 10.0% 12 1.8% 57 9.8% 16 2.2% 117 9.9% 28 2.0%
Number of sources of
information on hygiene in the
past year mentioned by the
parent/guardian
None 250 41.7% 245 36.4% <0.001 191 32.8% 250 34.6% 0.004 441 37.3% 495 35.5% <0.001
One 155 25.9% 219 32.5% 162 27.8% 249 34.5% 317 26.8% 468 33.5%
Two 91 15.2% 140 20.8% 115 19.8% 127 17.6% 206 17.4% 267 19.1%
Three and above 103 17.2% 70 10.4% 114 19.6% 96 13.3% 217 18.4% 166 11.9%
Number of reasons why the child
missed a complete day of school
during the 1st term of this year
None 415 69.3% 353 52.4% <0.001 404 69.4% 399 55.3% <0.001 819 69.3% 752 53.9% <0.001
One 155 25.9% 282 41.8% 160 27.5% 280 38.8% 315 26.7% 562 40.3%
Two 27 4.5% 35 5.2% 16 2.7% 43 6.0% 43 3.6% 78 5.6%
Three and above 2 0.3% 4 0.6% 2 0.3% 0 0.0% 4 0.3% 4 0.3%
184
Table 16b: Views on benefits of education, school absenteeism, sources of information on school feeding and hygiene distributed by WFPSMP 
and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP (n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n %
p
 value
HG
(n
n
SMP
=873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n %
p
 value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
1594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n %
p
 valu
Number of important benefits of
education mentioned by the
parent/guardian
<2 177 24.5% 92 15.2% <0.001 233 26.7% 97 17.4% <0.001 410 25.7% 189 16.3% <0.0
2 to 3 486 67.4% 348 57.6% 550 63.0% 292 52.3% 1036 65.0% 640 55.1%
4 to 5 54 7.5% 112 18.5% 86 9.9% 110 19.7% 140 8.8% 222 19.1%
6 and above 4 0.6% 52 8.6% 4 0.5% 59 10.6% 8 0.5% 111 9.6%
Number of sources of information
on hygiene in the past year
mentioned by the parent/guardian
None 221 30.7% 223 36.9% <0.001 297 34.0% 194 34.8% 0.003 518 32.5% 417 35.9% <0.0
One 277 38.4% 177 29.3% 298 34.1% 167 29.9% 575 36.1% 344 29.6%
Two 154 21.4% 99 16.4% 178 20.4% 97 17.4% 332 20.8% 196 16.9%
Three and above 69 9.6% 105 17.4% 100 11.5% 100 17.9% 169 10.6% 205 17.6%
Number of reasons why the child
missed a complete day of school
during the 1st term of this year
None 353 49.0% 445 73.7% <0.001 401 45.9% 387 69.4% <0.001 754 47.3% 832 71.6% <0.0
One 334 46.3% 139 23.0% 409 46.8% 155 27.8% 743 46.6% 294 25.3%
Two 31 4.3% 18 3.0% 58 6.6% 13 2.3% 89 5.6% 31 2.7%
Three and above 3 0.4% 2 0.3% 5 0.6% 3 0.5% 8 0.5% 5 0.4%
185
Table 17a: Socio-demographic characteristics of children distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n %
p
 value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n %
p
 value
WFP
(n=
n
SMP 
1181)
%
Control p 
(n=1396) val
n %
Age of child in years
7 to 8 19 3.2% 31 4.6% 0.007 32 5.5% 55 7.6% 0.001 51 4.3% 86 6.2% <0.
9 to 10 102 17.0% 146 21.7% 124 21.3% 169 23.4% 226 19.1% 315 22.6%
11 to 12 146 24.4% 183 27.2% 144 24.7% 222 30.7% 290 24.6% 405 29.0%
13 to 14 194 32.4% 205 30.4% 198 34.0% 215 29.8% 392 33.2% 420 30.1%
>14 138 23.0% 109 16.2% 84 14.4% 61 8.4% 222 18.8% 170 12.2%
Class of the child
Third 114 19.0% 91 13.5% 0.073 127 21.8% 113 15.7% 0.005 241 20.4% 204 14.6% <0.
Fourth 100 16.7% 108 16.0% 115 19.8% 127 17.6% 215 18.2% 235 16.8%
Fifth 107 17.9% 112 16.6% 96 16.5% 122 16.9% 203 17.2% 234 16.8%
Sixth 102 17.0% 128 19.0% 100 17.2% 116 16.1% 202 17.1% 244 17.5%
Seventh 101 16.9% 132 19.6% 80 13.7% 128 17.7% 181 15.3% 260 18.6%
Eighth 75 12.5% 103 15.3% 64 11.0% 116 16.1% 139 11.8% 219 15.7%
Time taken to get to school
<15 minutes 254 42.4% 136 20.2% <0.001 247 42.4% 143 19.8% <0.001 501 42.4% 279 20.0% <0.
15 to 29 minutes 152 25.4% 148 22.0% 145 24.9% 155 21.5% 297 25.1% 303 21.7%
30 to 59 minutes 129 21.5% 283 42.0% 117 20.1% 279 38.6% 246 20.8% 562 40.3%
60 minutes and above 64 10.7% 107 15.9% 73 12.5% 145 20.1% 137 11.6% 252 18.1%
Mode of travel to school
On foot 588 98.2% 671 99.6% 0.018 561 96.4% 709 98.2% 0.042 1149 97.3% 1380 98.9% 0.0
Bicycle/ Bus/ Motor cycle 11 1.8% 3 0.4% 21 3.6% 13 1.8% 32 2.7% 16 1.1%
Having brothers and sisters who are old
enough to go to school but are NOT
currently attending school
Yes 202 33.7% 50 7.4% <0.001 160 27.5% 68 9.4% <0.001 362 30.7% 118 8.5% <0.
No 397 66.3% 624 92.6% 422 72.5% 654 90.6% 819 69.3% 1278 91.5%
186
187
Table 17b: Socio-demographic characteristics of children distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (n=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n %
p
 value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n %
p
 value
HG 
(n=1
n
SMP 
594)
%
WFPSMP p
(n=1162) val
n %
Age of child in years
7 to 8 38 5.3% 19 3.1% <0.001 52 6.0% 34 6.1% <0.001 90 5.6% 53 4.6% <0.
9 to 10 148 20.5% 93 15.4% 203 23.3% 108 19.4% 351 22.0% 201 17.3%
11 to 12 198 27.5% 148 24.5% 273 31.3% 129 23.1% 471 29.5% 277 23.8%
13 to 14 230 31.9% 199 32.9% 265 30.4% 201 36.0% 495 31.1% 400 34.4%
>14 107 14.8% 145 24.0% 80 9.2% 86 15.4% 187 11.7% 231 19.9%
Class of the child
Third 118 16.4% 106 17.5% 0.020 114 13.1% 109 19.5% <0.001 232 14.6% 215 18.5% <0.
