FY 2015 MCGOVERN-DOLE FOOD FOR 
EDUCATION SCHOOL FEEDING 
BASELINE SURVEY GUINEA-BISSAU 
2016 - 2020
Key Findings Report
August 2016
Agreement: FFE-657-2015/019-00
Office of Information, Planning and Evaluation of the Education System 
Ministry of Education
&
National Directorate of Social Affairs and School Feeding 
Ministry of Education
&
United Nations World Food Programme
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
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
2
Acknowledgements
The Guinea-Bissau School Feeding Baseline Survey was conducted by the Ministry of Education’s Office 
of Information, Planning and Evaluation of the Education System (DGIPASE) and the National 
Directorate of Social Affairs and School Feeding (DGASCE), with assistance from the UN World Food 
Programme (WFP), in June 2016. The successful implementation of the survey and production of this 
report were made possible by the contributions of a skilled and dedicated group of actors.
The survey was organized and coordinated by Mamadu Saliu Djassi (DGIPASE) and Paulina 
Mendes (DGASCE). The sampling of WFP and non-WFP schools was facilitated by Jose Cabral (WFP). 
Training, data collection and management activities were coordinated by DGIPASE staff, who ensured 
that the survey progressed efficiently and according to the highest of standards. The enumerators who 
worked tirelessly, often in less than desirable conditions, to collect this data in a timely fashion are 
also gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks is given to Vladimir (DGASCE) for his tireless support of 
fieldwork and data entry activities.
Thanks is also owed to several people who immeasurably improved this report by reading and 
providing feedback on various drafts: Patrizia Papinutti, Elber Nosolini, and LucyMonteiro.
Finally, funding for the survey was made available through the United States Department of 
Agriculture’s (USDA) McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. 
This support was fundamental to the implementation of this study and is recognized with much 
gratitude.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
3
Contents
Figures and Tables................................................................................................................................ 4
Acronyms............................................................................................................................................... 6
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 7
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................. 10
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................10
1.2. Survey Objectives.........................................................................................................10
1.3 Structure of Report ......................................................................................................11
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 12
2.1 Survey Design ...............................................................................................................12
2.2 Survey Indicators .........................................................................................................13
3. Results.......................................................................................................................................... 16
3.1 School-level Findings....................................................................................................16
3.2 Student-level Findings..................................................................................................19
3.3 Household-level Findings..............................................................................................22
4. Discussion..................................................................................................................................... 27
4.1 SFP Targeting...............................................................................................................27
4.2 SFP Implementation.....................................................................................................27
4.3 Student Attendance ......................................................................................................28
4.4 Survey Limitations .......................................................................................................30
5. Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 31
5.1 Short-term Recommendations......................................................................................31
5.2 Medium-term Recommendations.................................................................................31
References............................................................................................................................................ 32
Annex I – Summary Statistics............................................................................................................ 33
School-Level.............................................................................................................................34
Student-Level...........................................................................................................................45
Household-Level ......................................................................................................................50
Annex II – List of Surveyed Schools.................................................................................................. 72
Annex III – Questionnaires................................................................................................................ 74
Annex IV – MacGovern-Dole Performance Indicators ………………………………………….. 97
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
4
Figures and Tables
Figure 1. Non-food items contributed to SFP by community.......................................................................... 17
Figure 2. Grade 4 student attendance rate (2015)............................................................................................ 18
Figure 3. Enrollment Ratio (2015:2014) ........................................................................................................... 19
Figure 4. Students by Household Wealth.......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 5. Students eating a meal after school and before bed......................................................................... 21
Figure 6. Ethnicity of head of household. ......................................................................................................... 22
Figure 7. Wealth quintiles.................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 8. Mean Food Consumption Score ........................................................................................................ 24
Figure 9. Livelihood-based coping strategies.................................................................................................... 25
Figure 10. Parent/guardian aware that child receives free school meal......................................................... 26
Figure 11. Grade 4 student attendance by gender (2015)................................................................................ 28
Figure 12. Grade 4 student attendance (Large schools) (2015)....................................................................... 29
Figure 13. Grade 4 student attendance (Smallschools) (2015)....................................................................... 29
Table 1. Results of interviews............................................................................................................. 33
Table 2. School Characteristics......................................................................................................... 34
Table 3. Mean number of students and teachers.............................................................................. 34
Table 4. Median number of students and gender ratio ................................................................... 35
Table 5. Median number of teachers and student-per-teacher ratio.............................................. 35
Table 6. School library, kitchen, and storage ................................................................................... 36
Table 7. School water sources............................................................................................................ 36
Table 8. School toilet facilities............................................................................................................ 37
Table 9. School PTA and CGE .......................................................................................................... 37
Table 10 A & B. Teacher profile - gender and age........................................................................... 38
Table 11 A & B. Teacher profile - function and qualification......................................................... 39
Table 12. School SFP storage ............................................................................................................. 40
Table 13. School SFP CGE................................................................................................................. 41
Table 14. SFP communication and non-food contributions............................................................ 42
Table 15. Student Attendance OCT – JAN....................................................................................... 43
Table 16. Student Attendance FEB – MAY...................................................................................... 43
Table 17. Enrollment change (2015 : 2014) ...................................................................................... 44
Table 18. Student sex by type of school and region.......................................................................... 45
Table 19. Students by household wealth ........................................................................................... 45
Table 20. Ate meal at school and normal source.............................................................................. 46
Table 21. Quantity and quality of meals........................................................................................... 47
Table 22. Take-home rations.............................................................................................................. 48
Table 23. Behavior if no meals provided........................................................................................... 48
Table 24. Ate meal before and after school....................................................................................... 49
Table 25. Time to travel to school...................................................................................................... 49
Table 26. Household characteristics.................................................................................................. 50
Table 27. Household population by gender and age ........................................................................ 50
Table 28. Household wealth quintiles................................................................................................ 51
Table 29. Mean household size and occupancy ................................................................................ 52
Table 30. Household walls.................................................................................................................. 53
Table 31. Household roof.................................................................................................................... 54
Table 32. Household floors................................................................................................................. 55
Table 33. Household cooking fuel...................................................................................................... 56
Table 34. Household water sources ................................................................................................... 57
Table 35. Household toilet facilities................................................................................................... 58
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
5
Table 36. Household ownership of assets.......................................................................................... 59
Table 37. Household ownership of transport ................................................................................... 60
Table 38. Father's education.............................................................................................................. 61
Table 39. Mother's education............................................................................................................. 62
Table 40. Food groups ........................................................................................................................ 63
Table 41. Food Consumption Score................................................................................................... 64
Table 42. Household income earners and annual income ............................................................... 65
Table 43. Household livelihoods ........................................................................................................ 66
Table 44. Household received support and providing support to others....................................... 67
Table 45. Coping Strategies Index..................................................................................................... 68
Table 46. Number of days student at before and after school......................................................... 69
Table 47. Parent knowledge of SFP and reduced meals.................................................................. 70
Table 48. Student missed days, education benefit, harassed........................................................... 71
Table 49. MGD standard and custom indicators............................................................................. 97
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
6
Acronyms
CGE School Management Committee (Portuguese)
CO Country Office
CSI Coping Strategies Index
DEGASCE National Directorate of Social Affairs and School Feeding
FCG Food Consumption Group
FCS Food Consumption Score
DGIPASE Office of Information, Planning and Evaluation of the Education System
GoGB Government of Guinea-Bissau
MEN Ministry of Education (Portuguese)
SFP School Feeding Programme
THR Take-Home Ration
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
WFP United Nations World Food Programme
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
7
Executive Summary
In December 2015, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) Guinea-Bissau Country Office signed a 
three-year, $20 million agreement with the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program to scale up its school feeding programme (SFP) to reach an estimated 173,000 
students by 2018. As part of this agreement, in June 2016, the General Directorate for Information, 
Planning and Evaluation of the Education System (GEPASE), the National Directorate of Social Affairs 
and School Feeding (DGASE) and WFP partnered to conduct a school feeding survey to set a baseline 
for the assessment and measurement of the programme’simpact, effectiveness,relevance, efficiency, 
and sustainability over the 2016-2018 programme cycle.
The school feeding baseline survey design was based on a quasi-experimental approach to 
measuring impact, sampling a total of 50 WFP schools and 50 comparison schools from six regions: 
Oio, Biombo, Cacheu, Quinara, Gabu, and Bafata. The quantitative survey collected key data from 
schools, students, and households in the community. Between 6-23 June, enumerators collected 
information from 100 schools, 960 students, and 947 parents/guardians of primary-aged school 
children.
School Findings
School Feeding Programme
A range of questions were asked to WFP schools regarding the current operations of their school 
feeding programmes. Mostschools used an on-site, dedicated storage room for food commodities(71 
percent) and nearly all had a system for keeping food items off the ground (96 percent). Just one in 
seven schools (14 percent) used an open space for cooking instead of a designated kitchen; however, 
only a third of schools were using energy efficient stoves to prepare meals. One component of WFP’s 
school feeding programme efforts between 2016-2018 is to improve school infrastructure by building 
kitchens and energy efficient stoves; these results suggest there is much work to be done. Community 
support of the SFP, though varied by region, was also strong, with over half of the WFP schools 
reported that they had received contributions of firewood (65 percent), utensils (59 percent), and 
plates/cutlery (55 percent).
Student Attendance
A key result which the McGovern-Dole programme seeks to achieve at supported schools is improved 
attendance. The baseline survey collected attendance information for Grade 4 students at allsurveyed 
schools as a means of gauging the level of attendance during the 2015 school year. The findings show 
that attendance among Grade 4 students in WFP schools in October was 86 percent compared to 78 
percent in non-WFP schools. However, beginning in January, attendance of Grade 4 students at WFP 
schools appears to begin a gradual tapering off, finishing in May at just 72 percent. Further analysis is 
needed of the household-level data to determine whether this observed seasonal decline in 
attendance at WFP schools is real and, if so, the factors which underlie thistrend.1
School Enrollment
Increasing enrollment is another key result of the McGovern-Dole programme. Findings from the 
baseline survey showed little change in enrollment between 2014 and 2015 for pre-primary and Grade 
1 students. For Grade 2, however, there appeared to be a substantial increase in enrollment among 
girls in WFP-supported schools between 2014 and 2015 (63%). For Grade 3, the 2014 to 2015 increase 
accelerated further for girls in WFP-supported schools (more than 2x increase) and also increases for 
boys in WFP schools as well (60%). In Grades 5 and 6 there doesn’t appear to be much increase in 
enrolment beyond what might be expected due to secular trends. More research is needed to 
1 Guinea-Bissau national education authorities and relevant partners agreed to say that the seasonal decline in 
attendance occurred in almost all schools in the country during the months of March, April and May due to cashew 
nut harvest. During this period the attendance declines in both schools assisted and non-assisted by WFP. Every 
year, during these months, Government, WFP and others stakeholder double sensitization campaigns about the 
importance of education and right of children to education.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
8
understand the driving factors behind these 2014 to 2015 enrolmenttrends.
Student Findings
Results from the student questionnaire showed a roughly equal representation of boys and girls in 
the survey findings. Regarding socioeconomic background, it appeared that students in non-WFP 
schools are more likely to come from households in the bottom wealth quintiles compared to 
students in WFP schools (48 percent vs. 37 percent, respectively).
School Feeding Programme
Overall students at WFP schools reported being generally satisfied with the quantity and quality of 
meals provided by the school (77 percent and 80 percent, respectively). As part of the WFP Guinea￾Bissau school feeding programme implementation, girls in Grades 4-6 receive a 4kg bag of rice each 
month if they have at least 80 percent attendance. However, the survey found that at WFP schools 
more than a third of boys reported having received a take-home ration (THR) of rice at some point 
during the current school year (37 percent); the results indicate that a regional pattern existed, such 
that boys in Oio, Quinara, and Cacheu were more likely to have received a THR than boys in other 
regions2
. At WFP schools, an overwhelming majority of students (83 percent) reported that they 
typically did not leave school early if they learned no meal would be served that day. A roughly similar 
amount (76 percent) reported that they would report to school even if they knew in advance that a 
meal would not be served.
Household Findings
The baseline survey sought to better understand the household context of students in the schools 
surveyed. Among the strongest relationships identified was between household wealth quintiles and 
region: surveyed households in Oio and, to a lesser degree Cacheu, were significantly more likely to 
be from the poorest wealth quintiles compared to households in other regions.
Household Characteristics
Households in Oio and Cacheu were more likely to have rudimentary wall, roof, and floor components 
in their structures than households in other regions. Just over half of the surveyed household 
population (56 percent) was using an improved source of drinking water. Populations in wealthier 
quintiles were more likely to be accessing an improved source of drinking water (72 percent compared 
to 30 percent for the wealthiest and poorest, respectively). Use of an improved toilet facility among 
the surveyed population followed a similarsocioeconomic pattern: while just 1 percent of those in the 
poorest households were using an improved toilet, 45 percent of those in the wealthiest households 
were.
Parental Education
The baseline survey collected information on the educational background of the students’ mother and 
father. Among householdsin which the student’s father was present, just over two-thirds (70 percent) 
of the fathers had attained some basic level of education; for mothers the result was inverted, with 
just 38 percent having attained some basic education.
Food Consumption Score
Overall, just 8 percent of surveyed households were found to have a poor or borderline food 
consumption. Statistical tests did not identify any significant relationships between the type of school 
and the mean food consumption score; however, poorer households and those in Bafata, Quinara, 
and Cacheu were more likely to have poor or borderline scores.
Income and Livelihoods
A majority of surveyed households reported that their main source of income over the previous year 
2 During the presentation of the baseline report to the regional education authorities and the national-level 
technical staff from the Ministry of Education, they affirmed that perhaps the question was not well understood 
by children. They informed that some children, girls and boys, take home one part of the meals served at schools, 
probably for their younger siblings. That is why they may have misinterpreted the notion of take home ration. 
WFP will continue to provide THR only for girls from grade 5 to 6 of primary schools with 80% of assistance per 
month and will further enhance sensitization in schools to ensure application of this principle
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
9
came from agriculture/farming (64 percent) or salaried employment (12 percent). There did not 
appear to be a significant difference between households under WFP and non-WFP schools in this 
regard. Also of interest were the findings showing that fully a quarter of the wealthiest households
(26 percent) reported receiving support (food or cash remittances) over the previous four months 
compared to just 4 percent of the poorest households.
School Feeding Programme
Finally, households were queried about various issues related to meals and school feeding. The 
average number of days that households reported their student ate a meal before going to school 
over the past 5 days was 3.3; eating a meal after school (and before bed) was more common at 4.5 
days on average. Households of students in WFP-supported schools were further asked whether their 
student received free school meals – just two-thirds (68 percent) were able to answer correctly. A 
strong regional pattern was observed for these findings as well, suggesting perhaps that 
communication and sensitization of the SFP is lacking in some areas. Furthermore, about one in seven 
households(15 percent) reported that they normally reduced the quantity of food given to the student 
on days when school feeding will occur (as compared to the amount given onweekends).
Recommendations
Based on the findings described in this report, a set of recommendations were developed to provide 
guidance to MEN and WFP as they devise strategies for improving the current implementation of the 
school feeding programme and for the successful handover to Government.
SR1: MEN and WFP should consider appropriate strategies for addressing the “leakage” found in the 
THR component in most regions. Guinea-Bissau is an extraordinarily challenging environment to 
operate a decentralized programme, a situation which calls for small but effective updates to the 
existing oversight and monitoring system. One option could include, for example, the introduction of 
a random, student- or parent-level questionnaire (2-4 questions) into the existing monthly monitoring 
system which tracks leakage and operation breaks.
SR2: WFP and MEN should consider reviewing and standardizing the role of the school management 
committees (CGEs) and the community in the SFP and incorporating these into official training 
packages. Currently there are different practices and capacities throughout the six regions and lack of 
clarity and support on these issues raises the likelihood of corruption and reduces accountability 
throughout the system
SR3: WFP should consider partnering with current initiatives in Guinea-Bissau aimed at improving the 
types and quality of data collected through the national education system. This will ensure that SFP 
indicators (and the administrative data upon which they are built) are given appropriate value in such 
processes and begin putting in place standardized indicators for SFP monitoring in the event of a 
handover.
MR1: WFP and MEN should consider commissioning a more detailed investigation into the factors 
which predict student attendance in Guinea-Bissau to better understand whether the current 
incentives are appropriately designed and targeted. This would ideally be with a research institute or 
university with experience in such exercises (particularly in the education sector). The baseline survey 
findings suggest that other factors beyond gender may play strong roles in determining attendance. 
The outcomes of such an investigation could then feed into an updated school feeding policy so that 
the process of allocating resources is standardized and guided by more comprehensive data on 
student vulnerability.
MR2: MEN and WFP are encouraged to explore the feasibility and implications of implementing a cost￾sharing system (i.e. between Government and parents/communities) for the school feeding 
programme in light of its future commitments under the handover scenario. Cost-sharing might take 
any number of forms, including increased dependence on local production. The benefits of the SFP are 
quite visible from the baseline survey findings yet donor funding will never match that needed by 
GoGB to scale SFP to all primary-aged students.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
10
1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In Guinea-Bissau, political instability, poverty, food insecurity, inadequate infrastructure, incomplete 
primary schooling, child labour, lack of qualified teachers, frequent teacher’s strikes and weak 
community engagement all limit children’s accessto a good education. Since 2001, the UN World Food 
Programme (WFP) has supported the Government of Guinea-Bissau's (GoGB) objectives in the 
education sector through the implementation and management of a school feeding programme (SFP). 