Fourth 103 14.3% 120 19.9% 142 16.3% 125 22.4% 245 15.4% 245 21.1%
Fifth 132 18.3% 116 19.2% 161 18.4% 93 16.7% 293 18.4% 209 18.0%
Sixth 122 16.9% 100 16.6% 162 18.6% 109 19.5% 284 17.8% 209 18.0%
Seventh 135 18.7% 98 16.2% 154 17.6% 82 14.7% 289 18.1% 180 15.5%
Eighth 111 15.4% 64 10.6% 140 16.0% 40 7.2% 251 15.7% 104 9.0%
Time taken to get to school
<15 minutes 164 22.7% 255 42.2% <0.001 192 22.0% 235 42.1% <0.001 356 22.3% 490 42.2% <0.
15 to 29 minutes 184 25.5% 168 27.8% 179 20.5% 175 31.4% 363 22.8% 343 29.5%
30 to 59 minutes 266 36.9% 133 22.0% 349 40.0% 112 20.1% 615 38.6% 245 21.1%
60 minutes and above 107 14.8% 48 7.9% 153 17.5% 36 6.5% 260 16.3% 84 7.2%
Mode of travel to school
On foot 690 95.7% 591 97.8% 0.030 838 96.0% 539 96.6% 0.559 1528 95.9% 1130 97.2% 0.0
Bicycle/ Bus/ Motor cycle 31 4.3% 13 2.2% 35 4.0% 19 3.4% 66 4.1% 32 2.8%
Having brothers and sisters who are old
enough to go to school but are NOT
currently attending school
Yes 55 7.6% 176 29.1% <0.001 67 7.7% 142 25.4% <0.001 122 7.7% 318 27.4% <0.
No 666 92.4% 428 70.9% 806 92.3% 416 74.6% 1472 92.3% 844 72.6%
188
189
Table 18a: Children feeding distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
n %
Control 
(n=674)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n %
p 
value
Had a meal today BEFORE
coming to school
Yes 385 64.3% 464 68.8% 0.084 382 65.6% 480 66.5% 0.748 767 64.9% 944 67.6% 0.152
No 214 35.7% 210 31.2% 200 34.4% 242 33.5% 414 35.1% 452 32.4%
Number of times child normally
eat per day
1 time 28 4.7% 95 14.1% <0.001 24 4.1% 96 13.3% <0.001 52 4.4% 191 13.7% <0.001
2 times 346 57.8% 264 39.2% 336 57.7% 272 37.7% 682 57.7% 536 38.4%
3 times 224 37.4% 302 44.8% 221 38.0% 339 47.0% 445 37.7% 641 45.9%
More than three times 1 0.2% 13 1.9% 1 0.2% 15 2.1% 2 0.2% 28 2.0%
Table 18b: Children feeding distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
n %
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n %
p 
value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n %
p 
value
HG 
(n=1
n
SMP 
594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n %
p 
value
Had a meal today BEFORE
coming to school
Yes 571 79.2% 449 74.3% 0.036 616 70.6% 399 71.5% 0.701 1187 74.5% 848 73.0% 0.380
No 150 20.8% 155 25.7% 257 29.4% 159 28.5% 407 25.5% 314 27.0%
Number of times child normally
eat per day
1 time 49 6.8% 25 4.1% <0.001 67 7.7% 26 4.7% <0.001 116 7.3% 51 4.4% <0.001
2 times 216 30.0% 305 50.5% 284 32.5% 264 47.3% 500 31.4% 569 49.0%
3 times 443 61.4% 273 45.2% 494 56.6% 267 47.8% 937 58.8% 540 46.5%
More than three times 13 1.8% 1 0.2% 28 3.2% 1 0.2% 41 2.6% 2 0.2%
190
191
Table 19a: Hygiene, nutrition, concentration in class, importance of education and school absenteeism distributed by CONTROL and WFPSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
599)
%
Control 
(n=674)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
582)
%
Control 
(n=722)
n %
p 
value
WF
(n=
n
PSMP 
1181)
%
Control 
(n=1396)
n %
p 
value
In the past month the teacher talked to students about hygiene
Yes 468 78.1% 572 84.9% 0.002 456 78.4% 605 83.8% 0.012 924 78.2% 1177 84.3% <0.001
No 131 21.9% 102 15.1% 126 21.6% 117 16.2% 257 21.8% 219 15.7%
Number of hygiene habits mentioned
None 153 25.5% 83 12.3% <0.001 139 23.9% 102 14.1% <0.001 292 24.7% 185 13.3% <0.001
1 to 2 197 32.9% 408 60.5% 184 31.6% 428 59.3% 381 32.3% 836 59.9%
3 to 4 178 29.7% 168 24.9% 189 32.5% 176 24.4% 367 31.1% 344 24.6%
5 and above 71 11.9% 15 2.2% 70 12.0% 16 2.2% 141 11.9% 31 2.2%
In the past month the teacher talked to students about nutrition
Yes 359 59.9% 453 67.2% 0.007 375 64.4% 498 69.0% 0.083 734 62.2% 951 68.1% 0.001
No 240 40.1% 221 32.8% 207 35.6% 224 31.0% 447 37.8% 445 31.9%
Number of important nutrition habits mentioned
None 287 47.9% 295 43.8% <0.001 235 40.4% 296 41.0% <0.001 522 44.2% 591 42.3% <0.001
One 89 14.9% 208 30.9% 100 17.2% 250 34.6% 189 16.0% 458 32.8%
Two 81 13.5% 138 20.5% 108 18.6% 123 17.0% 189 16.0% 261 18.7%
Three and above 142 23.7% 33 4.9% 139 23.9% 53 7.3% 281 23.8% 86 6.2%
Number of reasons why missed school
Never missed 419 69.9% 378 56.1% <0.001 390 67.0% 393 54.4% <0.001 809 68.5% 771 55.2% <0.001
One 163 27.2% 273 40.5% 179 30.8% 298 41.3% 342 29.0% 571 40.9%
Two and above 17 2.8% 23 3.4% 13 2.2% 31 4.3% 30 2.5% 54 3.9%
Number of reasons why it was difficult to concentrate in class
One 280 46.7% 500 74.2% <0.001 279 47.9% 515 71.3% <0.001 559 47.3% 1015 72.7% <0.001
Two 173 28.9% 138 20.5% 176 30.2% 167 23.1% 349 29.6% 305 21.8%
Three 95 15.9% 33 4.9% 96 16.5% 31 4.3% 191 16.2% 64 4.6%
Four and more 51 8.5% 3 0.4% 31 5.3% 9 1.2% 82 6.9% 12 0.9%
192
Number of most important benefits of education mentioned by the child
<2 140 23.4% 288 42.7% <0.001 130 22.3% 272 37.7% <0.001 270 22.9% 560 40.1% <0.001
2 to 3 358 59.8% 353 52.4% 335 57.6% 414 57.3% 693 58.7% 767 54.9%
4 to 5
6 and above
66
35
11.0%
5.8%
31
2
4.6%
0.3%
76
41
13.1%
7.0%
32
4
4.4%
0.6%
142
76
12.0%
6.4%
63
6
4.5%
0.4%
193
Table 19b: Hygiene, nutrition, concentration in class, importance of education and school absenteeism distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP 
stratified by gender of the child
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
721)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=604)
n %
p 
value
HG
(n=
n
SMP 
873)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
n %
p 
value
HG 
(n=1
n
SMP 
594)
%
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
n %
p 
value
In the past month the teacher talked to students about hygiene
Yes 614 85.2% 469 77.6% <0.001 757 86.7% 422 75.6% <0.001 1371 86.0% 891 76.7% <0.001
No 107 14.8% 135 22.4% 116 13.3% 136 24.4% 223 14.0% 271 23.3%
Number of hygiene habits mentioned
None 113 15.7% 171 28.3% <0.001 133 15.2% 139 24.9% <0.001 246 15.4% 310 26.7% <0.001
1 to 2 449 62.3% 204 33.8% 549 62.9% 195 34.9% 998 62.6% 399 34.3%
3 to 4 151 20.9% 177 29.3% 182 20.8% 166 29.7% 333 20.9% 343 29.5%
5 and above 8 1.1% 52 8.6% 9 1.0% 58 10.4% 17 1.1% 110 9.5%
In the past month the teacher talked to students about nutrition
Yes 536 74.3% 393 65.1% <0.001 640 73.3% 363 65.1% 0.001 1176 73.8% 756 65.1% <0.001
No 185 25.7% 211 34.9% 233 26.7% 195 34.9% 418 26.2% 406 34.9%
Number of important nutrition habits mentioned
None 242 33.6% 259 42.9% <0.001 303 34.7% 212 38.0% <0.001 545 34.2% 471 40.5% <0.001
One 251 34.8% 93 15.4% 319 36.5% 109 19.5% 570 35.8% 202 17.4%
Two 173 24.0% 90 14.9% 199 22.8% 98 17.6% 372 23.3% 188 16.2%
Three and above 55 7.6% 162 26.8% 52 6.0% 139 24.9% 107 6.7% 301 25.9%
Number of reasons why missed school
Never missed 361 50.1% 439 72.7% <0.001 393 45.0% 387 69.4% <0.001 754 47.3% 826 71.1% <0.001
One 334 46.3% 147 24.3% 452 51.8% 162 29.0% 786 49.3% 309 26.6%
Two and above 26 3.6% 18 3.0% 28 3.2% 9 1.6% 54 3.4% 27 2.3%
Number of reasons why it was difficult to concentrate in class
One 575 79.8% 303 50.2% <0.001 681 78.0% 278 49.8% <0.001 1256 78.8% 581 50.0% <0.001
Two 117 16.2% 187 31.0% 145 16.6% 178 31.9% 262 16.4% 365 31.4%
Three 26 3.6% 78 12.9% 38 4.4% 75 13.4% 64 4.0% 153 13.2%
Four and more 3 0.4% 36 6.0% 9 1.0% 27 4.8% 12 0.8% 63 5.4%
194
Number of most important benefits of education mentioned by the child
<2 326 45.2% 137 22.7% <0.001 391 44.8% 136 24.4% <0.001 717 45.0% 273 23.5% <0.001
2 to 3 387 53.7% 365 60.4% 440 50.4% 313 56.1% 827 51.9% 678 58.3%
4 to 5
6 and above
7
1
1.0%
0.1%
69
33
11.4%
5.5%
41
1
4.7%
0.1%
73
36
13.1%
6.5%
48
2
3.0%
0.1%
142
69
12.2%
5.9%
195
Annex 10b – Computation of the Propensity Score at midline
All variables whose distribution was significantly different (p<0.05) between the study arms (CONTROL, WFPSMP and HGSMP) were used to construct the 
propensity score.
The propensity score was constructed using the ‘participation equation’, derived from a logit regression with programme participation as the dependent variable coded 
as follows;
• WFPSMP = 1, versus Control = 0.
• HGSMP = 1, versus WFPSMP = 0.
Comparison of indicators measured from learners data was adjusted for, using the propensity score quintiles calculated at midline. Table 10a and 10b shows distribution 
of propensity score quintiles by specific study arms stratified by gender of children.
Table 20a: Propensity score quintiles distributed by WFPSMP and Control stratified by gender of the child, at midline.
Variables
Male (n=1273) Female (n=1304) Total (N=2577)
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
CONTROL 
(n=674)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
582)
CONTROL 
(n=722)
p 
value
WF
(n=
PSMP 
1181)
CONTROL 
(n=1396)
p 
value
Propensity score quintiles
First 0 0.0% 254 37.7% <0.001 2 0.3% 259 35.9% <0.001 2 0.2% 513 36.7% <0.001
Second 10 1.7% 245 36.4% 14 2.4% 247 34.2% 24 2.0% 492 35.2%
Third 96 16.0% 159 23.6% 88 15.1% 173 24.0% 184 15.6% 332 23.8%
Fourth 240 40.1% 15 2.2% 223 38.3% 38 5.3% 463 39.2% 53 3.8%
Fifth 253 42.2% 1 0.1% 255 43.8% 5 0.7% 508 43.0% 6 0.4%
Table 20b: Propensity score quintiles distributed by WFPSMP and HGSMP stratified by gender of the child, at midline.
Variables
Male (n=1325) Female (n=1431) Total (N=2756)
HGSMP 
(n=721)
WFPSMP p
(n=604) value
HG
(n=
SMP 
873)
WFPSMP 
(n=558)
p 
value
HG
(n=
MP 
1594)
WFPSMP 
(n=1162)
p 
value
Propensity score quintiles
First 3 0.4% 262 43.4% <0.001 2 0.2% 285 51.1% <0.001 5 0.3% 547 47.1% <0.001
Second 23 3.2% 242 40.1% 64 7.3% 222 39.8% 87 5.5% 464 39.9%
Third 173 24.0% 92 15.2% 243 27.8% 43 7.7% 416 26.1% 135 11.6%
Fourth 258 35.8% 7 1.2% 279 32.0% 7 1.3% 537 33.7% 14 1.2%
196
Fifth 264 36.6% 1 0.2% 285 32.6% 1 0.2% 549 34.4% 2 0.2%
197
Annex 10a – Measuring the effect of the WFPSMP using Difference-in-Difference (DID) method
Table 21: Mean raw score on Learners outcomes distributed by WFPSMP and Control study arms stratified by gender
Timepoint Baseline Midline Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Gender Boys
Learners outcomes
WFPSMP
(n=579)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=675)
Mean SE
p 
value
WFPSMP
(n=599)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=674)
Mean SE
p 
value
Diff. in 
WFPSMP
Diff. in 
Control DID
p 
val
Mean Mean β SE(β)
English literacy raw score 3.81 0.05 4.07 0.05 <0.001 3.99 0.05 4.22 0.04 <0.001 0.18 0.15 0.022 0.094 0.8
Kiswahili literacy raw score 4.06 0.05 4.28 0.05 0.001 4.17 0.05 4.41 0.04 <0.001 0.11 0.13 -0.096 0.096 0.3
Numeracy raw score 6.01 0.07 6.37 0.05 <0.001 6.15 0.06 6.12 0.06 0.777 0.14 -0.25 0.390 0.115 0.0
Copying strategy index 22.26 0.73 29.22 0.74 <0.001 12.64 0.39 15.80 0.51 <0.001 -9.62 -13.42 3.080 0.857 <0.