In 2009, WFP facilitated a collaboration between the governments of Brazil and Guinea-Bissau, the 
outcomes of which included a decree on school feeding and draft strategies for school feeding and 
local food purchases. In 2015 a Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) exercise was 
conducted and produced a set of recommendations for strengthening the state of school feeding and 
transitioning towards a nationally-owned and -operated system [1]. WFP is committed to supporting 
the GoGB and the Ministry of Education (MEN) with the implementation of this transition strategy and 
with a view to handing over part of WFP-assisted schools by 2018.
The current WFP school feeding programme targets rural areas where net enrolment is below 
62 percent, more than 27 percent of children are out of school and the gender ratio is below the 
national average of nine girls for every ten boys. For enhanced impact on the quality of education, 
WFP targets schools supported by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) where possible. WFP 
has developed a nutritionally-balanced school meals program. For 2016, daily hot meals consist of 
120g of rice, 20g of pulses, 10g of fortified vegetable oil, 20g of canned fish and 3g salt. The ration 
provides about 35 percent of the daily nutritional food requirements to school children. In all targeted 
schools, take-home rations (THR) of rice (4kg per month) are provided to girls in grades 4-6 who 
maintain good attendance (at least 80 percent) as an incentive to reduce drop-outs.
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program provides 
WFP with $20 million over three years(2016-2018) and will enable WFP to scale up itssupport to eight 
regions of the country: Cacheu, Biombo, Oio, Bafata, Gabu, Tombali, Quinara, and Boloma-Bijagos. 
WFP is leveraging its close partnership with the GoGB and local communities to ensure successful 
project implementation. According to the Project Agreement, approximately 145,000 student 
beneficiaries will be assisted in FY16; 160,000 in FY17; and 173,000 inFY18.1
To this end, WFP, the General Directorate for Information, Planning and Evaluation of the 
Education System (GEPASE) and the National Directorate of Social Affairs and School Feeding (DGASE) 
have partnered to conduct a school feeding baseline survey to assess and measure over a three-year 
period the program’s impact, effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, and sustainability.
The baseline survey will be followed by a mid-term evaluation (from October 2017 to February 2018) 
and by a final evaluation (from March to July 2019).
1.2. Survey Objectives
The primary goal of the school feeding baseline survey was to provide a situational analysis before the 
programme begins and to provide important context necessary for the midterm and final evaluations. 
The immediate objectives of the baseline survey were three-fold:
1. To allow WFP to establish indicator baseline information and to validate/amend (as 
necessary) any programme targets established in the Project Agreement signed between 
WFP and McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program on 
12/21/2015 ;
2. To form the foundation for the planned midterm and final evaluations;
1 In actuality, due to high demand for SFP in Guinea-Bissau, WFP aims to scale at a much faster pace and is seeking complementary funding 
to support activities beyond 2016/2017, particularly for home grown school feeding (HGSF).
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
11
3. To develop recommendations for how WFP and the MEN can continue strengthening the 
current school feeding programme in the context of the transitionstrategy.
The baseline survey would also serve to further enhance the capacity of DGIPASE and DGASCE to 
conduct data collection exercises which supply more in-depth information to Government and 
education stakeholders on the school feeding programme.
1.3 Structure of Report
This report is structured to present and review the results of the data collected from schools, students 
and parents, as well as key recommendations:
Sections 1 and 2 of the report review the background, objectives, and methodology used to 
collect data in pursuit of the objectives described above. These sections also provide more conceptual 
background for why such approaches were chosen. Section 3 presents an overview of the survey 
results for schools, students, and parents. Observations from discussions with school directors and 
school feeding personnel, as well as feedback and inputs provided by WFP, DGIPASE, and DGASE staff, 
have also been incorporated to give additional context where relevant.
Section 4 includes a discussion of the key findings and their implications for improving the 
school feeding programme in Bissau, and eventually handing over to MEN. Section 5 presents a set of 
key recommendations that were formulated by DGIPASE and DGASE staff, in consultation with WFP, 
to provide both general and specific guidance to WFP and MEN on strategies for improving theSFP.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
12
2. Methodology
2.1 Survey Design
The school feeding baseline survey design was based on a quasi-experimental approach to measuring 
programme impact. This design was necessary as the current school feeding programme is not 
randomly assigned to schools and students throughout Guinea-Bissau. Such a design identifies an 
intervention group (in this case, schools in which WFP supports a school feeding programme) and a 
comparison group which theoretically serves to demonstrate the outcomes where the SFP is not 
implemented.
The baseline survey was a representative, two-stage cluster survey (with structured 
questionnaires). The quantitative survey collected key data from schools, students, and local 
households in the school community. Questions developed for the baseline survey will be used at the 
end of program implementation as a follow up to provide evidence of change from program inception 
to program conclusion.2
Sample Size
The sample size for the school feeding baseline survey was determined to accommodate a quasi￾experimental design and the use of propensity score matching analyses during the mid-term and 
endline surveys.3 The sample size was set to ensure the survey was adequately powered to either 
accept or reject the selected hypotheses regarding the program’s impact (α = 0.05, β = 0.80). The 
outcome indicator of interest was student attendance. The base sample size was calculated using the 
following:
𝑛𝑛 = 2(𝑝𝑝)(1 − 𝑝𝑝)(𝑍𝑍𝛽𝛽+ 𝑍𝑍𝛼𝛼/2)
2 (𝑝𝑝1 −𝑝𝑝2)2
where:
n = sample size of each group (intervention and comparison) 
p(1-p) = 0.25 (estimated standard deviation)
Zβ = 0.84 (80% power)
Zα/2 = 1.96 (5% significance)
(p1 – p2) = 0.10 (effect size of interest)
This gives a sample size of students from each group of:
2(0.25)(0.84 + 1.96)2
𝑛𝑛 = (0.10)2 = 392
Following from McKenzie (2010) the sample size for each group was inflated to account for the degree 
of overlap anticipated in the propensity score distribution. Because the comparison schools (and thus 
students) were purposively sampled to match WFP schools as much as possible along various 
dimensions (i.e. urban/rural, school size, and socioeconomic conditions), the sample size was inflated 
modestly to 500 (~25 percent). WFP anticipates that the panel nature of the evaluations also justified 
this modest inflation (i.e. revisiting the same schools, but not the same students or households, for 
the midline and endline surveys should confer additional efficiencies during the econometric 
analyses).
2 An earlier version of the baseline survey Terms of Reference shared with stakeholders and McGovern-Dole staff in Washington, D.C. 
indicated that a qualitative component would supplement the quantitative exercise. However, capacity and timing constraints prevented 
MEN and WFP from incorporating this element in the end. Much context has been provided for the survey findings however from 
GEPASE, DGASE, WFP, and education system stakeholders during a review of the draft report.
3 The following relies heavily on McKenzie [2], Gaarder [3], and White & Sabarwal [4].
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
13
Sampling
DGIPASE and WFP first sampled 50 WFP schools using the probability-proportional-to-size technique 
(see Annex II). DGIPASE then selected a comparison group of 50 schools that shared similar education 
and socioeconomic indicators but which were not supported by WFP. In most cases, the comparison 
schoolssampled were from the same sector asthe WFP school (and usually were its nearest neighbor). 
From each school, enumerators also randomly sampled ten students from the Grade 4 enrollment 
roster; these children were administered the student-level questionnaire. The enumerators then 
travelled to these students’ home to administer the household-level questionnaire. For consistency 
purposes, the baseline survey was conducted in the six regions where WFP was supporting the GoGB 
with school feeding operations in June 2016: Oio, Bafata, Cacheu, Biombo, Quinara, andGabu.
Training, pre-testing & fieldwork logistics
As much as possible, survey questions used the standard wording (and Portuguese translations) found 
in recent surveys in Guinea-Bissau (e.g., 2014 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey) in order to maximize 
comparability of findings. The school, student and parent questionnaires are presented in Annex III.
A comprehensive five-day training for enumerators was held in Bissau during the first week of 
June. The training covered all aspects of survey implementation and was coordinated by DGIPASE and 
DGASCE staff. Eighteen enumerators were trained and collected survey data in six teams of three. A 
field practicum was conducted during the training at two local schools in Biombo to test enumerators 
in their administration of the questionnaires and to identify any final updates required to the 
questionnaire. The six teams of enumerators then surveyed the 100 schools between 6-23June.
Data Quality Control
Throughout the survey, multiple levels of supervision were established to ensure that the data 
collected was accurate and reliable. DGIPASE, DGASCE, and WFP staff carefully managed the training 
and pre-testing phases to ensure a complete understanding of the survey’s rationale and the 
information sought from all questions. Survey supervisors and team leaders monitored fieldwork 
activities and sampled questionnaires for completeness and accuracy. At the beginning of fieldwork 
activities, DGIPASE, DGASCE and WFP staff performed spot checks of enumerators during 
administration of the questionnairesto identify any significant variationsin tone or rapport that might 
have biased the respondents’ answers.
Data Entry, Processing, and Editing
WFP prepared a data entry mask using CSPro (Version 6.3.2) to capture the information from the hard￾copy questionnaires into electronic format. The screen employed verification measures to prevent 
entry errors,such asrange limitsfor all numerical and categorical variables. A team of data entry clerks 
entered all questionnaires over a period of 8 days; the CSPro mask also included a random check 
function (every 10th data point). SPSS (Version 20.0 for Windows, Release 20.0.0) was used to verify 
the school, student and parent master files for duplicate entries and for coding to produce final, clean 
datasets. These data files were then exported to facilitate analyses using Stata (Version 13.0 for 
Windows) statistical software package.
2.2 Survey Indicators
The baseline survey created a range of indicators using the primary data collected from schools, 
students, and households to facilitate interpretation and comparison of the findings with other 
surveys.
Student Attendance Rate
Student attendance rate was calculated for every student in every month for which data was available 
from the administrative records of the schools. First, the number of actual teaching days in each month 
for every school was used as the denominator for attendance; schools for which this information was
missing were not included in the attendance computation. Next, the number of days
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
14
recorded as present for each student in each month was used as the numerator. Again, students for 
which this information was missing were excluded from the computation.
School Enrollment Ratio
School enrollment ratio was calculated for every school for each grade and gender for which data was 
available from school administrative records. For grades where any piece of information was missing, 
these were excluded from the numerator and denominator during calculation. The enrollment 
numbers for a school, grade, and gender in 2015 were divided by the same values from 2014 to arrive 
at the enrollment ratio (i.e. # enrolled in 2015 / # enrolled in 2014).
Wealth Index
The relative wealth of a household was estimated by constructing a wealth index for the entire sample. 
A set of dichotomous indicators assumed to be associated with wealth (e.g., source of drinking water, 
toilet facility, roofing material, and ownership of various assets) were given weights created from a 
principal component analysis. These scores were subsequently normalized with a mean of zero and 
standard deviation of one and summed for each household. Following this, a weighted distribution 
frequency of households was created in order to determine the cut-points for each wealth quintile 
[5].
Food Consumption Score & Groups
The food consumption score (FCS) combines food diversity, food frequency (the number of days each 
food group is consumed) and the relative nutritional importance of each food group. For each food 
group the frequency represents the number of days an item was consumed, with a range from 0 
(never) to 7 (every day). A weight is assigned to each food group, representing its relative nutritional 
importance [6].
The Food Consumption Groups (FCG) uses standardised thresholds that typically divide 
households into three groups. The thresholds that define the three groups are:
Poor Consumption: < 21 FCS
Borderline Consumption: >= 21 FCS & < 35 FCS
Adequate Consumption: >= 35 FCS
Improved Water and Toilet
The baseline survey used the indicator definitions recommended by the Joint Monitoring Programme
for improved water and toilet [7]. The percentages presented in the table are according to total 
population instead of households. Specifically, thisincluded:
Improved water: Piped into a building; Piped into a yard / lot; public taps / standpipe; borehole; protected well /
spring; bottled water; rainwater
Unimproved water: Unprotected well; community well; unprotected springs; other
Improved toilet: Improved latrine (ventilated); flushing toilet; latrine without flushing
Unimproved toilet: Traditional toilet; in the woods (nature); other; any improved toilet that is shared
Coping Strategies Index
The (reduced) Coping Strategies Index (CSI) is yet another means of assessing the level of food 
insecurity within a population and is founded on the premise that:
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
15
The acquisition of food and the provision of adequate nutrition to one’s 
children are among the most basic of human endeavors. In general, people 
respond to conditions under which they do not have enough to eat, and 
various means of “coping” is what people have to do when they do not have 
enough—the more people have to cope, the less food secure they are...People 
generally know how much is “enough” and seek the best options for ensuring 
that they eat enough. People start to change their consumption habits when 
they anticipate a problem [8].
The weights applied to the five core questions used to measure reduced CSI are as follows:
Coping behavior Weight
Consume less preferred foods and cheaper 1
Borrow food or rely on the support of relatives / friends 2
Decrease the amount of food at mealtimes 1
Reduce the quantities consumed by adults the benefit of younger children 3
Reduce the number of daily meals (skip 1 or 2 meals in the day) 1
Livelihood-based Coping Strategies
Coping strategies practiced by households can be defined by their severity as neutral, stress, crisis, or 
emergency strategies. The baseline survey has defined these categories as follows:
Stress Crisis Emergency
▪ Send household members in labor 
migration
▪ Sell productive assets (e.g.,trailer, 
plow, seed, etc.)
▪ Send household members to beg
▪ Sell plots of land
▪ Find alternative or additional 
activities
▪ Reduce health and education 
expenditure
▪ Buy / request food on credit, 
borrow food or rely on the help of 
friends or relatives
▪ Remove school children
▪ Sell or consume the seeds
▪ Sell breeding females
▪ Selling non-productive assets(e.g, 
furniture, jewelry, etc.)
▪ Sell animals (shortages, i.e.sell 
more than usual)
▪ Using the household savings
▪ Borrow money
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
16
3. Results
The baseline survey collected information from 100 schools, 960 students, and 947 parents/guardians 
of primary-aged school children from the six regions in Guinea-Bissau where WFP had ongoing SFP 
operations in June 2016. An overview of the summary statistics from the school-, student-, and 
household-level questionnaires is presented in Annex I at the end of thisreport.
3.1 School-level Findings
General
Results from the school questionnaire show that a majority of schools surveyed were public (75 
percent), with most of the remainder categorized as community schools. Beyond categorization, 
however, there were some meaningful differences between WFP and non-WFP schools which might 
support the interpretation of the survey’s results.4 The WFP schools surveyed had significantly more 
students than non-WFP schools and were more likely to serve Grade 5 students and above. The 
findings also suggest that the gender ratio in WFP schools is lower than that of non-WFP schools.5 A 
closer inspection reveals that in schools that serve Grade 4 or below, the gender ratios were quite 
similar for WFP and non-WFP schools. This reflects the trend of decreasing female enrollment and 
attendance which accelerates around Grade 4.6 WFP schools also had significantly more teachers; as 
a result, the ratio of students-to-teachers was comparable between the two types of schools (42.1 and 
45.7 for WFP and non-WFP schools, respectively).
WFP schools were also more likely to have a designated kitchen area and a dedicated space 
to store food. Thisresult is not meaningful by itself – WFP has directed much effort and resources over 
the years to improve the infrastructure of supported schools – but does have implications for policy￾and decision makers considering further expansion of the existing school feeding programme. 
Approximately three in four schools (72 percent) were accessing an improved source of water, yet 
there was considerable discrepancy in toilet facilities between schools: WFP schools were more likely 
to have improved toilets compared to non-WFP schools (74 and 50 percent, respectively). This could 
reflect that WFP schools tend to be larger and/or sometimes overlap with UNICEF-supported schools, 
or some other factor altogether.7 The socioeconomic profile of students and households is presented 
further in Section 3.3. Nearly all schools surveyed had some type of Parent-Teacher Association (82 
percent), while WFP schools were considerably more likely to have an active school management 
committee (CGE), which is expected given the additional responsibilities of the CGE in supporting the 
school feeding programme.8
Teacher Profile
The overwhelming majority of teachers in the schools surveyed were men, a finding which is consistent 
with MEN administrative statistics. Smaller schools (i.e. those serving only Grade 4 and below) 
appeared to skew even further towards male teachers, however, such that more than 8 in 10 teachers
in these schools were male. Smallerschools were also more likely to contain young teachers (i.e. those 
less than 30 years old): 31 percent compared to 21 percent for small and large schools, respectively. 
That WFP schools tend to be larger is reflected in the gender and age profile of the teachers therein.
With regards to teacher function, the majority of teachers in each type of school were either 
permanent or contracted; every school also had one director. There was some evidence to suggest 
that smaller schools were more likely to depend on contracted teachers (as opposed to permanent
4 For clarity and brevity, the terms “WFP schools” and “non-WFP schools” have been used throughout this report to reference schools for 
which WFP was providing active support for school feeding programme operations and those for which it was not, respectively.
5 Gender ratio defined as the proportion of girls to boys (# girl students / # boy students).
6 The attendance and enrollment rates for girls begins dropping dramatically around Grade 4 in Guinea-Bissau. 7 WFP and MEN operate school feeding in 23 of the 46 schools which UNICEF supports in Guinea-Bissau through its child friendly school 
programme
8 School management committees are comprised of teachers, administrators and volunteers from the community; among other activities, 
they develop yearly Action Plans to guide the performance of the school.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
17
teachers), but further investigation would be needed to assess whether this finding is real. Most 
teachers in surveyed schools had either a secondary (Grade 10 – 12) or higher educational background 
(85 percent). There was again slight evidence that smaller schools relied on teachers with only basic 
education (up to Grade 9). Finally, while just over half of all teachers were classified as full-time (vis￾à-vis part-time), WFP schools did appear to have a higher proportion of full-time teachers(60 percent). 
That such a difference did not manifest between smaller and larger schools suggests that this 
difference cannot be so easily explained away.
School Feeding Programme
A range of questions were asked to WFP schools regarding the current operations of their school 
feeding programmes. Most schools used an on-site, dedicated storage room for commodities (71 
percent) and nearly all had a system for keeping food items off the ground (96 percent). One in seven 
schools (14 percent) used an open space for cooking instead of a designated kitchen, and just a third 
of schools were using energy efficient stoves to prepare meals. One component of WFP’s school 
feeding programme efforts between 2016-2018 is to improve school infrastructure by building 
kitchens and energy efficient stoves; these results suggest there is much work to bedone.
Given the important role which CGEs play in SFP operations in Guinea-Bissau, a set of 
questions were asked to gauge their functioning at WFP-supported schools. Roughly three in five 
schools (60 percent) indicated that their respective CGEs were involved in all stages and management 
of school feeding operations. Still, in 25 percent of schools the CGE role was described as very limited 
(i.e. no role or only unloading commodity deliveries). More than half (58 percent) reported that CGE 
members had not received any training on SFP management from WFP, though such a finding could 
have resulted if there was sufficiently high turnover among school directors (the primary respondents 
to the school survey). Indeed, three out of four WFP schools (76 percent) indicated that at least one 
current teacher or administrator had received training from WFP on SFPmanagement.
Schools were also asked to indicate the various channels through which parents receive 
information on the SFP. The most frequently cited sources were via regular meetings with school 
administrators (63 percent) and regular meetings with the CGE (47 percent). Figure 1 shows that over 
half of the WFP schools reported that they had received contributions of firewood (65 percent), 
utensils (59 percent), and plates/cutlery (55 percent). WFP is seeking to improve the amount of 
materials available to schools through the SFP between 2016-2018. Nearly one in four schools 
reported receiving (perhaps soliciting) contributions to incentivize the cooks who prepare thefood.
Figure 1. Non-food items contributed to SFP by community.
80
60
40
20
0
Água Lenha Utensílios de Produtos de Pratos e Subsídio Subsídio do Outro
cozinha limpeza talheres do/a 
cozinheiro/a
Armazenista
Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
18
Student Attendance Rate
A key result which the McGovern-Dole programme seeks to achieve at supported schools is improved 
attendance. The WFP Guinea-Bissau CO also has this as a core objective in its 2016-2020 Country 
Programme, with special emphasis on improving attendance of girls in Grades 4-6 [9]. The baseline 
survey collected attendance information for Grade 4 students at all surveyed schools as a means of 
gauging the level of attendance during the 2015 school year.9 The findings reveal several important 
factors which WFP and midline/endline evaluators must take into account as they seek to improve 
and measure attendance as a result of McGovern-Dole funding.10
Among the first patternsto emerge from the attendance findingsisthatschools do not appear 
to reach maximum operation (both in days of teaching and student enrolment) until January. Another 
noticeable pattern is the steep drop in days of teaching during the period surrounding the Carnival 
season (in 2016 this fell during April). Methodological issues aside, the findings show that attendance 
among Grade 4 students in WFP schools in October was 86 percent compared to 78 percent in non￾WFP schools(Figure 2). There does not appearto be any difference in attendance rates between males 
and females. However, beginning in January, attendance of Grade 4 students at WFP schools appears 
to begin a gradual tapering off, finishing in May at just 72 percent; meanwhile, attendance in non-WFP 
schools does not appear to decline throughout the year, finishing in May at 82 percent. The reason(s) 
behind thistrend are not immediately apparent; further analysisis needed of the household-level data 
to determine whether the effect is real (i.e. if student attendance in WFP schools gradually declines 
over the school year) and if so, the underlying factors which might predict this trend. The trend is 
consistent for males and females.
Figure 2. Grade 4 student attendance rate (2015).
100 2,000
80 1,600
60 1,200
40 800
20 400
0 0
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16
WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP
School Enrollment Ratio
Increasing enrollment is another key result of the McGovern-Dole programme. The enrollment 
findings from the baseline survey indicate fairly consistent enrollment levels between 2014 and 2015 
in the pre-primary and Grade 1 levels (Figure 3). For Grade 2, however, there appears to be a 
substantial increase in enrollment among girls in WFP-supported schools between 2014 and 2015 
(63%). For Grade 3, the 2014 to 2015 increase accelerates further for girls in WFP-supported schools
9 For an overview of how attendance was calculated, see Section 2.2.
10 Note that in the Performance Monitoring Plan submitted to USDA, the main source of data for monitoring attendance is through 
monthly reports collected through routine monitoring of the SFP. Percent (%)
Nu
mber of students
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
19
(more than 2X increase) and also increases for boys in WFP schools (60%). In Grade 4 the pattern for 
girls in WFP schools nearly vanishes and it decreases substantially for boys. In Grades 5 and 6 there 
doesn’t appear to be much increase in enrolment beyond what might be expected due to secular 
trends. More background is needed to understand the driving factors behind these 2014 to 2015 
enrolment trends. WFP and MEN must consider the experience in some countries whereby students 
emigrate from a school which does not provide free meals to one which does. Perhaps the pattern 
observed resulted from a consolidation ofsmallerschools(with better gender parity) into a larger one. 
They might also indicate some sort of preferential sorting in the years before THRs are distributed (i.e.
Grade 4) although on the surface this explanation seems implausible given that THR have been part of 
WFP’s programme for many years.
Figure 3. Enrollment Ratio (2015:2014).
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Pre-primary 1º Ano 2º Ano 3º Ano 4º Ano 5º Ano 6º Ano
WFP Boys WFP Girls non-WFP Boys non-WFP Girls
3.2 Student-level Findings
General
Results from the student questionnaire show, of the 960 completed interviews, a roughly equal 
proportion of boys and girls.11 Regarding socioeconomic background, it appears that students in WFP 
schools are more likely to come from households in the upper wealth quintiles compared to students 
in non-WFP schools.12 Nearly half of the students surveyed from non-WFP schools were from 
households in the bottom two quintiles according to wealth (48 percent) compared to just 37 percent 
for WFP students(Figure 4). The findings also suggest a relationship between gender and wealth status 
of the student’s household but this is less certain given the unknown gender profile of the missing 
cases.
11 The findings by region suggest that females might represent a larger proportion of those students whose gender is classified as 
“Missing” (as females in Oio are underrepresented) but this can only be speculated.
12 An overview of the process used to create the wealth quintiles is presented in Section 2.2.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
20
Figure 4. Students by Household Wealth.
30
20
10
0
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
WFP non-WFP
School Feeding Programme
The student findings also confirm that children attending WFP schools were much more likely to have 
eaten a meal at school the previous day compared to those at non-WFP schools (59 and 18 percent, 
respectively). One factor complicating interpretation of these findings is that the timing of the survey 
unfortunately fell during the month of Ramadan. This likely put downward pressure on the results 
related to consuming school meals; this is especially visible in the distribution of results by region, 
where students in those regions with higher proportions of Muslim households appeared less likely to 
have consumed a meal at school (e.g., 58 percent and 22 percent for Cacheu and Bafata, 
respectively).13 There did not appear to be any meaningful difference in the proportion of students 
eating a meal at school according to their household’s wealth status.
Overall students at WFP schools reported being generally satisfied with the quantity and 
quality of meals provided by the school (77 percent and 80 percent, respectively). There were some 
meaningful regional variations, however, with students in Oio being more likely to report that the 
quantity of food received was insufficient. The survey also asked students to indicate whether they 
had experienced any type of coercion or corrupt behavior related to the school feeding programme: 
while there was little suggest a relationship according to gender or household wealth, the findings do 
indicate that such practices may be more common in certain regions, with nearly two in five students 
in Oio reporting experiencing such behavior (38 percent).
Students were also asked whether they had received a THR of rice at any point during the 
school year. As part of the WFP Guinea-Bissau school feeding programme implementation, girls in 
Grades 4-6 receive a 4 kg bag of rice each month if they have at least 80 percent attendance (some 
schools distribute this on a quarterly basis). Boys are not technically eligible for the THR as it is 
designed to encourage better attendance for girls at a time when they normally begin to drop out of 
the educational system. According to the baseline survey findings, at WFP schools more than a third 
of boys reported having received a THR of rice at some point during the current school year (37 
percent); this finding was not significant according to wealth but the results indicate that a regional 
pattern did exist, such that boys in Oio, Quinara, and Cacheu were more likely to have received a THR 
than boys in other regions. Roughly two-thirds of the girls surveyed at WFP (69 percent) reported 
having received a THR during the school year; there was no evidence that region or wealth was 
associated with thisfinding.
13 Additional discussion of the impact of Ramadan on the survey can be found in Section 4.4. Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
21
The baseline survey also sought to gauge students’ attitudes about the importance of school 
meals in relation to their attendance by assessing their reaction should meals not be served. At WFP 
schools, an overwhelming majority of students (83 percent) reported that they typically did not leave 
school early if they learned no meal would be served that day. A roughly similar amount (76 percent) 
reported that they would report to school even if they knew in advance that a meal would not be 
served. There waslittle variation in these findings according to gender, region, or household wealth.14
Pre- and Post-School Eating & Transportation
Finally, the baseline survey asked WFP and non-WFP school students to report whether they ate a 
meal before and after school the previous day and describe their normal transportation to school. 
Among all students surveyed, roughly two in three (65 percent) reported eating a meal before going 
to school. This finding did not appear to differ according to gender or wealth; however, students at 
WFP-supported schools and certain regions appeared more likely to eat before school. The latter 
might again be partially explained by the confounding situation presented by Ramada (students in 
regions with high proportions of Muslim households appeared less likely to eat before school). 
However, that students at WFP schools appeared more likely to eat before school is perplexing, 
especially given that there was no apparent difference according to household wealth (as students at 
WFP schools were previously flagged as coming from wealthier households).15 Nearly all students (84 
percent) reported having eaten a meal after school (and before bed) the previous day. A weak but 
significant relationship existed between eating after school and household wealth, such that those 
students from the poorest households were less likely to report having eaten a meal after school than 
their wealthier peers (Figure 5).
On average, the survey found that students spent about 13 minutes traveling to school and 
the predominate mode of transport was walking. Weak relationships existed such that girls, students 
in Gabu, and those from wealthier households appeared to spend slightly lesstime travelling to school 
compared to their peers.
Figure 5. Students eating a meal after school and before bed.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
WFP Boys WFP Girls non-WFP Boys non-WFP Girls
14 The significant relationship observed by region is likely identifying that students in Gabu more often reported that they had not faced 
such situations (i.e. no meals provided) during the current school year.
15 There might be some underlying difference between students at WFP schools and those at non-WFP schools – perhaps, for example, 
parents are more motivated in the former. More exploration of this finding is needed to clarify and this must be taken into account 
during the midline and endline surveys and analyses.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
22
3.3 Household-level Findings
General
The baseline survey sought to better understand the household context of students in the schools 
surveyed. Findings from the household questionnaire revealed that a majority of households were 
headed by men, though it appeared that households under WFP schools were more likely to be headed 
by women than non-WFP schools (28 percent compared to 18 percent, respectively). A roughly equal 
proportion of household heads were in monogamous or polygamous marital situations (42 percent 
and 41 percent). The survey also covered a wide range of ethnic groups: Fula, Mandinga, Balanta, 
Manjaco, and Pepel were all well-represented in the results (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Ethnicity of head of household.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Biombo Oio Gabu Bafata Quinara Cacheu
Fula Mandinga Balanta Manjaco Pepel Other
The baseline survey findings showed marked differences between households according to wealth. 
Among the most significant relationships identified was between household wealth quintiles and 
region: surveyed households in Oio and, to a lesser degree Cacheu, were significantly more likely to 
be from the poorest wealth quintiles compared to households in other regions (Figure 7). Large 
associations were also observed according to the ethnic group of the head of household, however it 
is unclear which direction this relationship runs.16 Nonetheless, these relationships will inform the 
interpretation of the results presented here and must necessarily be considered by decision- and 
policy-makers who are considering how best to improve the design and implementation of the school 
feeding programme.
Household Characteristics
The average size of householdssurveyed was 14 and there was no evidence of any difference between 
those of studentsfrom WFP and non-WFP schools. The distribution of household members by age and 
gender were in line with those found previously in Guinea-Bissau: children under 5 comprised 
approximately 17 percent of the total household members.17 Roughly 90 percent of households 
reportedly owned their dwellings, though renters were slightly more common in Biombo and among 
the wealthiest households.
16 The poorest households appear to be those from Oio and Cacheu, two regions which also happen to have a larger proportion of Balanta 
and Manjaco, ethnic groups which have a disproportionate number of poor households. More advanced statistical analyses would be 
required to tease out the directionality of this relationship.
17 The 2010 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey conducted in Guinea-Bissau found that children less than 5 years old comprised 16 percent of 
the total household population [10]. Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
23
Figure 7. Wealth quintiles.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Biombo Oio Gabu Bafata Quinara Cacheu
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
The patterns observed in the types of walls, roof, and floor among surveyed households were similar 
to those found for household wealth. Households in Oio and Cacheu were more likely to have 
rudimentary wall, roof, and floor components in their structures than households in other regions. 
The findings also reveal some relationships between the type of school (WFP vs. non-WFP) and the 
materials of wall and flooring, such that non-WFP households were more likely to have rudimentary 
components in their dwellings. Nearly all households used wood as the fuel for their cooking (90 
percent); female-headed households, those in Biombo and those in the highest wealth quintile were 
slightly more likely to use charcoal compared to other households.
Just over half of the surveyed household population (56 percent) was using an improved 
source of drinking water. There was no apparent relationship between improved water source and 
type of school; however, populations in wealthier quintiles were more likely to be accessing an 
improved source of drinking water(72 percent compared to 30 percent forthe wealthiest and poorest, 
respectively). Use of an improved toilet facility among the surveyed population followed a similar 
socioeconomic pattern: while just 1 percent of those in the poorest households were using an 
improved toilet, 45 percent of those in the wealthiest households were. Again the survey found little 
difference on the use of improved sanitation facilities between WFP and non-WFPschools.
Father and Mother Education
The baseline survey collected information on the educational background of the students’ mother and 
father. Roughly 80 percent of the households surveyed reported that the student’s father lived inthe 
household; for mothers the rate was lower at 65 percent. Among households in which the student’s 
father was present, just over two-thirds (70 percent) of the fathers had attained some basic level of 
education; for mothers the result was inverted, with just 38 percent having attained some basic 
education. The proportion of fathers and mothers who were reportedly literate was 55 and 33 percent, 
respectively; the lowest literacy levels were observed in Gabu andBafata.
Food Consumption Score
As a means of understanding the household food security situation, the baseline survey collected 
information on the types of food groups and number of times they were consumed in the previous 
week. Overall, just 8 percent of surveyed households were found to have a poor or borderline food 
consumption. Statistical tests did not identify any significant relationships between the type of school 
and the mean FCS; however, poorer households and those in Bafata, Quinara, and Cacheu were more 
likely to have poor or borderline scores (Figure 8). Looking at the consumption pattern of individual 
food groups, it appears that the regular consumption of fish (which, along with meat and eggs, the Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
24
FCS gives the highest weight) contributed to good scores all around: on average surveyed households 
reported consuming fish more than 4.6 days in the previous week. One weakness of the FCS is that it 
does not distinguish well the quantity of food eaten or how well the food is shared within the 
household. Notwithstanding thislimitation, the findings do suggest that at the time of the survey (June 
2016), households were generally consuming an adequate diet.
Figure 8. Mean Food Consumption Score.
80
70
60
50
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest
WFP non-WFP
Income and Livelihoods
A majority of surveyed households reported that their main source of income over the previous year 
came from agriculture/farming (64 percent) or salaried employment (12 percent). There did not 
appear to be a significant difference between WFP and non-WFP schools in this regard. A strong 
pattern did emerge according to wealth quintiles, such that wealthier households were more likely to 
report their main source of income wasfrom salaried work (24 percent) or a trade (19 percent); among 
the poorest households, the proportions were 8 percent and 2 percent,respectively.
Also of interest were the findings showing that fully a quarter of the wealthiest households 
(26 percent) reported receiving support (food or cash remittances) over the previous four months 
compared to just 4 percent of the poorest households. The majority of households which reportedly 
received such support from family members (78 percent). The wealthiest households were also much 
more likely to report an estimated cash income greater than 450,000 XOF. As WFP-supported schools 
appeared slightly more likely to serve students from wealthier households, this may prove useful 
information as discussions are held around designing programmeimprovements.
Coping Strategies
The median reduced Coping Strategies Index for all surveyed households was 10.0. There was 
considerable variation according to region and wealth, with wealthier households being less likely to 
report having to change their food consumption patterns in the previous 7 days. Households from the 
poorest quintile were nearly twice as likely to have borrowed food from friends or relatives at least 
once in the previous week compared to those in the richest quintile (36 percent and 18 percent, 
respectively). In general, however, while many householdsreported having used a food-related coping 
strategy, most only did so for one or two days of the previous week. Households were also queried 
about non-food-related strategies that they may have applied in the previous 7 days to cope with 
hardship: around two in five (41 percent) reported using a crisis or emergency strategy, a sign of
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
25
elevated distress(Figure 9).18 There were again socioeconomic patternsto the livelihood-based coping 
strategies, with just 27 percent of households in the wealthiest quintile reporting using such strategies. 
Moreover, there was some evidence that households under WFP-supported schools were somewhat 
less likely to use extreme measures aswell.
Figure 9. Livelihood-based coping strategies.
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent (%)
18 Crisis strategies include: Selling productive assets (e.g., trailer, plow, seed, etc.); reducing health and education expenditures; removing 
school children; selling or consuming the seeds; selling breeding females. Emergency strategies include: Sending family members to bed; 
and selling plots of land. See Section 2.2 for more details.