Gender Girls
Learners outcomes
WFPSMP
(n=565)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=721)
Mean SE
p 
value
WFPSMP
(n=582)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=722)
Mean SE
p 
value
WFPSMP Control DID
p 
val
Mean Mean β SE(β)
English literacy raw score 3.60 0.06 4.14 0.04 <0.001 3.65 0.06 4.19 0.04 <0.001 0.05 0.05 -0.013 0.097 0.8
Kiswahili literacy raw score 3.92 0.06 4.34 0.04 <0.001 3.86 0.06 4.36 0.04 <0.001 -0.06 0.02 -0.019 0.091 0.8
Numeracy raw score 5.88 0.07 6.41 0.05 <0.001 5.73 0.07 6.07 0.06 <0.001 -0.15 -0.34 0.190 0.122 0.1
Copying strategy index 23.29 0.69 28.43 0.69 <0.001 13.22 0.41 16.01 0.51 <0.001 -10.07 -12.42 3.768 1.231 0.0
Total
Learners outcomes
WFPSMP
(n=1144)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=1396)
Mean SE
p 
value
WFPSMP
(n=1181)
Mean SE
Control 
(n=1396)
Mean SE
p 
value
WFPSMP Control DID
p 
val
Mean Mean β SE(β)
English literacy raw score 3.71 0.04 4.11 0.03 <0.001 3.82 0.04 4.21 0.03 <0.001 0.11 0.10 0.011 0.068 0.8
Kiswahili literacy raw score 3.99 0.04 4.31 0.03 <0.001 4.02 0.04 4.38 0.03 <0.001 0.03 0.07 -0.052 0.066 0.4
Numeracy raw score 5.94 0.05 6.39 0.03 <0.001 5.94 0.05 6.09 0.04 0.014 0.00 -0.30 0.295 0.084 <0.
Copying strategy index 22.77 0.51 28.81 0.50 <0.001 12.93 0.28 15.91 0.36 <0.001 -9.84 -12.90 2.362 1.194 0.0
198
Table 22: Indicators measured from the learners data distributed by WFPSMP and Control study arms stratified by gender
Time point Baseline Midline
Gender Boys
Indicators
WFPSMP 
(n=579)
Control 
(n=675) p value
WFPSMP 
(n=599)
Control 
(n=674) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 42.8% 53.9% <0.001 46.1% 56.7% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 52.3% 64.0% <0.001 56.1% 68.8% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 61.8% 72.6% <0.001 64.9% 66.3% 0.605
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 42.8% 46.5% 0.191 58.1% 49.7% 0.003
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 32.6% 40.3% 0.005 54.8% 48.4% 0.023
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 44.2% 71.3% <0.001 63.1% 57.9% 0.056
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 55.6% 23.4% <0.001 89.3% 24.6% <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 49.9% 16.9% <0.001 72.3% 21.5% <0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 36.1% 36.0% 0.972 71.0% 67.7% 0.204
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 59.6% 26.1% <0.001 53.8% 33.8% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 48.5% 19.6% <0.001 41.6% 27.2% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 25.4% 6.4% <0.001 38.4% 20.6% <0.001
Gender Girls
Indicators
WFPSMP 
(n=565)
Control 
(n=721) p value
WFPSMP 
(n=582)
Control 
(n=722) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 38.2% 57.1% <0.001 37.8% 55.4% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 50.1% 67.8% <0.001 47.3% 66.3% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 60.0% 74.3% <0.001 54.6% 62.7% 0.003
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 39.3% 46.3% 0.012 63.1% 48.1% <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 33.5% 35.8% 0.383 57.9% 52.8% 0.064
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 46.7% 69.9% <0.001 64.4% 59.3% 0.057
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 63.0% 16.8% <0.001 90.7% 23.8% <0.001
199
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 53.5% 15.7% <0.001 68.7% 21.2% <0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 34.3% 34.8% 0.859 74.1% 70.1% 0.113
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 54.7% 26.1% <0.001 58.2% 33.2% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 53.6% 20.0% <0.001 44.5% 26.6% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 27.6% 8.2% <0.001 40.5% 22.0% <0.001
200
Table 23: Indicators measured from the learners data distributed by WFPSMP and Control study arms for all boys and girls
Indicators
WFPSMP 
(n=1144)
Control 
(n=1396) p value
WFPSMP 
(n=1181)
Control 
(n=1396) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 40.6% 55.6% <0.001 42.0% 56.0% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 51.2% 66.0% <0.001 51.7% 67.6% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 60.9% 73.5% <0.001 59.9% 64.5% 0.016
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 41.1% 46.4% 0.007 60.5% 48.9% <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 33.0% 38.0% 0.010 56.3% 50.6% 0.004
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 45.5% 70.6% <0.001 63.8% 58.6% 0.007
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 59.3% 20.0% <0.001 90.0% 24.2% <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 51.7% 16.3% <0.001 70.5% 21.3% <0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 35.2% 35.4% 0.933 72.5% 68.9% 0.048
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 57.2% 26.1% <0.001 56.0% 33.5% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 51.0% 19.8% <0.001 43.0% 26.9% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 26.5% 7.3% <0.001 39.5% 21.3% <0.001
201
Table 24: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the learners data between WFPSMP and Control schools from baseline to 
midline
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Indicators
Diff. in 
WFPSMP
Diff. in 
Control Diff.