Sell plots of land 
Send household members to beg
Sell breeding females 
Sell or consume the seeds 
Remove school children
Reduce health and education expenditure 
Sell productive assets (e.g., trailer, plow, seed, etc.)
Borrow money 
Using the household savings
Sell animals (shortages, i.e. sell more than usual)
Selling non-productive assets 
Buy food on credit, borrow food, or rely on friends 
Find alternative or additional activities
Send household members in labor migration
Stress Crisis Emergency
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
26
School Feeding Programme
Finally, households were queried about various issues related to meals and school feeding. The 
average number of days that households reported their student ate a meal before going to school 
over the past 5 days was 3.3; eating a meal after school (and before bed) was more common at 4.5 
days on average. For both metrics the type of school (WFP or non-WFP) did not appear to have any 
impact on meal-eating behavior.
Households of students in WFP-supported schools were further asked whether their student 
received free school meals – just two-thirds (68 percent) were able to answer correctly. A strong 
regional pattern was observed for these findings as well, suggesting perhaps that communication and 
sensitization of the SFP is lacking in some areas (Figure 10). Furthermore, about one in seven 
households(15 percent)reported thatthey normally reduced the quantity of food given to the student 
on days when school feeding will occur (as compared to the amount given on weekends). Nearly half 
of households in Biombo (46 percent) reported reducing the quantity given to students on such days.
Lastly, about one in five households (21 percent) reported that the student had missed school 
days in the previous month. The patterns observed were quite weak. Moreover, nearly all households 
reported believing there was a benefit to primary education and few indicated that their student had 
experienced harassment at school during the previous month (2 percent).
Figure 10. Parent/guardian aware that child receives free school meal.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Biombo Oio Gabu Bafata Quinara Cacheu
Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
27
4. Discussion
The findingsfrom the 2016 Guinea-Bissau School Feeding Baseline Survey serve to highlight the unique 
opportunities and challenges which programme implementers and policy makers face when deciding 
how best to achieve results in the school feeding programme. The metrics used in the baseline survey 
to explore the SFP and the varied contexts in which it operates in Oio, Biombo, Cacheu, Bafata, Gabu, 
and Quinara suggest a functioning programme which has room for furtherimprovements.
The reasons underlying these findings are complex, but the survey results provide some 
indication as to where programme implementers and policy makers might focus their efforts if they 
are to improve school feeding outcomes in the future. The following represents a set of general ideas 
about the nature of school feeding in Guinea-Bissau and about how these issues might be addressed 
in the near and medium term.
4.1 SFP Targeting
The current school feeding programme supported by WFP appears generally geared towards larger 
schools which have the requisite infrastructure (kitchens and/or storage space for commodities) 
needed for operation. This model has several benefits, the most salient of which being economies of 
scale and more efficient logistics. Schools serving more students are also likely to have sufficient 
human resource capacity to arrange daily meals. WFP schools also appeared to have a more stable HR 
situation which likely helps to reduce the impact on school meals from disruptions which occur 
frequently in Guinea-Bissau. There are programmatic considerations as well for such targeting, given 
that WFP distributes THR to girls in Grades 4-6.
Notwithstanding these benefits, however, there was strong evidence to suggest that this 
dependence on larger schools has the effect of targeting students from wealthier backgrounds. Over 
half of the surveyed students attending schools which serve Grade 4 or lower were from the bottom 
two wealth quintiles (52 percent) compared to just over a third of students in schools serving Grade 5 
and above (34 percent). If the main objective is to prevent drop out of girls beginning around Grade 
4, then perhaps the current strategy does not need adjusting. However, if WFP and MEN determine 
that the commodities might also be prioritized to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, then 
additional thinking around school targeting may be warranted. One piece of evidence from the 
baseline survey supporting such consideration was the finding that students from the poorest 
households were lesslikely to eat a meal afterschool (and before going to bed). That isto say,students
(and households) from poorer backgrounds appear to depend more heavily on the free school meal 
as a type of safety net ortransfer.
4.2 SFP Implementation
A set of indicators from the baseline survey suggest that even while the SFP appears to be generally 
operating as designed, areas for improvement exist which may lead to better achievement of results 
in the future. The finding with the most immediate impact on overall results is that which showed 
nearly a third of boys in WFP-supported schools having received a THR of rice at some point during 
the school year. Given that rice is a limited commodity in the programme (and not all schools in 
Guinea-Bissau are covered by the SFP), addressing this “leakage” through better implementation and 
control mechanisms could help stem the decline in attendance in the second half of the school year 
that was observed in WFP-supported schools.
Another area which WFP and MEN might focus energy is towards reducing implementation 
uncertainties through better training and organization. Such areas which are critical for success, but 
fall outside the standard components such as supply chain and logistics, include:
i. Strengthening the role and capacity of CGEs. While 60 percent of schools reported a high 
level involvement from CGE members in SFP operations, over half suggested that CGE 
members had not received relevant training fromWFP.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
28
ii. Building support and consensus on expectations from the community in regards to the 
SFP. WFP currently distributes the food commodities for the SFP and training on 
implementation and monitoring. Though it is scaling up its provision of NFIs, the baseline 
survey found a significant and varied dependence on the community for such items, 
including as well payment support for cooks. As the difficult operating context in Guinea￾Bissau necessitates that MEN and WFP depend heavily on communities to support the 
optimal functioning of the SFP, these expectations should be reinforced and standardized 
in training as much as possible. Lack of communication or transparency in this regard may 
create confusion or resentment (e.g., the situation wherein a student does not receive her 
school meal if she does not bring firewood for the cooking).
iii. Leveraging or partnering with ongoing initiatives aimed at improving data quality and 
monitoring within the education system. One limitation of the baseline survey was the 
poor quality of record-keeping at the school level. Many schools did not keep regular
administrative data for students, including attendance. As WFP and MEN must depend 
upon accurate data provided by the schools, finding ways to strengthen this element is 
critical for assessing and monitoring the SFP. Collaboration with other ongoing efforts 
such as those led by UNESCO and UNICEF might prove a worthwhileeffort.
4.3 Student Attendance
The baseline survey data also revealed trends in student attendance the MEN and WFP would do well 
to explore further in order to understand its target population and whether the programme is 
appropriately designed to achieve its objectives. The findings first indicate that by the end of the 
school year, the overall attendance rate for Grade 4 students is lower at WFP schools than non-WFP 
schools. Data from the baseline survey suggest that the decline in attendance over the school year is 
as pronounced for boys as it is for girls in WFP-supported schools. This suggests that an unexplained 
phenomenon could be behind the decline besides the gender and age profile of students (Figure9).
Figure 11. Grade 4 student attendance by gender (2015).
100
90
80
70
60
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16
WFP Male WFP Female non-WFP Male non-WFP Female
Further analysis of the attendance trends reveals that in fact the provision of free school meals does 
seem to have the intended effect at least initially. When comparing the attendance rates at large WFP 
and non-WFP schools, one finds a large and positive (apparent) effect: 90 percent versus 65 percent, 
respectively in October (Figure 10). This gap narrows somewhat over time until the effect appears to 
evaporate by March, at which time the attendance rate at large WFP and non-WFP schools is similar. Percent (%)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
29
This comparison is usefulsince it demonstratesthatlarge, non-WFP supported schools also experience 
a decline in attendance rates during the latter half of the school year.
Figure 12. Grade 4 student attendance (Large schools) (2015).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16
WFP BOYS WFP GIRLS non-WFP BOYS non-WFP GIRLS
Figure 10 also shows that large WFP schools achieve high attendance rates among boys and girls during
the first half of the school year; this is suggestive of a strong effect related to the school meals 
programme and/or other undefined characteristics. However, beginning in February the advantage 
over non-WFP schools seems to disappear for boys and girls alike.
The final analysis, however, presents the attendance trend among boys and girls at small 
schools. In contrast, at small schools there does not appear to be any advantage at all; moreover, while
the attendance rates atsmall WFP schoolsstill appearsto decline in the second half of the school year, 
the same effect is not observed in small non-WFP schools (Figure11).
Figure 13. Grade 4 student attendance (Small schools) (2015).
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16
WFP BOYS WFP GIRLS non-WFP BOYS non-WFP GIRLS
A full exploration and explanation of these resultsis outside the scope of this key findingsreport. They 
are raised here in order to provoke additional thought and discussion around the current school
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
30
feeding programme. A more comprehensive review and debate of these findings is warranted to 
ensure that MEN and WFP have the necessary information to make changes to the SFP if needed.
4.4 Survey Limitations
All exercises in data collection are subject to known and unknown deficiencies—which cannot always 
be accounted for during the design, fieldwork, cleaning and analysis stages—that could potentially 
bias the findings.
A primary limitation of the baseline survey was that comparison schools were purposively 
sampled and thus, while every effort was made to create a comprehensive sampling frame, the 
findings contained in this report cannot be extrapolated to areas not included in the survey sampling 
frame. Another factor which likely impacted certain findings wasthat the survey was conducted during 
the month of Ramadan. This likely suppressed certain response patterns that would have manifested 
otherwise and may well go far in explaining some of the strong patterns that were observed according 
to region and ethnicity. This will also need to be considered during the design and conduct of the 
midline and endline surveys.
Another limitation which impacted the analyses of data was the large amounts of missing data, 
especially around student attendance. Many schools did not have 2015 attendance records for their 
students, which had the effect of cutting the population used to create school-level attendance results 
by half. More advanced statistical analysis would be required to determine whether those schools 
which did not have such data were somehow different. The attendance results and, to lesser degree
the results disaggregated by studentsex,must be viewed with this caveatin mind. (There does seem to 
be some evidence that the students for whom gender was missing were somehow fundamentally
different.)
Finally, it is also likely that the time-specific nature of some questions in the survey—several 
modules asked respondents to recall events in the past—could have resulted in recall bias, whereby 
actual conditions and events were not remembered correctly. The impact of this bias, however, is 
generally considered less problematic than the bias mentioned above, but because some indicators 
were created using this recalled information, it nonetheless warrants mentioning.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
31
5. Recommendations
Based on the findings described in this report, a set of recommendations are presented here that aim 
to provide guidance to MEN and WFP as they devise strategies for improving the current 
implementation of the school feeding programme and for the successful handover toGovernment.
5.1 Short-term Recommendations
The short-term recommendations (SR) presented here were developed to provide practical, concrete 
actions that MEN and WFP could follow up that will improve the operations of the school feeding 
programme beginning with FY 2016.
SR1: MEN and WFP should consider appropriate strategies for addressing the “leakage” found in the 
THR component in most regions. Guinea-Bissau is an extraordinarily challenging environment to 
operate a decentralized programme, a situation which calls for small but effective updates to the 
existing oversight and monitoring system. One option could include, for example, the introduction of 
a random, student- or parent-level questionnaire (2-4 questions) into the existing monthly monitoring 
system which tracks leakage and operation breaks.
SR2: WFP and MEN should consider reviewing and standardizing the role of CGEs and the community 
in the SFP and incorporating these into official training packages. Currently there are different 
practices and capacities throughout the six regions and lack of clarity and support on these issues 
raises the likelihood of corruption and reduces accountability throughout the system
SR3: WFP should consider partnering with current initiatives in Guinea-Bissau aimed at improving the 
types and quality of data collected through the national education system. This will ensure that SFP 
indicators (and the administrative data upon which they are built) are given appropriate value in such 
processes and begin putting in place standardized indicators for SFP monitoring in the event of a 
handover.
5.2 Medium-term Recommendations
These medium-term recommendations (MR) were designed to address more strategic issues related 
to the further development of the school feeding programme. They are not necessarily pointsthat can 
be actioned in the short-term but instead could serve as longer-term targets for MEN andWFP.
MR1: WFP and MEN should consider commissioning a more detailed investigation into the factors 
which predict student attendance in Guinea-Bissau to better understand whether the current
incentives are appropriately designed and targeted. This would ideally be with a research institute or 
university with experience in such exercises (particularly in the education sector). The baseline survey 
findings suggest that other factors beyond gender may play strong roles in determining attendance. 
The outcomes of such an investigation could then feed into an updated school feeding policy so that 
the process of allocating resources is standardized and guided by more comprehensive data on 
student vulnerability.
MR2: MEN and WFP are encouraged to explore the feasibility and implications of implementing a cost￾sharing system (i.e. between Government and parents/communities) for the school feeding 
programme in light of its future commitments under the handover scenario. Cost-sharing might take 
any number of forms, including increased dependence on local production. The benefits of the SFP are 
quite visible from the baseline survey findings yet donor funding will never match that needed by 
GoGB to scale SFP to all primary-aged students.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
32
References
[1] World Bank. 2015. Guinea-Bissau: SABER Country Report 2015. Systems Approach for
Better Education Results (SABER) country report; 2015. Washington, DC. © World Bank.
[2] D McKenzie (2011, November 20). Power Calculations for Propensity Score Matching? [Web 
log post]. Retrieved from http://blogs.worldbank.org/impactevaluations/power￾calculations-for-propensity-score-matching
[3] Gaarder, M. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs [PDF document]. Retrieved from 
https://www.isealalliance.org/sites/default/files/3ie-Experimental & 
Quasiexperimental_Designs_0.pdf
[4] White, H., & S. Sabarwal (2014). Quasi-experimental Design and Methods, Methodological 
Briefs: Impact Evaluation 8, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
[5] Rutstein SO, Johnson, K. The DHS Wealth Index. DHS Comparative Reports No.6. Calverton, 
Maryland: ORC Macro. 2004.
[6] Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis Guidelines. January 2009. 1st Edition. 
World Food Programme (WFP), Food Security Analysis Service.
[7] WHO and UNICEF, JMP website: http://www.wssinfo.org/, WHO, Geneva and UNICEF, New 
York, accessed on July 18, 2016.
[8] Maxwell Daniel, Caldwell Richard. CSI Field Methods Manual, Second Edition, Copyright © 
2008. Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE). Used by Permission.
[9] Development Projects – Guinea-Bissau 200846 (2016-2020). Executive Board, First Regular 
Session. United Nations World Food Programme, February 2016.
[10] Ministério da Economia, do Plano e Integração Regional – Direcção Geral do Plano, 2011. 
Inquérito aos Indicadores Múltiplos, Inquérito Demográfico de Saúde Reprodutiva - Guiné￾Bissau, 2011, Relatório Final.
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
33
Annex I – Summary Statistics
Table 1. Results of interviews
Number of schools, students, and households, and response rates, by
results of interview, and response rates (unweighted). School Feeding 
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Type of School
 WFP non-WFP Total
Schools
Selected 50 50 100
Completed 50 50 100
Incomplete 0 0 0
Replacements 0 2 2
Response rate 100% 100% 100%
Students
Selected 500 500 1,000
Completed 478 482 960
Incomplete 22 18 40
Response Rate 95.6% 96.4% 96.0%
Households
Selected 500 500 1,000
Completed 471 476 947
Incomplete 29 24 53
 Response Rate 94.2% 95.2% 94.7%
34
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
School-Level
Table 2. School Characteristics
Percent distribution of schools by school category, operation and highest grade, according to type
of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
% % % χ2 p
School category
Comunitária 10.0 22.0 16.0 4.037 0.401
Pública 78.0 72.0 75.0
Privada laica 2.0 0.0 1.0
Privada confessional 2.0 2.0 2.0
Autogestão 8.0 4.0 6.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School operation
Periodo 84.0 80.0 82.0 3.649 0.302
Turno 12.0 18.0 15.0
Mista 4.0 0.0 2.0
Missing 0.0 2.0 1.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School level
1º Ano 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.498 0.052
2º Ano 0.0 2.0 1.0
3º Ano 2.0 2.0 2.0
4º Ano 32.0 60.0 46.0
5º Ano 4.0 0.0 2.0
6º Ano 44.0 26.0 35.0
7º Ano ou superior 18.0 8.0 13.0
Missing 0.0 2.0 1.0
Grade 4 or lower 34.0 65.3 49.5 9.703 0.002
Grade 5 or higher 66.0 34.7 50.5
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 3. Mean number of students and teachers
Mean number of students and teachers by gender, according to type of school (unweighted). School Feeding
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP Non-WFP TOTAL
Mean # Mean # Mean # F p
Number of students
Boys 215.8 50 130.6 48 174.1 98 7.84 0.006
Girls 186.5 50 125.2 48 156.5 98 4.44 0.038
Total 402.3 50 255.8 48 330.6 98 6.25 0.014
Number of teachers
Men 7.0 50 3.96 50 5.5 100 13.30 0.000
Women 2.4 50 1.68 50 2.1 100 1.58 0.212
Total 9.6 50 5.66 50 7.6 100 10.56 0.002
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 4. Median number of students and gender ratio
Median number of students and gender ratio, according to region and type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP non-WFP Total
Boys Girls
Gender 
ratio Number Boys Girls
Gender 
ratio Number Boys Girls
Gender
ratio Number 
Median Median # Median Median # Median Median #
Region
Biombo 297.5 239.5 0.81 2 477.5 588.0 1.23 2 297.5 282.5 1.07 4
Oio 166.0 128.0 0.78 8 96.5 70.5 0.67 8 151.0 83.0 0.73 16
Gabu 153.5 151.5 0.92 10 52.5 71.5 1.04 10 105.5 104.5 0.95 20
Bafata 171.5 133.5 0.94 14 54.5 56.0 1.04 12 86.0 79.0 0.97 26
Quinara 111.0 106.0 0.84 3 142.0 153.0 0.90 3 126.5 120.0 0.87 6
Cacheu 240.0 210.0 0.81 13 104.0 91.0 0.92 13 152.5 140.0 0.85 26
School level
4º Ano or less 91.0 92.0 1.00 17 66.5 71.5 0.95 32 85.0 77.0 0.97 49
5º Ano or more 241.0 210.0 0.84 33 197.5 165.5 0.97 16 234.0 178.0 0.88 49
Total 170.0 141.5 0.86 50 91.0 86.5 0.96 48 116.0 104.5 0.90 98
Table 5. Median number of teachers and student-per-teacher ratio
Median number of teachers and student-per-teacher ratio, according to region and type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP non-WFP TOTAL
Men Women
Students per 
teacher Number Men Women
Students per 
teacher Number Men Women
Students per 
teacher Number
Median Median # Median Median # Median Median #
Region
Biombo 6.0 4.0 53.7 2 2.5 9.5 88.8 2 2.5 8.0 72.8 4
Oio 4.5 0.0 36.0 8 4.0 0.0 40.4 8 4.0 0.0 37.6 16
Gabu 5.0 2.5 41.1 10 2.5 0.0 41.3 10 3.5 0.0 41.1 20
Bafata 7.5 1.0 34.5 14 2.0 0.0 33.2 14 3.0 1.0 34.1 28
Quinara 4.0 0.0 51.5 3 5.0 1.0 44.3 3 4.5 0.5 47.1 6
Cacheu 6.0 2.0 52.9 13 4.0 2.0 45.8 13 5.5 2.0 49.8 26
Total 5.5 1.0 42.1 50 3.0 0.0 45.7 50 4.0 1.0 43.4 100
35
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 6. School library, kitchen, and storage
36
Percent distribution of schools with a library, a designted kitchen, and a place to store food, according
to type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
% % % χ2 p
School has library
Yes 26.0 18.0 22.0 0.932 0.334
No 74.0 82.0 78.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School has kitchen1
Yes 82.0 54.0 68.0 13.416 0.001
No 14.0 46.0 30.0
Missing 4.0 0.0 2.0
Number 50 50 100
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School has food storage room
Yes 78.0 56.0 67.0 7.149 0.028
No 16.0 40.0 28.0
Missing 6.0 4.0 5.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 "Isto refere-se a uma estrutura com paredes e/ou tecto. Ao ar livre não se aplica."
Table 7. School water sources
Percent distribution of schools by main source of drinking water, according to type of school (unweighted).
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
% % % χ2 p
Water: Improved source 70.0 74.0 72.0 0.083 0.774
Canalizada num prédio 4.0 0.0 2.0
Canalizada num quintal/lote 2.0 6.0 4.0
Torneiras públicas/fontanário 8.0 14.0 11.0
POÇO TIBULAR OU FURO 32.0 40.0 36.0
Poço protegido 24.0 14.0 19.0
Water: Unimproved source 28.0 26.0 27.0
Poço desprotegido 8.0 10.0 9.0
POCO da COMUNIDADE 4.0 8.0 6.0
Nascentes não protegidas 2.0 0.0 1.0
Outro 14.0 8.0 11.0
Missing 0.0 2.0 1.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
37
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 8. School toilet facilities
Percent distribution of schools by toilet facility, whether separate toilets are available for boys and girls,
and availability of soap at toilets, according to type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, 
Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
% % % χ2 p
Toilet: Improved source 74.0 50.0 62.0 5.466 0.019
Retrete melhorada 50.0 18.0 34.0
Latrina com autoclismo 4.0 6.0 5.0
Latrina sem autoclismo 20.0 26.0 23.0
Toilet: Unimproved source 16.0 34.0 25.0
Retrete tradicional 8.0 12.0 10.0
Na mata (natureza) 0.0 8.0 4.0
Outro 8.0 14.0 11.0
Missing 0.0 2.0 1.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School has separate toilets for boys 
and girls
Yes 74.0 56.0 65.0 2.78 0.095
No 16.0 28.0 22.0
Missing 10.0 16.0 13.0
Toilets have soap for handwashing
Yes 68.0 58.0 63.0 0.42 0.516
No 32.0 36.0 34.0
Missing 0.0 6.0 3.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 9. School PTA and CGE
Percent distribution of schools which have a PTA and CGE, according to type of school (unweighted). School
Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
% % % χ2 p
School has PTA
Yes 80.0 84.0 82.0 0.335 0.563
No 16.0 12.0 14.0
Missing 4.0 4.0 4.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School has CGE
Yes 94.0 74.0 84.0 7.551 0.006
No 2.0 18.0 10.0
Missing 4.0 8.0 6.0
Number 50 50 50
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
38
Table 10 A & B. Teacher profile - gender and age
Percent distribution of teachers by gender and age, according to type of school (unweighted).
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Percent distribution of teachers by gender and age, according to school level (unweighted).
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
Grade 4
or lower
Grade 5 
or
higher TOTAL
% % % χ2 p % % % χ2 p
Gender Gender
Male 73.2 70.2 72.1 4.952 0.084 Male 82.1 70.0 72.7 10.686 0.005
Female 25.5 29.8 27.1 Female 17.9 29.0 26.5
Missing 1.3 0.0 0.8 Missing 0.0 1.0 0.8
Number 478 282 760 Number 173 579 752
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Age Age
Younger than 30 20.9 26.9 23.1 3.961 0.138 Younger than 30 30.6 20.5 22.8 7.26 0.026
30 - 49 51.7 53.0 52.2 30 - 49 46.8 53.8 52.2
50 or older 20.9 17.0 19.5 50 or older 18.5 20.0 19.7
Missing 6.5 3.2 5.3 Missing 4.1 5.7 5.3
Number 478 283 761 Number 173 580 753
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
39
Table 11 A & B. Teacher profile - function and qualification
Percent distribution of teachers by function, education qualifications, years of service (mean), and
full- or part-time status, according to type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, 
Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Percent distribution of teachers by function, education qualifications, years of service (mean), and
full- or part-time status, according to school level (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, 
Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP
Non￾WFP TOTAL
Grade 4
or lower
Grade 5 
or
higher TOTAL
% % % χ2 p % % % χ2 p
Function Function
Director(a) 10.3 18.0 13.1 30.291 0.000 Director(a) 28.9 8.5 13.2 90.403 0.000
Director(a) Adjunto(a) 9.0 13.1 10.5 Director(a) Adjunto(a) 17.9 8.3 10.5
Professor(a): permanente 38.1 22.6 32.3 Professor(a): permanente 14.5 38.1 32.7
Professor(a): contratado/a 29.7 33.6 31.1 Professor(a): contratado/a 27.2 31.7 30.7
Professor(a): voluntário/a 1.5 0.0 0.9 Professor(a): voluntário/a 0.0 1.2 0.9
Outro 4.0 3.2 3.7 Outro 8.7 2.2 3.7
Missing 7.5 9.5 8.3 Missing 2.9 10.0 8.4
Number 478 283 761 Number 173 580 753
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Qualification Qualification
Grade 9 or less 14.6 14.8 14.7 0.765 0.682 Grade 9 or less 18.5 12.6 13.9 4.318 0.115
Secondary 46.9 44.5 46.0 Secondary 43.9 47.1 46.4
Post-secondary 36.4 39.9 37.7 Post-secondary 34.7 39.1 38.1
Missing 2.1 0.7 1.6 Missing 2.9 1.2 1.6
Number 478 283 761 Number 173 580 753
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Years of service t p Years of service t p
Mean 11.3 9.6 10.6 1.958 0.051 Mean 9.6 11.0 10.7 -1.339 0.181
Number 462 282 744 Number 169 567 736
Full or part-time Full or part-time
Full-time 60.0 43.8 54.0 25.295 0.000 Full-time 59.5 52.9 54.5 2.211 0.137
Part-time 35.2 55.5 42.7 Part-time 37.6 43.6 42.2
Missing 4.8 0.7 3.3 Missing 2.9 3.5 3.3
Number 478 283 761 Number 173 580 753
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 12. School SFP storage
40
Percent distribution of WFP-supported schools by SFP
food storage location, storage off the ground, persons 
involved with SFP (median), food preparation location, 
and whether school uses energy efficient stoves 
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea￾Bissau, 2016.
%
Food storage location
Armazem 71.4
Sala dos professores 4.1
Cozinha 4.1
Outro 20.4
Number 49
Total 100.0
Food stored on palatte
Yes 95.9
No 4.1
Number 49
Total 100.0
Persons involved with SFP
Median 3.0
Number 50
Food prep location
Armazem 2.0
Cozinha 84.0
Espaço aberto 14.0
Number 50
Total 100.0
School uses energy efficient stove
Yes 34.0
No 66.0
Number 50
Total 100.0
41
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 13. School SFP CGE
Percent distribution of WFP-supported schools by level of CGE
participation in SFP, whether CGE members had received SFP 
training from WFP (according to school director), and median 
number of years schools have had SFP (unweighted). School 
Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
%
CGE participation
Nenhum 2.0
CGE ajuda de descarga e armazenamento 
de alimentos
26.0
CGE supervisiona regularmente o 
desempenho do cozinheiro
12.0
CGE ativamente envolvido em todas as 
etapas e de gestão
60.0
Number 50
Total 100.0
CGE members received training from WFP
Yes 42.0
No 58.0
Number 50
Total 100.0
Current teachers received training from WFP
None 24.0
One 44.0
More than one 32.0
Number 50
Total 100.0
Years with SFP at school
Median 10.0
 Number 49
42
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 14. SFP communication and non-food contributions
Percent distribution of WFP-supported schools by level of CGE
participation in SFP, whether CGE members had received SFP 
training from WFP (according to school director), and median 
number of years schools have had SFP (unweighted). School 
Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
% #
Sources of info about SFP
Nenhum 2.0 50
Reuniões regulares com a 
comissão de gestão escolar (CGE)
46.9 49
Reuniões regulares com 
administradores escolares
63.3 49
Caixa de sugestão 0.0 49
Linha de apoio 16.3 49
Comunicação informal (verbal) 
com professores
30.6 49
Não sabe 0.0 49
Outro 2.0 49
Non-food items contributed during 2015
Água 34.7 49
Lenha 65.3 49
Utensílios de cozinha 59.2 49
Produtos de limpeza 40.8 49
Pratos e talheres 55.1 49
Subsídio do/a cozinheiro/a 24.5 49
Subsídio do Armazenista 10.2 49
Outro 10.2 49
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 15. Student Attendance OCT – JAN
43
Attendance rate among all Grade 4 students (from surveyed schools) by month, according to gender, type of school, and region (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea￾Bissau, 2016.
OCT '15 NOV '15 DEC '15 JAN '15
WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP
% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % #
Gender
Male 87.2 480 77.1 259 92.9 529 86.6 327 91.9 580 87.9 338 79.6 625 83.6 343
Female 84.4 439 79.4 211 92.5 486 86.6 231 92.2 511 83.8 240 84.4 548 84.2 277
Missing 100.0 5 93.3 1 99.0 5 85.4 13 100.0 5 82.0 13 76.5 13 80.1 13
Total 86.0 924 78.2 471 92.7 1,020 86.6 571 92.1 1,096 86.1 591 81.7 1,186 83.8 633
Table 16. Student Attendance FEB – MAY
Attendance rate among all Grade 4 students (from surveyed schools) by month, according to gender, type of school, and region (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau,
2016.
FEB '15 MAR '15 APR '15 MAY '15
WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP WFP non-WFP
% # % # % # % # % # % # % # % #
Gender
Male 86.8 640 81.6 322 76.4 640 86.8 319 75.7 393 84.6 193 72.4 566 82.9 303
Female 86.9 553 82.9 270 78.9 553 83.1 267 76.9 377 88.3 137 71.6 530 81.7 237
Missing 73.2 13 100.0 1 76.8 13 94.4 1 100.0 4 100.0 1 67.9 13 95.2 1
Total 86.7 1,206 82.3 593 77.6 1,206 85.2 587 76.4 774 86.2 331 72.0 1,109 82.4 541
44
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 17. Enrollment change (2015 : 2014)
Median enrolment for all applicable school levels and change between 2014 and 2015, according to school year and gender (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
 TOTAL: Change in enrolment (2015 / 2014) WFP: Change in enrolment (2015 / 2014)
Non-WFP: Change in enrolment (2015 /
2014)
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Ratio # Ratio # Ratio # Ratio # Ratio # Ratio #
Grade Grade Grade
Pre￾primary 0.94 18 1.08 19
Pre￾primary 0.80 10 1.11 11
Pre￾primary 1.10 8 1.06 8
1º Ano 1.09 94 1.08 94 1º Ano 1.10 49 1.12 49 1º Ano 1.08 45 1.02 45
2º Ano 1.16 93 1.32 93 2º Ano 1.09 48 1.63 48 2º Ano 1.25 45 0.96 45
3º Ano 1.46 93 1.71 94 3º Ano 1.60 48 2.22 49 3º Ano 1.25 45 1.03 45
4º Ano 1.16 90 1.02 89 4º Ano 1.45 47 1.02 46 4º Ano 0.81 43 1.02 43
5º Ano 0.89 49 1.09 48 5º Ano 0.86 32 1.09 32 5º Ano 0.97 17 1.10 16
6º Ano 1.01 44 1.27 43 6º Ano 0.96 31 1.39 31 6º Ano 1.16 13 1.04 12
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Student-Level
Table 18. Student sex by type of school and region
Percent distribution of students by gender, according to type of school and
region (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Male Female Missing Total
% % % #
Type of school
WFP 46.2 41.4 12.3 478
non-WFP 46.7 45.9 7.5 482
Region
Biombo 35.0 35.0 30.0 40
Oio 49.7 25.2 25.2 155
Gabu 46.0 48.0 6.1 198
Bafata 46.5 49.2 4.3 256
Quinara 36.7 51.7 11.7 60
Cacheu 49.0 45.4 5.6 251
Total 46.5 43.7 9.9 960
Table 19. Students by household wealth
Percent distribution of students by wealth index, according to gender and type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline
Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Total
% % % % % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 19.5 17.4 22.2 19.5 21.6 478 14.317 0.006
non-WFP 24.1 24.1 16.2 18.3 17.4 482
Gender
Male 24.7 21.1 16.8 20.6 16.8 446 10.560 0.032
Female 18.1 20.1 19.8 18.6 23.4 419
Missing 24.2 22.1 27.4 11.6 14.7 95
School level
Grade 4 or lower 26.5 25.9 18.3 17.8 11.5 460 46.664 0.000
Grade 5 or higher 17.5 16.3 20.0 20.2 26.1 491
Total 21.8 20.7 19.2 18.9 19.5 960
45
46
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 20. Ate meal at school and normal source
Percentage of students who ate a meal at school the previous day and the normal source of meal while at school, according to type of school, gender,
region, and wealth quintiles (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Normal source of meal
Ate meal at school
Provided 
by school
Brought 
from 
home
Bought 
at school
Home for 
lunch Other Missing Total
% # χ2 p % % % % % % #
Type of school
WFP 59.0 461 163.470 0.000 80.1 1.5 0.8 0.2 8.2 9.2 482
non-WFP 17.7 447 13.3 8.3 4.6 5.2 37.1 31.5 478
Gender
Male 38.8 430 0.297 0.586 48.2 3.6 2.5 2.9 23.3 19.5 446
Female 37.0 392 44.9 6.0 3.1 2.9 24.1 19.1 419
Missing 45.4 86 46.3 6.3 2.1 1.1 13.7 30.5 95
Region
Biombo 47.5 40 81.020 0.000 72.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 17.5 40
Oio 48.7 152 40.7 1.3 1.9 2.6 21.3 32.3 155
Gabu 21.8 197 49.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 35.9 11.1 198
Bafata 30.8 237 39.8 16.8 7.8 1.6 23.1 10.9 256
Quinara 18.9 53 40.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.7 38.3 60
Cacheu 57.6 229 52.6 0.0 0.0 4.4 16.7 26.3 251
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 40.8 201 7.115 0.130 42.6 2.4 1.0 2.9 31.1 20.1 209
Second 31.4 191 42.2 5.0 1.5 5.5 23.6 22.1 199
Middle 43.1 167 48.4 5.4 3.3 1.1 16.9 25.0 184
Fourth 42.0 169 45.9 6.6 1.7 2.2 22.7 21.0 181
Richest 36.7 180 54.6 5.4 6.4 1.6 18.2 13.9 187
Total 38.7 908 46.6 4.9 2.7 2.7 22.7 20.4 960
47
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 21. Quantity and quality of meals
Percentage of students at WFP-supported schools who reported on the quantity and quality of meals provided and whether they had ever experienced any corruption related to school meals, according to
gender, region, and wealth quintiles (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Quantity of school meal Quality of school meal
Insufficien 
t
Acceptabl 
e Enough
Very 
good A lot Bad Reasonable Good
Very 
good
Excellen 
t Total
Experienced 
corruption1
% % % % % % % % % % # % # χ2 p
Gender
Male 8.3 11.3 59.8 17.0 3.6 1.5 13.9 63.1 20.0 1.5 195 8.3 193 0.044 0.834
Female 6.4 14.0 61.1 14.0 4.7 3.5 14.0 61.4 19.3 1.8 171 7.7 169
Missing 20.0 20.0 47.3 9.1 3.6 5.5 40.0 41.8 10.9 1.8 55 31.5 54
Region
Biombo 5.0 10.0 45.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 65.0 25.0 10.0 20 15.0 20 77.658 0.000
Oio 36.5 25.7 36.5 1.4 0.0 4.1 57.5 35.6 2.7 0.0 74 38.4 73
Gabu 0.0 0.0 67.7 31.3 1.0 1.0 0.0 55.1 43.9 0.0 99 2.1 96
Bafata 10.5 15.8 55.3 11.8 6.6 7.9 18.4 48.7 19.7 5.3 76 13.5 74
Quinara 3.3 13.3 80.0 3.3 0.0 6.7 53.3 36.7 3.3 0.0 30 6.7 30
Cacheu 0.8 16.4 63.9 13.1 5.7 0.0 0.8 88.7 9.7 0.8 122 0.8 123
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 14.3 13.2 53.9 14.3 4.4 3.3 26.4 49.5 17.6 3.3 91.0 11.1 90 6.196 0.185
Second 7.6 19.0 62.0 10.1 1.3 2.5 26.6 53.2 16.5 1.3 79.0 17.5 80
Middle 6.8 14.8 60.2 12.5 5.7 1.1 15.9 69.3 12.5 1.1 88.0 10.5 86
Fourth 7.6 7.6 64.6 13.9 6.3 2.5 10.1 68.4 17.7 1.3 79.0 5.1 78
Richest 8.3 13.1 53.6 22.6 2.4 4.8 7.1 58.3 28.6 1.2 84.0 11.0 82
Total 9.0 13.5 58.7 14.7 4.0 2.9 17.3 59.6 18.5 1.7 421 11.06 416
1 Você já enfrentou problemas durante a distribuição de alimentos? [por exemplo troca de alimentos por favor / trabalho, pagar para receber o alimento, etc.]