DID
β SE(β)
p 
value
Boys
Highest Level of English literacy 3.3% 2.8% 0.5% 0.021 0.161 0.895
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 3.8% 4.8% -1.0% -0.062 0.165 0.707
Highest Level of numeracy 3.1% -6.3% 9.4% 0.432 0.170 0.011
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 15.3% 3.2% 12.1% 0.489 0.161 0.002
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 22.2% 8.1% 14.1% 0.598 0.164 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 18.9% -13.4% 32.3% 1.373 0.167 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year 33.7% 1.2% 32.5% 1.813 0.211 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 22.4% 4.6% 17.8% 0.624 0.191 0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 34.9% 31.7% 3.2% 0.160 0.170 0.347
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education -5.8% 7.7% -13.5% -0.648 0.172 <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods -6.9% 7.6% -14.5% -0.747 0.179 <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 13.0% 14.2% -1.2% -0.697 0.229 0.002
Girls
Highest Level of English literacy -0.4% -1.7% 1.3% 0.022 0.162 0.894
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy -2.8% -1.5% -1.3% -0.078 0.164 0.633
Highest Level of numeracy -5.4% -11.6% 6.2% 0.314 0.166 0.059
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 23.8% 1.8% 22.0% 0.938 0.162 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 24.4% 17.0% 7.4% 0.320 0.164 0.05
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 17.7% -10.6% 28.3% 1.180 0.165 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year 27.7% 7.0% 20.7% 1.402 0.224 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 15.2% 5.5% 9.7% 0.300 0.189 0.114
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 39.8% 35.3% 4.5% 0.224 0.172 0.194
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education 3.5% 7.1% -3.6% -0.143 0.170 0.401
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods -9.1% 6.6% -15.7% -0.732 0.177 <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 12.9% 13.8% -0.9% -0.496 0.211 0.019
202
203
Table 25: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the learners data between WFPSMP and Control schools from baseline to midline
for all boys and girls
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Indicators
Diff. in 
WFPSMP
Diff. in 
Control
DID p 
Diff. Β SE(β) value
Total
Highest Level of English literacy 1.4% 0.4% 1.0% 0.035 0.114 0.761
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 0.5% 1.6% -1.1% -0.060 0.116 0.604
Highest Level of numeracy -1.0% -9.0% 8.0% 0.375 0.118 0.002
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 19.4% 2.5% 16.9% 0.704 0.114 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 23.3% 12.6% 10.7% 0.451 0.116 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 18.3% -12.0% 30.3% 1.275 0.117 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year 30.7% 4.2% 26.5% 1.605 0.153 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 18.8% 5.0% 13.8% 0.455 0.134 0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 37.3% 33.5% 3.8% 0.184 0.121 0.128
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education -1.2% 7.4% -8.6% -0.392 0.121 0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods -8.0% 7.1% -15.1% -0.738 0.126 <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 13.0% 14.0% -1.0% -0.582 0.155 <0.001
204
Table 26: Indicators measured from the school checklist data distributed by WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP study arms
Variables
Baseline Midline
WFPSMP Control
p 
value WFPSMP Control
p 
value
Passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage 43.5% 39.1% 0.765 68.2% 20.0% 0.002
Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food 43.5% 39.1% 0.765 54.5% 10.0% 0.002
Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in sufficient quantity 34.8% 26.1% 0.522 45.5% 5.0% 0.003
Enough utensils 34.8% 0.0% 0.002 45.5% 5.0% 0.003
Store have pallets 56.5% 17.4% 0.006 45.5% 15.0% 0.033
Storage locked 78.3% 30.4% 0.001 90.9% 50.0% 0.003
Storage ventilated 56.5% 26.1% 0.036 50.0% 25.0% 0.096
Humidity free storage 65.2% 34.8% 0.039 22.7% 10.0% 0.269
Store have weighing scale 26.1% 4.3% 0.04 18.2% 5.0% 0.188
Table 27: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the school checklist data between WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP schools from 
baseline to midline
Indicators
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
WFPSMP Control
DID p 
Diff β SE(β) value
Passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage 24.70% -19.10% 43.80% 1.969 0.939 0.036
Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food 11.00% -29.10% 40.10% 2.2 1.048 0.036
Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in sufficient quantity 10.70% -21.10% 31.80% 2.349 1.286 0.068
Enough utensils 10.70% 5.00% 5.70% 0.249 0.92 0.661
Store have pallets -11.00% -2.40% -8.60% -0.268 1.027 0.794
Storage locked 12.60% 19.60% -7.00% 0.434 1.087 0.689
Storage ventilated -6.50% -1.10% -5.40% -0.205 0.922 0.824
Humidity free storage -42.50% -24.80% -17.70% -0.284 1.094 0.795
Store have weighing scale -7.90% 0.70% -8.60% -0.609 1.621 0.707
205
Table 28: Indicators measured from the school checklist data distributed by WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP study arms
Timepoint Baseline Midline
Indicator
 WFPSMP
Mean SE
Control
Mean SE p value
 WFPS
Mean
MP
SE
Control
Mean SE p value
Gender Boys
Number of students enrolled in schools 155 20 207 26 0.125 167 21 182 18 0.610
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 108 14 135 17 0.227 99 13 136 14 0.049
Gender Girls
Number of students enrolled in schools 125 17 168 15 0.061 126 14 153 17 0.219
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 87 12 110 10 0.145 75 8 115 12 0.009
Total
Number of students enrolled in schools 280 35 375 39 0.076 293 34 335 34 0.396
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 195 25 244 25 0.166 173 20 251 25 0.020
Table 29: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the school checklist data between WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP schools from 
baseline to midline
Indicator
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
WFPSMP Control DID
Mean Mean Diff Β SE(β) p value
Gender Boys
Number of students enrolled in schools 12 -25 37 37.39 44.08 0.399
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school -9 1 -10 -10.46 29.24 0.722
Gender Girls
Number of students enrolled in schools 1 -15 16 16.22 31.13 0.604
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school -12 5 -18 -17.74 21.13 0.403
Total
Number of students enrolled in schools 13 -40 54 53.61 71.55 0.456
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school -21 7 -28 -28.32 47.94 0.556
206
207
Annex 10b – Measuring sustainability of the indicators after transition to HGSMP using Difference-in-Difference (DID) method 
Table 30: Mean raw score on Learners outcomes distributed by HGSMP and WFPSMP study arms stratified by gender
Timepoint Baseline Midline Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Gender Boys
Learners outcomes
HGSMP 
(n=713)
WFPSMP 
(n=593) p 
value
HGSMP 
(n=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=604) p 
value
Diff. in 
HGSMP
Diff. in 
WFPSMP DID
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean Mean Β SE(β) va
English literacy raw score 4.21 0.04 3.91 0.05 <0.001 4.24 0.04 4.17 0.04 <0.001 0.03 0.26 -0.234 0.089 0.
Kiswahili literacy raw score 4.41 0.04 4.10 0.05 0.001 4.38 0.04 4.31 0.04 <0.001 -0.03 0.21 -0.241 0.087 0.
Numeracy raw score 6.47 0.05 6.00 0.07 <0.001 6.17 0.06 6.27 0.05 <0.001 -0.30 0.27 -0.571 0.112 <0
Copying strategy index 27.10 0.67 18.65 0.69 <0.001 13.58 0.44 11.01 0.403 <0.001 -13.52 -7.64 -5.890 1.135 <0
Gender Girls
Learners outcomes
HGSMP 
(n=743)
WFPSMP 
(n=541) p 
value
HGSMP 
(n=873)
WFPSMP 
(n=558) p 
value
Diff. in 
HGSMP
Diff. in 
WFPSMP DID va
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean Mean Β SE(β)
English literacy raw score 4.39 0.04 3.74 0.06 <0.001 4.36 0.03 3.87 0.06 <0.001 -0.03 0.13 -0.155 0.090 0.
Kiswahili literacy raw score 4.57 0.04 3.99 0.06 <0.001 4.56 0.03 4.01 0.05 <0.001 -0.01 0.02 -0.046 0.085 0.
Numeracy raw score 6.49 0.04 5.79 0.08 <0.001 6.33 0.05 5.78 0.07 <0.001 -0.16 -0.01 -0.155 0.115 0
Copying strategy index 26.39 0.69 20.23 0.71 <0.001 14.33 0.42 11.73 0.423 <0.001 -12.06 -8.50 -3.548 1.166 <0
Total
Learners outcomes
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
WFPSMP 
(n=1134) p 
value
HGSMP 
(n=1594)
WFPSMP 
(n=1162) p 
value
Diff. in 
HGSMP
Diff. in 
WFPSMP DID va
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean Mean Β SE(β)
English literacy raw score 4.30 0.03 3.83 0.04 <0.001 4.30 0.03 4.03 0.04 <0.001 0.00 0.20 -0.192 0.063 0.