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
48
Table 22. Take-home rations
Percentage of students at WFP-supported schools who reported having received a take home ration
(THR) of rice at some point during the school year, according to gender, region, and wealth quintiles 
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Male Female
% # F p % # F p
Region
Biombo 0.0 7 9.340 0.000 100.0 1 1.860 0.104
Oio 65.2 23 72.2 18
Gabu 5.3 38 53.2 47
Bafata 29.3 41 79.4 34
Quinara 61.5 13 81.3 16
Cacheu 51.8 56 72.0 50
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 41.5 41 1.460 0.217 75.9 29 0.500 0.739
Second 40.6 32 67.7 31
Middle 50.0 28 62.8 43
Fourth 33.3 42 76.0 25
Richest 22.9 35 68.4 38
Total 37.1 178 69.3 166
Table 23. Behavior if no meals provided
Percentage of students at WFP-supported schools who reported returning home early if no school meal was provided and not
attending school if they knew a meal would not be provided, according to gender, region, and wealth quintiles (unweighted). 
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Return home early if no meal provided: Attend if knew no meal provided:
Yes No N/A1 Total Yes No N/A1 Total
% % % # % % % # χ2 p
Gender
Male 9.0 84.2 6.8 190 72.1 20.0 7.9 190 5.770 0.056
Female 7.7 83.3 8.9 168 83.6 7.6 8.8 171
Missing 22.5 75.5 2.0 49 63.0 35.2 1.9 54
Region
Biombo 20.0 80.0 0.0 20 70.0 30.0 0.0 20 203.475 0.000
Oio 20.3 79.7 0.0 69 85.7 14.3 0.0 70
Gabu 3.2 67.0 29.8 94 61.6 7.1 31.3 99
Bafata 7.9 90.8 1.3 76 79.0 21.1 0.0 76
Quinara 13.3 86.7 0.0 30 93.3 6.7 0.0 30
Cacheu 8.5 91.5 0.0 118 75.8 24.2 0.0 120
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 9.2 88.5 2.3 87 79.8 16.9 3.4 89 9.320 0.316
Second 8.0 86.7 5.3 75 79.2 15.6 5.2 77
Middle 9.4 81.2 9.4 85 63.6 25.0 11.4 88
Fourth 15.6 76.6 7.8 77 77.6 15.8 6.6 76
Richest 8.4 80.7 10.8 83 78.8 10.6 10.6 85
Total 10.1 82.8 7.1 407 75.7 16.9 7.5 415
1 Student reported that she had not encountered such a situation during the school year.
49
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 24. Ate meal before and after school
Percentage of students who reported eating a meal before going to school and after returning from school
(and before bed) the previous day, according to type of school, gender, region, and wealth quintiles 
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Ate meal before going to school Ate meal after attending school
% # F p % # F p
Type of school
WFP 71.0 473 13.600 0.000 86.0 477 1.780 0.183
non-WFP 59.7 466 82.8 453
Gender
Male 63.0 441 0.490 0.485 84.3 432 0.110 0.741
Female 65.4 404 83.4 404
Missing 76.6 94 89.4 94
Region
Biombo 72.5 40 10.730 0.000 100.0 40 56.610 0.000
Oio 84.0 150 87.1 147
Gabu 66.7 198 93.9 196
Bafata 68.2 245 98.0 246
Quinara 62.1 58 98.3 58
Cacheu 50.0 248 55.6 243
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 69.9 206 1.080 0.363 80.2 197 2.560 0.038
Second 61.8 191 80.7 192
Middle 64.2 179 84.2 177
Fourth 68.2 179 87.6 177
Richest 62.5 184 89.8 187
Total 65.4 939 84.4 930
Table 25. Time to travel to school
Mean time (in minutes) for students to travel to school and primary mode of transportation to school,
according to type of school, gender, region, and wealth quintiles (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline 
Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Mode of transportation to school:
Mean travel time Walking Other Total
minutes # F p % % #
Type of school
WFP 12.6 471 1.020 0.314 96.0 4.0 475
non-WFP 13.6 472 95.9 4.1 482
Gender
Male 14.5 435 9.210 0.003 94.8 5.2 446
Female 11.5 415 97.0 3.0 467
Missing 13.6 93 96.8 3.2 94
Region
Biombo 19.2 39 6.290 0.000 87.5 12.5 40
Oio 15.2 147 94.8 5.2 154
Gabu 9.2 197 95.5 4.5 198
Bafata 11.8 253 96.9 3.1 256
Quinara 14.3 59 98.3 1.7 60
Cacheu 15.1 248 96.8 3.2 249
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 16.0 202 2.820 0.024 97.1 2.9 208
Second 13.4 195 95.5 4.5 199
Middle 12.1 184 96.7 3.3 184
Fourth 12.3 179 96.6 3.4 179
Richest 11.5 183 93.6 6.4 187
Total 13.1 943 95.9 4.1 957
50
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Household-Level
Table 26. Household characteristics
Percent distribution of households by selected characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea￾Bissau, 2016.
Type of school
WFP non-WFP Total
% % % χ2 p
Respondent relationship to student
Father 39.0 42.4 40.7 13.105 0.011
Mother 26.4 17.3 21.9
Guardian 14.9 15.0 15.0
Granfather/mother 4.9 6.1 5.5
Other 14.7 19.2 17.0
Number 469 474 943
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Sex of household head
Male 71.9 82.5 77.2 14.605 0.000
Female 28.1 17.5 22.8
Number 463 462 925
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Marital status of household head
Married (monogamous) 40.8 43.6 42.2 1.171 0.886
Married (polygamous) 42.1 40.2 41.1
Widow 6.5 6.3 6.4
Separated/Divorced 1.3 1.7 1.5
Single, never married 9.3 8.3 8.8
Number 463 473 936
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 30.4 32.7 31.5 11.534 0.038
Mandinga 13.2 15.5 14.3
Balanta 21.0 21.0 21.0
Manjaco 15.7 16.8 16.2
Pepel 4.7 1.3 3.0
Other 15.1 12.7 13.9
Number 471 471 942
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 27. Household population by gender and age
Percent distribution of household members according to age, sex, and type of school (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey,
Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
WFP non-WFP Total
Age Male1 Female Male Female Male Female
% # % # % # % # % # % #
0-4 8.7 585 8.2 552 8.7 579 8.3 553 8.7 1,164 8.3 1,105
5-17 18.7 1,251 16.9 1,134 18.7 1,241 16.2 1,075 18.7 2,492 16.5 2,209
18-65 21.6 1,451 23.4 1,568 23.5 1,564 22.4 1,490 22.6 3,015 22.9 3,058
>65 0.9 62 1.5 102 0.8 51 1.4 96 0.8 113 1.5 198
Total 49.9 3,349 50.1 3,356 51.7 3,435 48.3 3,214 50.8 6,784 49.2 6,570
1 Percentages are out of TOTAL population (i.e. Total Male + Total Female)
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 28. Household wealth quintiles
51
Mean wealth score and percent distribution of households by wealth quintiles, according to selected background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Wealth quintiles
Wealth score Poorest Second Middle Fourth Richest Number
Mean % % % % % # χ2 p
Respondent relationship to student
Father -0.208 26.3 21.1 22.7 16.7 13.3 384 34.166 0.005
Mother 0.118 18.0 19.4 20.9 18.5 23.3 206
Guardian 0.216 16.3 22.0 14.9 21.3 25.5 141
Granfather/mother 0.054 28.9 21.2 17.3 5.8 26.9 52
Other 0.113 20.0 21.9 15.0 20.0 23.1 160
Sex of household head
Male -0.038 22.0 21.7 19.8 17.7 18.9 714 3.601 0.463
Female 0.157 18.5 19.4 19.9 18.0 24.2 211
Marital status of household head
Married (monogamous) -0.078 25.3 20.8 18.7 20.3 14.9 395 33.139 0.007
Married (polygamous) 0.028 18.7 20.3 23.1 15.6 22.3 385
Widow -0.050 30.0 16.7 16.7 16.7 20.0 60
Separated/Divorced 0.073 21.4 14.3 28.6 14.3 21.4 14
Single, never married 0.179 18.3 29.3 6.1 17.1 29.3 82
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 0.170 16.8 19.9 20.9 17.2 25.3 297 83.365 0.000
Mandinga 0.169 11.9 20.7 23.7 20.7 23.0 135
Balanta -0.458 39.9 24.2 18.2 10.1 7.6 198
Manjaco -0.041 19.0 21.6 20.9 21.6 17.0 153
Pepel -0.232 21.4 28.6 10.7 28.6 10.7 28
Other 0.183 21.4 17.6 13.7 20.6 26.7 131
Region
Biombo 0.544 15.0 17.5 10.0 17.5 40.0 40 107.604 0.000
Oio -0.463 40.7 25.8 18.7 7.1 7.7 155
Gabu 0.020 22.7 23.7 17.2 15.2 21.2 198
Bafata 0.312 11.7 16.8 19.5 23.1 28.9 256
Quinara 0.020 10.0 21.7 25.0 26.7 16.7 60
Cacheu -0.140 23.5 19.5 20.7 23.1 13.2 251
Total -0.005 21.8 20.7 19.2 18.9 19.5 960
52
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 29. Mean household size and occupancy
Mean household size and percent distribution of households by dwelling ownershsip pattern, according to various background
characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Household 
size Own Rent
Provided by 
employer
Free, 
authorized Other Total
Mean # % % % % % #
Type of school
WFP 14.1 466 89.5 5.4 0.7 1.1 3.4 465
non-WFP 13.7 462 92.4 3.0 0.8 1.5 2.3 474
Sex of household head
Male 14.8 206 92.4 4.1 0.4 1.3 1.8 706
Female 11.2 700 86.7 4.3 1.0 1.4 6.6 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 14.3 293 93.5 3.8 1.4 0.3 1.0 292
Mandinga 17.4 133 93.3 1.5 0.8 3.7 0.8 134
Balanta 13.4 192 93.9 4.6 0.5 0.0 1.0 198
Manjaco 11.6 152 85.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 13.1 153
Pepel 14.4 27 82.1 14.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 28
Other 12.4 126 86.8 7.8 0.8 3.9 0.8 129
Region
Biombo 12.8 39 76.9 10.3 2.6 10.3 0.0 39
Oio 14.5 154 96.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 154
Gabu 13.2 198 93.9 2.6 1.5 2.1 0.0 195
Bafata 15.2 247 92.0 6.0 1.2 0.8 0.0 251
Quinara 16.0 60 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 59
Cacheu 12.4 230 84.2 4.6 0.0 0.8 10.4 241
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 12.6 201 93.8 1.9 1.0 1.0 2.4 209
Second 13.5 198 93.4 3.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 198
Middle 14.6 181 92.9 2.7 0.0 1.1 3.3 183
Fourth 14.8 165 88.0 3.6 0.0 1.2 7.2 166
Richest 14.3 183 85.8 9.8 1.6 1.6 1.1 183
Total 13.9 928 91.0 4.2 0.8 1.3 2.9 939
53
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 30. Household walls
Percent distribution of households by type of walls, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea￾Bissau, 2016.
Adobe, not 
covered Taipe
Cement 
block
Adobe, 
reinforced
Adobe, 
covered Other Total
% % % % % % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 33.1 9.1 5.1 6.2 41.2 5.3 471 21.028 0.001
non-WFP 37.3 13.3 1.5 6.5 39.4 2.1 475
Sex of household head
Male 37.2 9.7 3.0 6.9 40.0 3.4 713 14.198 0.014
Female 25.6 14.7 4.7 5.2 45.0 4.7 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 31.1 6.1 3.4 6.4 48.7 4.4 296 314.963 0.000
Mandinga 44.4 3.0 1.5 7.4 41.5 2.2 135
Balanta 56.6 5.1 0.0 7.1 27.8 3.5 198
Manjaco 20.9 43.1 9.8 3.3 20.9 2.0 153
Pepel 32.1 7.1 0.0 28.6 28.6 3.6 28
Other 21.4 4.6 3.1 3.1 61.8 6.1 131
Region
Biombo 25.6 7.7 10.3 15.4 38.5 2.6 39 382.622 0.000
Oio 71.6 1.9 0.7 5.2 18.7 1.9 155
Gabu 31.5 10.7 3.6 3.6 46.7 4.1 197
Bafata 30.7 0.0 1.6 7.9 57.5 2.4 254
Quinara 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.3 0.0 60
Cacheu 28.2 32.8 6.2 7.9 17.8 7.1 241
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 62.2 13.9 0.0 2.9 18.2 2.9 209 178.901 0.000
Second 37.7 14.1 0.5 6.5 37.2 4.0 199
Middle 30.1 12.6 1.1 4.9 48.1 3.3 183
Fourth 27.4 9.5 4.8 8.3 47.6 2.4 168
Richest 14.4 5.4 10.7 9.6 54.0 5.9 187
Total 35.2 11.2 3.3 6.3 40.3 3.7 946
54
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 31. Household roof
Percent distribution of households by type of roof, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
No roof
Straw / 
palm leaf Zinc Other Total
% % % % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 6.0 11.3 80.4 2.3 470 4.850 0.183
non-WFP 8.8 12.8 75.0 3.4 476
Sex of household head
Male 7.2 11.6 78.4 2.8 713 1.026 0.795
Female 8.5 13.3 75.8 2.4 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 0.7 13.5 83.5 2.4 297 100.530 0.000
Mandinga 4.4 3.7 89.6 2.2 135
Balanta 12.2 16.2 67.0 4.6 197
Manjaco 19.0 3.3 77.1 0.7 153
Pepel 14.3 21.4 60.7 3.6 28
Other 3.8 19.9 72.5 3.8 131
Region
Biombo 23.1 10.3 64.1 2.6 39 197.453 0.000
Oio 0.7 14.8 82.6 1.9 155
Gabu 0.0 20.7 76.8 2.5 198
Bafata 0.0 7.5 90.2 2.4 254
Quinara 1.7 20.0 76.7 1.7 60
Cacheu 24.6 6.3 64.6 4.6 240
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 5.7 36.4 53.1 4.8 209 180.337 0.000
Second 7.0 13.6 78.9 0.5 199
Middle 6.6 3.3 87.4 2.7 183
Fourth 8.3 3.0 86.3 2.4 168
Richest 9.6 0.0 86.6 3.7 187
Total 7.4 12.05 77.7 2.85 946
55
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 32. Household floors
Percent distribution of households by type of floor, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School
Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Clay Cement Other Total
% % % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 63.0 36.2 0.9 467 10.462 0.005
non-WFP 71.1 27.0 1.9 474
Sex of household head
Male 67.8 30.9 1.4 710 1.616 0.446
Female 63.8 35.2 1.0 210
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 64.5 33.5 2.0 296 60.459 0.000
Mandinga 61.2 38.1 0.8 134
Balanta 86.8 12.7 0.5 197
Manjaco 62.3 37.8 0.0 151
Pepel 78.6 21.4 0.0 28
Other 53.1 43.1 3.9 130
Region
Biombo 51.3 41.0 7.7 39 92.173 0.000
Oio 94.7 5.3 0.0 152
Gabu 67.5 31.0 1.5 197
Bafata 53.5 45.3 1.2 254
Quinara 59.3 37.3 3.4 59
Cacheu 67.9 31.3 0.8 240
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 100.0 0.0 0.0 209 577.367 0.000
Second 99.5 0.5 0.0 197
Middle 84.2 14.8 1.1 183
Fourth 28.7 68.9 2.4 167
Richest 13.0 83.2 3.8 185
Total 67.1 31.6 1.4 941
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 33. Household cooking fuel
56
Percent distribution of households by main source of cooking fuel, according to various
background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 
2016.
Firewood Charcoal Other Total
% % % #
Type of school
WFP 89.8 7.3 3.0 469
non-WFP 89.9 6.1 4.0 474
Sex of household head
Male 91.4 5.9 2.7 711
Female 84.3 9.1 6.7 210
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 88.5 8.5 3.0 296
Mandinga 87.2 5.3 7.5 133
Balanta 96.5 2.0 1.5 198
Manjaco 88.2 6.6 5.3 152
Pepel 92.9 7.1 0.0 28
Other 86.3 11.5 2.3 131
Region
Biombo 71.8 18.0 10.3 39
Oio 93.5 2.6 3.9 154
Gabu 90.3 8.7 1.0 195
Bafata 87.8 6.7 5.5 254
Quinara 100.0 0.0 0.0 60
Cacheu 89.6 7.5 2.9 241
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 99.5 0.0 0.5 209
Second 98.0 0.0 2.0 199
Middle 95.1 1.1 3.9 182
Fourth 93.4 4.2 2.4 167
Richest 61.8 29.0 9.1 186
Total 89.8 6.7 3.5 943
57
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 34. Household water sources
Percent distribution of household population by main source of drinking water, according to various
background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Main source of drinking water
Improved sources1 Unimproved sources
% % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 53.6 46.5 6,553 0.002 0.963
non-WFP 57.9 42.1 6,296
Sex of household head
Male 56.3 43.7 10,312 0.299 0.585
Female 55.5 44.5 2,286
Ethnicity of household 
head
Fula 60.3 39.7 4,182 28.520 0.000
Mandinga 57.1 42.9 2,308
Balanta 36.7 63.3 2,531
Manjaco 59.8 40.2 1,760
Pepel 71.1 28.9 388
Other 60.6 39.4 1,561
Region
Biombo 63.7 36.3 499 32.037 0.000
Oio 44.0 56.0 2,176
Gabu 48.4 51.6 2,621
Bafata 64.8 35.2 3,749
Quinara 77.8 22.2 959
Cacheu 50.4 49.6 2,845
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 29.8 70.2 2,520 91.313 0.000
Second 50.9 49.1 2,647
Middle 61.7 38.3 2,624
Fourth 63.4 36.6 2,439
Richest 72.2 27.8 2,619
Total 55.7 44.3 12,849
58
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 35. Household toilet facilities
Percent distribution of household population by toilet facility, according to various background characteristics
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Main toilet facility
Improved sources1 Unimproved sources
% % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 20.5 79.5 6,569 0.006 0.939
non-WFP 19.6 80.4 6,331
Sex of household head
Male 20.8 79.2 10,351 0.008 0.927
Female 18.7 81.3 2,298
Ethnicity of household 
head
Fula 16.0 84.0 4,182 21.074 0.001
Mandinga 21.8 78.3 2,308
Balanta 16.1 83.9 2,578
Manjaco 24.9 75.1 1,764
Pepel 3.1 96.9 388
Other 28.3 71.8 1,561
Region
Biombo 15.6 84.4 499 24.931 0.000
Oio 11.7 88.3 2,227
Gabu 15.5 84.5 2,621
Bafata 22.8 77.2 3,749
Quinara 42.9 57.1 959
Cacheu 20.3 79.7 2,845
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 1.0 99.0 2,536 138.477 0.000
Second 5.3 94.7 2,666
Middle 19.3 80.7 2,636
Fourth 30.0 70.0 2,439
Richest 45.1 54.9 2,623
Total 20.1 79.9 12,900
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 36. Household ownership of assets
59
Percent distribution of households by ownership of assets, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey,
Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Electricity Radio Television Refrigerator
Water 
filter 
(ceramic) Generator Ferro Landline Total
% % % % % % % % #
Type of school
WFP 25.3 72.1 19.1 7.7 1.7 12.4 13.1 0.4 469
non-WFP 16.3 71.5 17.8 3.0 0.6 10.2 14.0 0.6 472
Sex of household head
Male 20.0 73.6 17.5 4.2 0.7 11.1 14.0 0.6 709
Female 25.2 68.4 22.8 9.2 2.9 12.6 13.1 0.5 210
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 31.9 76.9 24.7 8.8 1.4 10.8 13.2 0.7 297
Mandinga 20.7 74.8 25.2 4.4 1.5 16.3 19.3 0.0 135
Balanta 14.2 63.5 11.2 1.0 1.0 7.6 15.2 0.5 197
Manjaco 12.6 68.2 7.3 6.0 0.0 9.3 9.9 0.0 151
Pepel 7.4 48.1 14.8 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 3.7 28
Other 18.9 78.0 22.8 5.5 2.4 15.0 11.0 0.8 128
Region
Biombo 20.5 56.4 43.6 10.3 2.6 28.2 12.8 7.7 39
Oio 8.6 66.4 12.5 2.6 0.7 11.8 13.2 0.0 152
Gabu 26.7 77.4 21.5 7.2 2.1 5.6 5.6 0.5 198
Bafata 31.5 79.1 24.8 9.1 1.6 16.5 22.4 0.4 254
Quinara 12.1 84.5 13.8 1.7 0.0 8.6 10.3 0.0 58
Cacheu 14.6 62.3 10.0 1.7 0.4 7.9 11.7 0.0 240
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 0.5 47.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 209
Second 2.5 70.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 5.6 0.0 198
Middle 17.2 78.3 6.7 0.0 0.0 1.7 9.4 0.0 181
Fourth 19.9 81.3 18.7 0.0 1.2 11.4 15.1 0.0 167
Richest 67.9 85.3 70.1 27.2 4.9 43.5 37.5 2.7 186
Total 20.8 71.8 18.5 5.3 1.2 11.3 13.6 0.5 941
60
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 37. Household ownership of transport
Percent distribution of households by ownership of sources of transport, according to various background characteristics
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Mobile
 phone Car Bicycle Motorbike
Canoe /
boat
Animal
cart Relogio Total
% % % % % % % #
Type of school
WFP 96.6 6.4 67.2 18.6 3.9 9.9 34.0 471
non-WFP 94.0 3.9 67.0 19.7 2.6 11.1 34.9 476
Sex of household head
Male 95.2 4.3 68.2 19.3 2.8 12.1 35.1 714
Female 96.6 8.7 63.9 19.2 4.3 6.3 33.7 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 96.3 7.8 81.1 30.1 2.4 14.2 35.8 297
Mandinga 95.5 5.3 72.7 23.5 6.1 27.3 32.6 135
Balanta 95.9 1.5 54.4 11.8 4.6 2.6 29.2 198
Manjaco 95.4 2.0 63.6 9.3 1.3 4.0 41.1 153
Pepel 77.8 11.1 44.4 18.5 0.0 7.4 25.9 28
Other 96.1 7.0 57.0 11.7 2.3 5.5 33.6 131
Region
Biombo 86.8 21.1 39.5 13.2 2.6 13.2 34.2 39
Oio 98.0 0.7 56.3 14.6 2.6 9.3 31.1 155
Gabu 95.4 5.6 77.7 26.9 0.5 17.8 42.1 198
Bafata 96.1 9.1 75.6 27.2 5.5 14.6 26.4 254
Quinara 91.1 8.9 66.1 14.3 5.4 1.8 33.9 60
Cacheu 95.0 0.0 60.9 9.2 2.9 2.5 39.1 241
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 92.3 0.0 50.5 0.5 3.4 2.9 14.9 209
Second 94.9 0.0 66.2 6.7 1.0 6.2 31.8 199
Middle 94.5 1.7 74.6 20.4 3.9 12.2 37.0 184
Fourth 96.3 4.9 70.1 25.6 4.9 12.2 37.8 168
Richest 98.9 19.9 76.9 46.2 3.2 20.4 53.8 187
Total 95.3 5.1 67.1 19.2 3.2 10.5 34.5 947
61
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 38. Father's education
Percent distribution of fathers or male guardians by household residency, highest livel of education attained, and literacy, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Educational attainment: Father/male guardian
Father / 
male 
guardian 
lives in HH None
Escola 
corânica 
(Leitura)
Escola 
corânica 
(Escrever)
Ensino 
Básico 1
Ensino 
Básico 2
Ensino 
Básico 3
Ensino 
Secundário
Ensino 
Superior
Ensino 
Técnico / 
profissional Number
Father / 
male 
guardian is 
literate
% # % % % % % % % % % # % #
Type of school
WFP 79.4 466 32.7 4.9 1.6 31.6 7.0 9.5 6.2 0.8 5.7 370 52.7 370
non-WFP 80.4 469 27.3 5.3 3.4 33.1 11.6 7.7 8.5 0.5 2.7 378 56.8 377
Sex of household head
Male 88.2 704 29.4 5.1 2.9 31.8 10.1 8.2 8.0 0.6 3.9 623 54.6 621
Female 52.6 209 31.2 3.7 0.0 35.8 6.4 11.0 4.6 0.9 6.4 109 57.3 110
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 79.5 293 35.9 7.7 4.7 28.6 7.7 5.6 5.1 0.0 4.7 234 42.5 233
Mandinga 84.0 131 32.7 9.7 5.3 32.7 5.3 7.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 113 47.3 110
Balanta 79.0 195 26.0 0.0 0.0 39.6 11.7 11.7 8.4 2.0 0.7 154 65.6 154
Manjaco 77.8 153 33.3 0.0 0.0 26.5 9.4 12.0 10.3 1.7 6.8 117 64.7 119
Pepel 78.6 28 22.7 9.1 0.0 40.9 18.2 4.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 22 50.0 22
Other 80.0 130 16.5 6.8 1.9 35.9 12.6 9.7 8.7 0.0 7.8 103 64.4 104
Region
Biombo 84.6 39 15.2 3.0 0.0 33.3 18.2 9.1 15.2 0.0 6.1 33 60.6 33
Oio 85.4 151 31.5 1.5 2.3 47.7 6.2 6.9 1.5 1.5 0.8 130 58.1 129
Gabu 81.5 195 40.6 2.5 3.8 33.8 7.5 5.0 3.8 0.0 3.1 160 45.9 159
Bafata 73.8 252 25.8 11.8 4.3 28.5 8.6 7.0 9.1 0.0 4.8 186 48.4 186
Quinara 89.8 59 9.6 15.4 1.9 42.3 5.8 11.5 3.9 0.0 9.6 52 66.0 53
Cacheu 78.2 239 32.1 0.5 0.5 21.4 13.4 13.4 12.3 1.6 4.8 187 62.0 187
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 80.7 207 36.3 4.8 1.2 34.5 10.1 4.8 4.2 0.0 4.2 168 51.5 167
Second 78.2 197 35.3 6.5 3.3 28.8 9.2 11.1 3.9 0.0 2.0 153 48.7 154
Middle 85.8 183 26.3 7.1 3.2 39.1 9.6 5.8 5.8 0.6 2.6 156 52.9 157
Fourth 82.4 165 30.9 2.9 2.9 30.2 7.4 10.3 9.6 0.7 5.2 136 56.6 136
Richest 72.7 183 19.3 3.7 2.2 28.2 10.4 11.9 14.8 2.2 7.4 135 66.2 133
Total 79.9 935 30.0 5.1 2.5 32.4 9.4 8.6 7.4 0.7 4.1 748 54.8 747
62
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 39. Mother's education
Percent distribution of mothers or female guardians by household residency, highest livel of education attained, and literacy, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding
Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Educational attainment: Mother/female guardian
Mother / 
female 
guardian 
lives in HH None
Escola 
corânica 
(Leitura)
Escola 
corânica 
(Escrever)
Ensino 
Básico 1
Ensino 
Básico 2
Ensino 
Básico 3
Ensino 
Secundário
Ensino 
Superior
Ensino 
Técnico / 
profissional Number
Mother / 
female 
guardian is 
literate
% # % % % % % % % % % # % #
Type of school
WFP 63.1 444 64.1 2.4 0.7 19.5 7.4 4.4 0.7 0.0 1.0 298 31.1 280
non-WFP 67.0 460 60.5 3.5 0.3 23.8 4.7 3.8 2.2 0.0 1.3 319 34.1 308
Sex of household head
Male 68.3 685 61.5 3.7 0.6 23.4 5.9 3.3 0.6 0.0 1.0 491 32.3 468
Female 56.6 198 65.6 0.0 0.0 16.0 6.7 7.6 3.4 0.0 0.8 119 32.1 112
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 71.0 279 72.8 3.8 0.9 15.0 4.7 1.9 0.5 0.0 0.5 213 20.7 198
Mandinga 65.6 131 66.7 3.3 1.1 17.8 2.2 4.4 2.2 0.0 2.2 90 26.7 86
Balanta 54.5 187 55.1 2.8 0.0 31.2 6.4 3.7 0.9 0.0 0.0 109 44.1 102
Manjaco 69.6 148 54.4 1.0 0.0 23.3 11.7 5.8 1.0 0.0 2.9 103 41.7 103
Pepel 53.6 28 60.0 13.3 0.0 13.3 6.7 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 40.0 15
Other 63.8 127 50.0 1.2 0.0 31.0 4.8 7.1 4.8 0.0 1.2 84 40.7 81
Region
Biombo 71.8 39 42.9 7.1 0.0 21.4 17.9 7.1 3.6 0.0 0.0 28 57.1 28
Oio 58.0 143 41.8 4.4 1.1 35.2 9.9 4.4 2.2 0.0 1.1 91 55.4 83
Gabu 73.3 187 70.3 2.0 0.7 22.3 0.7 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 148 24.8 137
Bafata 67.4 242 71.4 4.1 0.6 11.1 7.6 3.5 0.6 0.0 1.2 171 21.5 163
Quinara 58.6 58 57.1 0.0 0.0 37.1 2.9 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 35 38.2 34
Cacheu 60.9 235 61.1 1.4 0.0 21.5 5.6 5.6 2.8 0.0 2.1 144 33.6 143
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 65.2 198 63.0 3.7 0.0 25.9 2.2 2.2 1.5 0.0 1.5 135 32.6 129
Second 61.1 190 63.7 1.6 0.8 23.4 7.3 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 124 32.8 116
Middle 66.9 175 71.2 4.0 0.0 19.2 3.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 125 24.8 117
Fourth 64.0 164 61.9 1.9 1.0 20.0 5.7 3.8 2.9 0.0 2.9 105 30.5 105
Richest 68.4 177 51.6 3.1 0.8 19.5 11.7 8.6 3.1 0.0 1.6 128 42.2 121
Total 65.0 904 62.2 2.9 0.5 21.7 6.0 4.1 1.5 0.0 1.1 617 32.7 588
63
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 40. Food groups
Mean number of days that households consumed a range of food groups, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline
Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Rice
Other 
cereals Tubers Legumes Vegetables Fruits Meat Fish Eggs Milk
Oils & 
fats Sugar
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Type of school
WFP 6.7 1.5 0.8 1.8 1.2 5.7 1.6 4.6 0.9 2.6 4.4 4.0
non-WFP 6.5 1.9 0.7 1.7 0.9 5.5 1.5 4.6 0.6 2.6 4.2 4.0
Sex of household head
Male 6.6 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.1 5.6 1.5 4.6 0.7 2.5 4.1 3.9
Female 6.7 1.5 0.8 1.7 0.9 5.6 1.6 4.5 0.9 2.9 4.8 4.3
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 6.2 3.3 0.8 2.2 1.4 5.6 1.7 4.2 0.7 4.2 4.7 5.1
Mandinga 6.5 1.6 0.7 1.8 1.1 5.8 1.7 4.7 1.2 3.4 4.5 5.3
Balanta 6.8 0.8 0.8 1.4 0.6 6.1 1.3 4.9 0.7 1.2 3.7 2.6
Manjaco 6.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.7 5.3 1.3 4.8 0.4 0.8 4.2 2.3
Pepel 6.8 0.4 0.3 0.8 1.3 5.5 1.4 4.6 0.8 0.3 2.9 1.3
Other 6.9 0.9 0.6 1.8 1.3 5.1 1.5 4.7 0.8 3.0 4.2 4.9
Region
Biombo 6.8 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.7 5.2 1.7 4.7 1.2 0.8 2.7 2.7
Oio 7.0 0.5 0.8 2.3 0.6 6.9 1.8 5.0 1.4 2.1 4.0 3.6
Gabu 6.0 3.2 0.9 2.6 1.2 6.1 1.6 4.8 0.7 4.5 5.7 5.4
Bafata 6.6 2.3 0.5 1.6 1.3 5.0 1.6 3.7 0.5 3.0 3.8 4.6
Quinara 6.8 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.4 4.3 0.9 4.4 0.3 3.1 3.8 4.8
Cacheu 6.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 5.4 1.2 5.2 0.7 1.0 4.2 2.4
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 6.3 1.3 0.7 1.7 0.8 6.0 1.2 4.8 0.6 1.8 3.8 3.2
Second 6.6 2.0 0.6 1.5 0.7 5.6 1.4 4.2 0.4 2.2 4.0 4.0
Middle 6.6 2.1 0.9 1.8 1.1 5.4 1.5 4.5 0.8 2.6 4.3 4.0
Fourth 6.7 1.4 0.4 1.8 1.4 5.4 1.4 4.7 0.7 3.1 4.7 4.0
Richest 6.8 1.6 0.9 1.9 1.4 5.5 2.0 4.7 1.2 3.4 4.6 4.9
Total 6.6 1.7 0.7 1.7 1.1 5.6 1.5 4.6 0.8 2.6 4.3 4.0
64
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 41. Food Consumption Score
Mean Food Consumption Score and percent distribution of households by Food Consumption Group categories, according to various background characteristics
(unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Food Consumption Groups
Food Consumption Score Poor Borderline Acceptable Number
Mean # F p % % % #
Type of school
WFP 64.2 462 1.940 0.164 1.7 6.7 91.6 462
non-WFP 62.4 470 2.1 8.5 89.4 470
Sex of household head
Male 63.0 700 0.850 0.358 1.9 8.0 90.1 700
Female 64.4 210 2.4 6.2 91.4 210
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 72.0 289 32.460 0.000 0.7 8.3 91.0 289
Mandinga 67.7 132 1.5 8.3 90.2 132
Balanta 56.2 195 2.1 7.7 90.3 195
Manjaco 52.8 152 3.3 7.9 88.8 152
Pepel 50.3 28 3.6 3.6 92.9 28
Other 65.4 131 3.1 5.3 91.6 131
Region
Biombo 55.2 39 32.270 0.000 2.6 2.6 94.9 39
Oio 65.0 152 0.0 2.0 98.0 152
Gabu 76.5 194 0.5 4.6 94.9 194
Bafata 62.4 251 1.6 12.8 85.7 251
Quinara 59.6 59 6.8 8.5 84.8 59
Cacheu 54.6 237 3.4 8.9 87.8 237