Kiswahili literacy raw score 4.49 0.03 4.05 0.04 <0.001 4.48 0.03 4.17 0.03 <0.001 -0.01 0.12 -0.139 0.061 0.
Numeracy raw score 6.48 0.03 5.90 0.05 <0.001 6.26 0.04 6.03 0.05 <0.001 -0.22 0.13 -0.360 0.080 <0
Copying strategy index 26.74 0.48 19.40 0.493 <0.001 13.99 0.30 11.36 0.292 <0.001 -12.75 -8.04 -4.697 0.812 <0
208
Table 31: Indicators measured from the learners data distributed by HGSMP and WFPSMP study arms stratified by gender
Time point Baseline Midline
Gender Boys
Indicators
HGSMP 
(n=713)
WFPSMP 
(n=593) p value
HGSMP 
(n=721)
WFPSMP 
(n=604) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 61.0% 46.5% <0.001 61.0% 51.0% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 71.5% 53.8% <0.001 69.1% 59.6% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 78.8% 62.6% <0.001 69.3% 66.7% <0.001
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 45.3% 37.4% 0.004 47.2% 58.1% <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 42.2% 39.1% 0.258 66.4% 67.1% 0.812
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 70.5% 46.5% <0.001 83.8% 53.0% <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 80.4% 53.6% <0.001 82.8% 82.1% 0.745
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 49.2% 44.4% 0.079 73.2% 70.9% 0.338
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 39.8% 44.0% 0.127 77.0% 81.0% 0.077
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 30.0% 57.7% <0.001 32.2% 55.8% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 20.9% 51.6% <0.001 22.1% 37.9% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 11.4% 28.0% <0.001 18.6% 41.6% <0.001
Gender Girls
Indicators
HGSMP 
(n=743)
WFPSMP 
(n=541) p value
HGSMP 
(n=873)
WFPSMP 
(n=558) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 68.0% 43.3% <0.001 62.8% 45.7% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 78.1% 53.2% <0.001 74.1% 52.3% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 76.6% 57.5% <0.001 71.7% 55.6% <0.001
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 41.9% 37.3% 0.103 49.9% 58.8% 0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 44.1% 38.3% 0.035 59.2% 64.2% 0.062
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 71.9% 47.3% <0.001 80.0% 57.5% <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 80.5% 57.9% <0.001 75.5% 79.9% 0.051
209
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 53.7% 43.4% <0.001 63.9% 69.5% 0.029
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 42.5% 41.2% 0.639 71.5% 79.4% 0.001
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 30.0% 56.9% <0.001 35.4% 59.5% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 20.6% 49.2% <0.001 21.9% 40.1% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 10.5% 27.0% <0.001 20.3% 42.5% <0.001
210
Table 32: Indicators measured from the learners data distributed by HGSMP and WFPSMP study arms for all boys and girls
Indicators
HGSMP 
(n=1456)
WFPSMP 
(n=1134) p value
HGSMP 
(n=1594)
WFPSMP 
(n=1162) p value
Highest Level of English literacy 64.6% 45.0% <0.001 62.0% 48.5% <0.001
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 74.9% 53.5% <0.001 71.8% 56.1% <0.001
Highest Level of numeracy 77.7% 60.1% <0.001 70.6% 61.4% <0.001
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 43.5% 37.4% 0.002 48.7% 58.4% <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 43.2% 38.7% 0.021 62.5% 65.7% 0.086
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 71.2% 46.9% <0.001 81.7% 55.2% <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
current school year 80.4% 55.6% <0.001 78.8% 81.1% 0.143
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the
week of the survey 51.5% 43.9% <0.001 68.1% 70.2% 0.241
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 41.2% 42.7% 0.451 74.0% 80.2% <0.001
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits
of primary education 30.0% 57.3% <0.001 33.9% 57.6% <0.001
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important
hygiene methods 20.7% 50.4% <0.001 22.0% 39.0% <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 10.9% 27.5% <0.001 19.5% 42.0% <0.001
211
Table 33: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the learners data between HGSMP and WFPSMP schools from baseline to 
midline
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Indicators
Diff. in Diff. in 
HGSMP WFPSMP
DID p 
Diff. β SE(β) value
Boys
Highest Level of English literacy 0.0% 4.5% -4.5% -0.185 0.159 0.245
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy -2.4% 5.8% -8.2% -0.365 0.165 0.027
Highest Level of numeracy -9.5% 4.1% -13.6% -0.692 0.172 <0.001
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 1.9% 20.7% -18.8% -0.766 0.159 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 24.2% 28.0% -3.8% -0.161 0.163 0.323
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 13.3% 6.5% 6.8% 0.502 0.175 0.004
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year 2.4% 28.5% -26.1% -1.214 0.193 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 24.0% 26.5% -2.5% -0.08 0.166 0.631
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 37.2% 37.0% 0.2% -0.07 0.177 0.693
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education 2.2% -1.9% 4.1% 0.207 0.167 0.215
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods 1.2% -13.7% 14.9% 0.668 0.177 <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 7.2% 13.6% -6.4% -0.037 0.2 0.854
Girls
Highest Level of English literacy -5.2% 2.4% -7.6% -0.323 0.162 0.046
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy -4.0% -0.9% -3.1% -0.181 0.170 0.285
Highest Level of numeracy -4.9% -1.9% -3.0% -0.183 0.168 0.277
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 8.0% 21.5% -13.5% -0.553 0.160 0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 15.1% 25.9% -10.8% -0.453 0.161 0.005
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 8.1% 10.2% -2.1% 0.005 0.170 0.978
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year -5.0% 22.0% -27.0% -1.388 0.185 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 10.2% 26.1% -15.9% -0.689 0.163 <0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 29.0% 38.2% -9.2% -0.499 0.173 0.004
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education 5.4% 2.6% 2.8% 0.179 0.166 0.282
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods 1.3% -9.1% 10.4% 0.487 0.175 0.005
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 9.8% 15.5% -5.7% 0.081 0.199 0.684
212
213
Table 34: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the learners data between HGSMP and WFPSMP schools from baseline to 
midline for all boys and girls
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
Indicators
Diff. in 
HGSMP
Diff. in 
WFPSMP
DID p 
Diff. β SE(β) value
Total
Highest Level of English literacy -2.6% 3.5% -6.1% -0.249 0.113 0.027
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy -3.1% 2.6% -5.7% -0.264 0.118 0.025
Highest Level of numeracy -7.1% 1.3% -8.4% -0.427 0.120 <0.001
Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class 5.2% 21.0% -15.8% -0.647 0.113 <0.001
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school 19.3% 27.0% -7.7% -0.325 0.114 0.004
Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school 10.5% 8.3% 2.2% 0.252 0.121 0.038
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current school year -1.6% 25.5% -27.1% -1.337 0.132 <0.001
Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week of the survey 16.6% 26.3% -9.7% -0.409 0.116 <0.001
Acceptable food consumption score (FCS) 32.8% 37.5% -4.7% -0.297 0.123 0.016
Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of primary education 3.9% 0.3% 3.6% 0.197 0.117 0.092
Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene methods 1.3% -11.4% 12.7% 0.575 0.124 <0.001
Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts 8.6% 14.5% -5.9% 0.028 0.141 0.841
214
Table 35: Indicators measured from the school checklist data distributed by WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP study arms
Variables
Baseline Midline
HGSMP WFPSMP
p 
value HGSMP WFPSMP
p 
value
Passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage 73.9% 43.5% 0.036 54.5% 60.9% 0.668
Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food 60.9% 30.4% 0.038 31.8% 73.9% 0.005
Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in sufficient quantity 52.2% 34.8% 0.234 27.3% 34.8% 0.586
Enough utensils 30.4% 43.5% 0.359 27.3% 34.8% 0.586
Store have pallets 52.2% 47.8% 0.768 40.9% 52.2% 0.449
Storage locked 65.2% 73.9% 0.522 90.9% 95.7% 0.524
Storage ventilated 65.2% 60.9% 0.760 59.1% 43.5% 0.295
Humidity free storage 56.5% 69.6% 0.359 40.9% 30.4% 0.463
Store have weighing scale 30.4% 30.4% 1.000 31.8% 26.1% 0.672
Table 36: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the school checklist data between WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP schools from 
baseline to midline
Indicators
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
HGSMP WFPSMP
DID
Diff β SE(β) p value
Passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage -19.40% 17.40% -36.80% -1.563 0.877 0.074
Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food -29.10% 43.50% -72.60% -3.072 0.907 0.001
Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in sufficient quantity -24.90% 0.00% -24.90% -1.068 0.887 0.229
Enough utensils -3.10% -8.70% 5.60% 0.212 0.896 0.813
Store have pallets -11.30% 4.40% -15.70% -0.629 0.843 0.456
Storage locked 25.70% 21.80% 3.90% 0.188 1.416 0.578
Storage ventilated -6.10% -17.40% 11.30% 0.443 0.86 0.606
Humidity free storage -15.60% -39.20% 23.60% 1.023 0.881 0.245
Store have weighing scale 1.40% -4.30% 5.70% 0.279 0.92 0.761
215
Table 37: Indicators measured from the school checklist data distributed by WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP study arms
Timepoint Baseline Midline
Indicator
HGSMP WFPSMP
Mean SE Mean SE p value
HGSMP
Mean SE
WFPSMP
Mean SE p value
Gender Boys
Number of students enrolled in schools 243 38 163 33 0.117 205 24 201 36 0.936
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 137 22 142 29 0.907 149 18 149 26 0.997
Gender Girls
Number of students enrolled in schools 186 24 127 30 0.129 188 26 153 31 0.383
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 105 14 110 26 0.862 137 19 113 23 0.424
Total
Number of students enrolled in schools 430 54 290 62 0.095 392 50 354 66 0.642
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 243 30 252 54 0.884 285 36 261 49 0.697
Table 38: Comparison of change in indicators measured from the school checklist data between WFPSMP, Control and HGSMP schools from 
baseline to midline
Indicator
Difference-in-Difference (DID)
HGSMP WFPSMP DID
Mean Mean Diff Β SE(β) p value
Gender Boys
Number of students enrolled in schools -39 38 -77 -76.94 66.81 0.253
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 11 7 4 4.34 48.19 0.929
Gender Girls
Number of students enrolled in schools 2 26 -24 -24.31 55.55 0.663
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 31 2 29 28.85 41.62 0.49
Total
Number of students enrolled in schools -37 64 -101 -101.24 116.70 0.388
Number of students regularly (80%) attending school 42 9 33 33.01 86.98 0.705
216
Annex 11 – Effect of the intervention on specific indicators
One year since rollout of the intervention in 2016, the results at midline have shown strong 
evidence of positive effect of the school meals programme (SMP) on a number of indicators. 
Table X and Y shows a summary of effects on specific indicators at both student and school 
level. The effects are classified into two main effects; 1) Effect of WFPSMP on indicators, 2) 
Sustainability of indicators by HGSMP.
Effect of WFPSMP:
WFPSMP had significant positive effect on the following six indicators.
• Highest Level of numeracy
• Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class
• Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school
• Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school
• Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current 
school year
• Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the week 
of the survey
• Passing score on a test of safe food preparation and storage
• Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food
• Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in sufficient quantity
However there was a significant negative effect on the following three indicators.
• Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of 
primary education
• Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene 
methods
• Children who mentioned three most important nutrition efforts
Sustainability of indicators by HGSMP:
HGSMP had significant positive or marginal effect on the following three indicators.
• Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily after going to school
• Parents/guardians in target communities who could name at least three benefits of 
primary education
• Children who responded to the survey who mentioned three most important hygiene 
methods
However there was a significant negative effect on the following nine indicators.
• Highest Level of English literacy
• Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy
• Highest Level of numeracy
• Sometimes find it difficult to concentrate in class
• Parents/guardians who reported their children ate daily before going to school
• Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the current 
school year
• Parents/guardians indicating that their child had received school meals in the survey 
week
• Acceptable food consumption score (FCS)
• Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils food
217
Conclusion
• As at midterm evaluation, the results show strong evidence of positive effect of the 
WFPSMP on most of the indicators.
• After transitioning of school from WFP to government, the results show strong 
evidence of negative effect on most of the indicators.
• Looking forward to see how the trend continue in the next one year
218
Table 39: Effect of intervention on specific indicators at student level
Indicators
Effect of WFPSMP Sustainability of indicators by HGSMP
WFPSMP Control Change
p
value Effect HGSMP WFPSMP Change
p
value Effect
Highest Level of English literacy 1.4% 0.4% 1.0% 0.761 Comparable -2.6% 3.5% -6.1% 0.027 Negative
Highest Level of Kiswahili literacy 0.5% 1.6% -1.1% 0.604 Comparable -3.1% 2.6% -5.7% 0.025 Negative
Highest Level of numeracy -1.0% -9.0% 8.0% 0.002 Positive -7.1% 1.3% -8.4% <0.001 Negative
Sometimes find it difficult to 
concentrate in class 19.4% 2.5% 16.9% <0.001 Positive 5.2% 21.0% -15.8% <0.001 Negative
Parents/guardians who reported their 
children ate daily before going to school 23.3% 12.6% 10.7% <0.001 Positive 19.3% 27.0% -7.7% 0.004 Negative
Parents/guardians who reported their
children ate daily after going to school 18.3% -12.0% 30.3% <0.001 Positive 10.5% 8.3% 2.2% 0.038 Positive
Parents/guardians indicating that their
child had received school meals in the 
current school year 30.7% 4.2% 26.5% <0.001 Positive -1.6% 25.5% -27.1% <0.001 Negative
Parents/guardians indicating that their
child had received school meals in the 
week of the survey 18.8% 5.0% 13.8% 0.001 Positive 16.6% 26.3% -9.7% <0.001 Negative
Acceptable food consumption score
(FCS) 37.3% 33.5% 3.8% 0.128 Comparable 32.8% 37.5% -4.7% 0.016 Negative
Parents/guardians in target
communities who could name at least 
three benefits of primary education -1.2% 7.4% -8.6% 0.001 Negative 3.9% 0.3% 3.6% 0.092 Marginal
Children who responded to the survey
who mentioned three most important 
hygiene methods -8.0% 7.1% -15.1% <0.001 Negative 1.3% -11.4% 12.7% <0.001 Positive
Children who mentioned three most
important nutrition efforts 13.0% 14.0% -1.0% <0.001 Negative 8.6% 14.5% -5.9% 0.841 Comparable
219
Table 40: Effect of intervention on specific indicators at school level
Indicators
Effect of WFPSMP Sustainability
WFPSMP Control Change
p 
value Effect HGSMP WFPSMP Change
p 
value Effect
Passing score on a test of safe food 
preparation and storage 24.7% -19.1% 43.8% 0.036 Positive -19.4% 17.4% -36.8% 0.074 Negative
Sufficient kitchen for preparing pupils
food 11.0% -29.1% 40.1% 0.036 Positive -29.1% 43.5% -72.6% 0.001 Negative
Kitchen have fuel efficient stoves in 
sufficient quantity 10.7% -21.1% 31.8% 0.068 Positive -24.9% 0.0% -24.9% 0.229 Comparable
Enough utensils 10.7% 5.0% 5.7% 0.661 Comparable -3.1% -8.7% 5.6% 0.813 Comparable
Store have pallets -11.0% -2.4% -8.6% 0.794 Comparable -11.3% 4.4% -15.7% 0.456 Comparable
Storage locked 12.6% 19.6% -7.0% 0.689 Comparable 25.7% 21.8% 3.9% 0.578 Comparable
Storage ventilated -6.5% -1.1% -5.4% 0.824 Comparable -6.1% -17.4% 11.3% 0.606 Comparable
Humidity free storage -42.5% -24.8% -17.7% 0.795 Comparable -15.6% -39.2% 23.6% 0.245 Comparable
Store have weighing scale -7.9% 0.7% -8.6% 0.707 Comparable 1.4% -4.3% 5.7% 0.761 Comparable
Number of students enrolled in schools 13 -40 54 0.456 Comparable -37 64 -101 0.388 Comparable
Number of students regularly (80%)
attending school -21 7 -28 0.556 Comparable 42 9 33 0.705 Comparable
220
Annexes –Bibliography
Baseline Survey for the USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
Programme’s Support (2013-2015) to WFP Kenya programme. WFP Kenya.
Dunn, S. & W. Kariuk (2015). External Evaluation of WFP’s Cash Transfers to Schools Pilot Project 
(March 2013 - March 2015).
Stephen Devereux; Rachel Sabates-Wheeler; Alvaro Pascual Martínez (2010). Home Grown School 
Feeding and Social Protection. PCD.
Kinemetrica (2016). A Mid-Term Evaluation of WFPs USDA McGovern-Dole International Food for 
Education and Child Nutrition Programme Support. Kimetrica.
Government of Kenya (2017). The 2016 Short Rains Season Assessment. Kenya Food Security 
Steering Group (KFSSG)
Lister, S. et al. (2011). WFP’s School Feeding Policy: a Policy Evaluation. Mokoro, Oxford.
Marije Oostindjer (undated). Are school meals a viable and sustainable tool to improve the 
healthiness and sustainability of children’s diet and food consumption?
Ministry of Education and WFP Kenya (2013). Strategy to Strengthen & Expand the Home Grown 
School Meals (HGSM) Programme into the Arid Lands of Kenya.
Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries (2018). National 
School Meals and Nutrition Strategy.
Ministry of Education & WFP (2017). Sustainability roadmap for school meals programme. Ministry
of Education & WFP (2017). Joint Monitoring report of Machakos and Makueni.
Ministry of Education & WFP (2017). Joint Monitoring of HGSMP in Kilifi and Taiti Taveta Counties
Ministry of Education & WFP. Report on School Feeding National Conference and Launch of School 
Meals and Nutrition Strategy (2017-2022) – May 2018
Ministry of Education & WFP. Capacity needs assessments (3 reports in total) in Marasabit, 
Turkana, West Pokot and Barringo
National Gender Equality Commission (2016). The Status of the Boy Child in Kenya. A report of the 
emerging perceptions of the exclusion of the boy child n in the gender equality agenda.
Stern et al. (2012). Broadening the Range of Designs and Methods for Impact Evaluation, DFID 
Working Paper 38, Elliot Stern (Team Leader), Nicoletta Stame, John Mayne, Kim Forss, Rick 
Davies, Barbara Befani, April 2012.
The Global Panel (2015). Healthy Meals in Schools; Policy innovations linking agriculture, food 
systems and nutrition.
UNEG (2008). UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System. United Nations 
Evaluation Group, March 2008.
UNEG (2016). Norms and Standards for Evaluation. United Nations Evaluation Group, June 2016
Wayua Fo (2017). Nutritional and Health Challenges of Pasturalist Populations in Kenya. Ajfund, 
Volume 17, number 1.
Weru Willie Machocho (2011). Management of Home-Grown School Feeding Programme and Its 
Implications on Access and Retention in Primary Schools – A Case of Kathonzweni District.
WFP Kenya (2014). Country Programme Kenya 200680 (2014–2018) 
WFP/Iceida (2015). Home Grown School Meal Annual Report 2015/2016
WFP (2016). Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) Process Guide, WFP 
Office of Evaluation, August 2016
WFP (undated). School Feeding Baseline Survey Training Manual School Feeding Support Unit.
221
222
List of Acronyms
ASALs - Arid and Semi-Arid Lands 
BOM – Board of Management
CDE – Country Director of Education 
CO – Country Office
CSO –Coping Strategy Index 
CTS – Cash Transfer to Schools
DEQAS – Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System 
DID – Difference in Difference
ECD – Early Childhood Development
EMIS – Education Management Information Systems 
FCS – Food Consumption Score
FGD – Focus Group Discussion 
FPE – Free Primary Education 
GoK – Government of Kenya
GPE – Global Partnership for Education
HGSMP – Home Grown School Meals Programme 
IR – Inception Report
KI – Key Informants
KII – Key Informant Interviews 
MGD – Mc Govern Dole
MOE– Ministry of Education
NASMLA – National Assessment System for Monitoring Learning Achievement 
NER – Net Enrolment Rate
NGO – Non-Governmental Organization 
ODK- Open Data Kit
PMF- Performance Measurement Framework 
PPS – Probability Proportionate to Size
PSM- Propensity Score Matching 
PSU – Primary Sampling Unit 
PTA-Parents/Teachers Association 
RG – Reference Group
RB – Regional Bureau
SACMEQ – Southern African Consortium for measuring Education Quality 
SDG – Sustainable Development Goal
223
SIP – School Improvement Programme 
SMC – School Meal Committee
SMP- School Meals Programme 
SO -Strategic Objective
TOR- Terms of Reference 
UN – United Nations
UNDAF – United Nations Development Assistance Framework 
UNEG – United Nations Evaluation Group
UNESCO – United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 
UNICEF – United Nations Children’s Education Fund
USDA – United States Department of Agriculture 
UWEZO – Kiswahili for ‘Capability’
WASH – Water Sanitation and Health 
WFP- World Food Programme
WFPSMP-World Food Programme School Meals Programm
224
[Name of commissioning Office] 
[Link to the website]
[Nairobi, October