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 58.8 207 12.180 0.000 3.4 9.2 87.4 207
Second 58.9 194 3.1 12.9 84.0 194
Middle 63.1 182 1.7 8.2 90.1 182
Fourth 66.5 165 1.2 3.6 95.2 165
Richest 70.3 184 0.0 3.3 96.7 184
Total 63.3 932 1.7 6.7 91.6 932
65
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 42. Household income earners and annual income
Percent distribution of households by number of current income earners and annual cash income, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School
Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Number of current income earners in HH: Estimated annual cash income (XOF):
None 1 2 3+ Number < 60,000
60,000 -
150,000
150,000 -
450,000 > 450,000 Missing Number
% % % % # % % % #
Type of school
WFP 1.5 18.9 28.2 51.4 465 20.8 18.9 25.5 30.4 4.5 471
non-WFP 2.7 17.0 24.1 56.3 453 23.1 19.3 19.3 33.0 5.3 476
Sex of household head
Male 2.4 16.8 23.4 57.3 696 22.6 18.4 22.3 31.7 5.2 714
Female 1.0 22.4 34.3 42.3 201 19.4 22.8 22.8 31.3 3.8 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 0.0 17.7 21.8 60.5 294 20.5 19.5 22.2 36.4 1.4 297
Mandinga 0.0 11.5 19.9 68.7 131 17.8 15.6 25.2 38.5 3.0 135
Balanta 1.0 14.6 24.5 59.9 192 22.2 15.7 27.8 29.8 4.6 198
Manjaco 10.3 26.2 44.8 18.6 145 33.3 24.2 11.1 19.6 11.8 153
Pepel 7.4 11.1 33.3 48.2 27 42.9 17.9 7.1 10.7 21.4 28
Other 0.0 21.6 23.2 55.2 125 12.2 21.4 29.0 33.6 3.8 131
Region
Biombo 5.6 36.1 19.4 38.9 36 28.2 25.6 15.4 5.1 25.6 39
Oio 0.0 4.6 11.8 83.7 153 1.9 10.3 30.3 55.5 1.9 155
Gabu 0.0 19.5 21.0 59.5 195 18.2 19.2 32.3 29.3 1.0 198
Bafata 0.4 13.5 22.6 63.5 252 21.3 16.9 19.3 41.7 0.8 254
Quinara 0.0 16.7 14.8 68.5 54 1.7 13.3 30.0 55.0 0.0 60
Cacheu 7.0 28.1 47.8 17.1 228 42.7 27.4 11.6 6.2 12.0 241
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 3.0 19.8 22.8 54.5 202 29.2 16.3 25.4 23.9 5.3 209
Second 4.1 13.9 26.7 55.4 195 20.1 21.6 19.1 31.7 7.5 199
Middle 0.0 16.0 24.9 59.1 181 20.7 23.9 21.7 32.1 1.6 184
Fourth 1.9 18.1 32.5 47.5 160 26.2 16.7 16.1 36.9 4.2 168
Richest 1.1 22.2 25.0 51.7 180 13.4 17.1 28.9 35.3 5.4 187
Total 2.1 18.0 26.1 53.8 918 22.0 19.1 22.4 31.7 4.9 947
66
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 43. Household livelihoods
Percent distribution of households by main source of income over the past year, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Salaried
Farmer / 
agriculture
Criador(a) 
de gado
Empreendedor(a) 
individual Trade Domestic Marabout Handicrafts
Hunting / 
fishing
Wood 
harvest Other
% % % % % % % % % % % #
Type of school
WFP 14.3 61.2 2.2 5.2 7.6 2.2 0.7 0.2 2.6 0.0 3.9 461
non-WFP 10.2 65.8 2.4 6.1 8.2 1.1 2.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 2.6 462
Sex of household head
Male 11.1 65.8 2.6 6.2 6.8 1.3 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.1 3.0 693
Female 16.8 53.6 1.4 4.3 11.5 2.9 1.0 0.5 3.4 0.5 4.3 209
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 13.6 57.0 5.8 6.4 11.9 0.0 3.1 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.3 295
Mandinga 5.2 70.2 2.2 5.2 8.2 0.8 2.2 0.8 3.7 0.0 1.5 134
Balanta 10.8 77.4 0.0 2.1 3.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.6 195
Manjaco 15.7 52.1 0.0 9.3 7.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 12.1 140
Pepel 3.9 57.7 0.0 7.7 3.9 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.5 26
Other 16.3 64.3 0.8 4.7 6.2 2.3 0.0 0.8 2.3 0.8 1.6 129
Region
Biombo 17.1 28.6 0.0 8.6 14.3 14.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.9 11.4 35
Oio 3.2 94.2 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 155
Gabu 15.8 57.7 6.6 6.1 11.7 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 196
Bafata 13.0 60.5 2.8 4.7 10.7 0.4 3.6 0.4 4.0 0.0 0.0 253
Quinara 10.3 82.8 1.7 3.5 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 58
Cacheu 14.2 51.3 0.0 8.9 8.0 3.5 0.4 0.0 2.2 0.4 11.1 226
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 7.9 76.9 1.5 3.5 2.0 2.5 0.0 1.0 1.5 0.5 3.0 203
Second 6.3 76.3 0.5 3.7 4.2 1.1 3.2 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.7 190
Middle 7.7 72.0 4.4 4.4 5.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.4 182
Fourth 16.4 52.1 4.2 7.9 10.9 2.4 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.6 2.4 165
Richest 24.0 37.2 1.1 9.3 18.6 1.6 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 183
Total 12.2 63.5 2.3 5.6 7.9 1.6 1.3 0.3 1.7 0.2 3.3 923
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 44. Household received support and providing support to others
Percent distribution of households which reported receiving external support (money, food, clothing,
remittances, etc.) and supporting other households with cash or food, according to various background 
characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
HH received support from 
others
HH is 
supporting 
others with 
food / money
% # χ2 p % #
Type of school
WFP 13.8 463 0.035 0.852 47.7 453
non-WFP 13.4 470 49.9 451
Sex of household head
Male 13.9 704 0.155 0.694 50.2 678
Female 12.9 210 45.9 207
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 22.1 294 38.031 0.000 63.7 281
Mandinga 18.0 133 58.9 124
Balanta 5.6 196 42.3 194
Manjaco 6.8 147 17.5 149
Pepel 7.1 28 40.7 27
Other 11.5 130 52.8 125
Region
Biombo 21.1 38 30.851 0.000 48.7 39
Oio 8.7 150 43.1 153
Gabu 22.4 196 79.6 191
Bafata 15.9 252 41.3 225
Quinara 1.7 60 32.2 59
Cacheu 8.9 237 38.8 237
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 4.4 206 41.701 0.000 43.2 199
Second 12.3 195 38.4 190
Middle 11.5 182 50.3 175
Fourth 14.6 164 53.5 159
Richest 26.3 186 60.2 181
Total 13.6 933 48.8 904
67
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 45. Coping Strategies Index
68
Median reduced Coping Strategies Index (CSI) and percent distribution of households classified as having employed stress, crisis, or emergency coping
strategies during the past 7 days, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Livelihood-based coping strategies
Reduced 
CSI Number
Food 
secure Stress Crisis Emergency Number
Median # % % % % # χ2 p
Type of school
WFP 9.0 465 33.1 29.9 33.6 3.5 462 10.280 0.016
non-WFP 10.0 472 24.6 31.0 41.6 2.8 464
Sex of household head
Male 10.0 707 27.8 29.6 39.0 3.6 697 7.537 0.057
Female 8.5 208 31.4 36.2 30.4 1.9 207
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 11.0 291 29.4 29.8 38.7 2.2 279 38.299 0.001
Mandinga 12.0 133 25.4 29.1 40.3 5.2 134
Balanta 8.0 198 28.3 25.8 41.4 4.6 198
Manjaco 4.0 152 32.9 42.8 22.4 2.0 152
Pepel 19.5 28 17.9 10.7 64.3 7.1 28
Other 9.0 130 28.5 30.8 39.2 1.5 130
Region
Biombo 16.0 39 7.9 26.3 55.3 10.5 38 75.283 0.000
Oio 7.0 154 33.6 15.5 46.5 4.5 155
Gabu 9.0 194 23.8 35.4 39.2 1.7 181
Bafata 14.0 250 35.2 26.5 36.0 2.4 253
Quinara 13.0 60 40.7 15.3 42.4 1.7 59
Cacheu 5.0 240 23.3 45.0 28.3 3.3 240
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 10.0 208 27.3 27.3 42.4 2.9 205 27.456 0.007
Second 12.0 197 25.9 24.4 46.2 3.6 197
Middle 9.0 181 30.0 28.3 36.7 5.0 180
Fourth 7.0 167 28.7 33.5 36.0 1.8 164
Richest 7.0 184 32.8 40.0 25.0 2.2 180
Total 10.0 937 28.8 30.5 37.6 3.1 926
69
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 46. Number of days student at before and after school
Mean number of days (out of previous 5 school days) that student reportedly ate a meal before and after attending school, according to
various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Number of days out of last 5 which child ate:
Before 
school After school
Mean # F p Mean # F p
Type of school
WFP 3.3 467 0.000 0.944 4.5 469 0.150 0.702
non-WFP 3.3 426 4.6 423
Sex of household head
Male 3.4 674 4.050 0.045 4.5 674 0.220 0.640
Female 3.0 197 4.6 198
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 2.9 286 11.730 0.000 4.2 285 5.570 0.000
Mandinga 3.3 132 4.7 133
Balanta 4.4 172 4.7 173
Manjaco 3.0 152 4.6 151
Pepel 3.1 27 4.4 27
Other 3.5 119 4.8 118
Region
Biombo 3.3 36 15.460 0.000 4.1 35 21.850 0.000
Oio 4.6 150 4.9 154
Gabu 3.0 194 3.8 192
Bafata 3.1 250 4.8 248
Quinara 3.5 60 4.9 60
Cacheu 2.9 203 4.6 203
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 3.7 185 2.480 0.042 4.6 183 0.320 0.862
Second 3.1 188 4.5 187
Middle 3.2 178 4.5 179
Fourth 3.4 158 4.6 160
Richest 3.2 184 4.5 183
Total 3.3 893 4.5 892
70
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 47. Parent knowledge of SFP and reduced meals
Percent distribution of households (under WFP-supported schools) wherein the interview respondent reported that free meals were provided to their child at school
and percentage of these who reported reducing the amount of food given to the child on days with school feeding compared to the weekend, according to various 
background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Child receives free meal at school
Reduces amount given to child during days 
with school feeding
% # χ2 p % # χ2 p
Sex of household head
Male 68.2 321 0.180 0.671 14.7 231 0.003 0.960
Female 66.1 127 14.94 87
Respondent relationship to student
Father 73.0 174 3.911 0.418 21.3 136 17.169 0.002
Mother 64.8 122 14.8 81
Guardian 66.2 68 2.1 47
Grandfather/mother 59.1 22 21.4 100
Other 64.2 67 2.2 45
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 46.4 138 49.240 0.000 5.8 69 17.955 0.003
Mandinga 67.2 61 28.6 42
Balanta 73.2 97 15.1 73
Manjaco 85.7 70 10.9 64
Pepel 77.3 22 35.3 17
Other 83.6 67 11.7 60
Region
Biombo 65.0 20 65.906 0.000 46.2 13 24.223 0.000
Oio 85.9 71 18.5 65
Gabu 54.6 97 1.8 56
Bafata 47.2 125 6.4 63
Quinara 85.7 28 15.4 26
Cacheu 86.8 114 19.6 102
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 71.9 89 7.730 0.102 19.1 68 5.282 0.260
Second 72.5 80 16.4 61
Middle 60.8 102 16.7 66
Fourth 75.3 85 13.9 65
Richest 61.6 99 6.2 65
Total 67.9 455 14.5 325
71
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Table 48. Student missed days, education benefit, harassed
Percent distribution of households in which the student missed school days in the previous month and wherein the respondent indicated
that there was a benefit from primary education, according to various background characteristics (unweighted). School Feeding Baseline 
Survey, Guinea-Bissau, 2016.
Student missed school days 
previous month
Respondent believes 
in benefit from 
primary education
Student 
faced 
harassment
% # F p % # % #
Type of school
WFP 20.5 454 0.130 0.719 97.6 423 1.1 460
non-WFP 21.5 452 97.5 441 2.4 468
Sex of household head
Male 21.7 682 0.680 0.411 97.6 655 1.9 697
Female 19.0 205 98.4 190 1.4 211
Ethnicity of household head
Fula 19.9 292 6.240 0.000 95.8 265 1.4 294
Mandinga 32.3 127 98.4 127 6.8 133
Balanta 26.8 183 100.0 188 0.5 193
Manjaco 8.2 146 97.9 142 0.0 146
Pepel 26.9 26 96.2 26 7.4 27
Other 16.4 128 96.4 112 0.0 130
Region
Biombo 31.6 38 6.700 0.000 100.0 35 0.0 38
Oio 29.5 139 98.7 152 2.7 150
Gabu 9.7 195 95.8 167 1.5 198
Bafata 25.8 248 98.3 240 2.8 251
Quinara 29.3 58 93.9 49 0.0 59
Cacheu 16.2 228 97.7 221 0.9 232
Wealth quintiles
Poorest 17.0 200 0.740 0.563 98.5 195 1.0 204
Second 20.6 189 98.3 174 1.6 189
Middle 23.0 178 95.1 164 3.3 182
Fourth 23.4 158 98.7 158 2.4 166
Richest 21.5 181 97.1 173 0.5 187
Total 21.0 906 97.6 864 1.7 928
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
72
Annex II – List of Surveyed Schools
SCHOOL 
ID REGION SECTOR NUMBER OF 
STUDENTS
001 Biombo Safim 115
002 Biombo Prabis 954
003 Oio Mansoa 165
004 Oio Mansoa 274
005 Oio Mansoa 529
006 Oio Mansoa 258
007 Oio Bissorã 126
008 Oio Bissorã 261
009 Oio Mansaba 281
010 Oio Farim 168
011 Gabu Gabú 491
012 Gabu Gabú 629
013 Gabu Gabú 202
014 Gabu Gabú 841
015 Gabu Pitche 246
016 Gabu Pitche 188
017 Gabu Sonaco 747
018 Gabu Sonaco 188
019 Gabu Pirada 137
020 Gabu Boé 221
021 Bafata Cossé 120
022 Bafata Bafatá 648
023 Bafata Bafatá 604
024 Bafata Bafatá 373
025 Bafata Bafatá 227
026 Bafata Bafatá 63
027 Bafata Bambadinca 606
028 Bafata Bambadinca 484
029 Bafata Bambadinca 216
030 Bafata Xitole 153
031 Bafata Contuboel 384
032 Bafata Contuboel 125
033 Bafata Ganadu 329
034 Bafata Ganadu 95
035 Quinra Empada 226
036 Quinra Fulacunda 225
037 Quinra Buba 61
038 Cacheu Bula 1398
039 Cacheu Bula 287
040 Cacheu Cacheu 513
041 Cacheu Caio 276
042 Cacheu Caio 296
043 Cacheu Canchungo 854
044 Cacheu Canchungo 220
045 Cacheu Canchungo 836
046 Cacheu Canchungo 1292
047 Cacheu Canchungo 185
048 Cacheu Ingoré 642
049 Cacheu Ingoré 652
050 Cacheu Sao Domingos 120
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
73
SCHOOL 
ID REGION SECTOR NUMBER OF 
STUDENTS
051 BIOMBO Safim 220
052 BIOMBO Prabis 1733
053 OIO Mansoa 71
054 OIO Mansoa 130
055 OIO Bissora 308
056 OIO Mansoa 159
057 OIO Bissora 116
058 OIO Bissora 279
059 OIO Mansaba 240
060 OIO Farim 228
061 GABU GABÚ 184
062 GABU GABÚ 105
063 GABU GABÚ 80
064 GABU GABÚ 192
065 GABU Pitche 107
066 GABU Pitche 109
067 GABU Sonaco 91
068 GABU Sonaco 91
069 GABU PIRADA 136
070 GABU Boe 106
071 BAFATA COSSÉ 129
072 BAFATA CONTUBOEL 200
073 BAFATA BAFATA 201
074 BAFATA BAFATA 85
075 BAFATA BAFATA 201
076 BAFATA BAFATA 75
077 BAFATA BAMBADINCA 141
078 BAFATA BAMBADINCA 189
079 BAFATA BAMBADINCA 49
080 BAFATA XITOLE 81
081 BAFATA GANADU 170
082 BAFATA CONTUBOEL 137
083 BAFATA GANADU 68
084 BAFATA GANADU 138
085 QUINARA EMPADA 189
086 QUINARA FULACUNDA 300
087 QUINARA BUBA 78
088 CACHEU BULA 407
089 CACHEU BULA 90
090 CACHEU CACHEU 140
091 CACHEU CAIO 172
092 CACHEU CAIO 155
093 CACHEU REPLACEMENT
094 CACHEU CANCHUNGO 211
095 CACHEU CANCHUNGO 105
096 CACHEU CANCHUNGO 244
097 CACHEU REPLACEMENT
098 CACHEU INGORE ---
099 CACHEU INGORE ---
100 CACHEU SAO DOMINGOS ---
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
74
Annex III – Questionnaires
Número da Escola: ⎕⎕⎕
QUESTIONÁRIO ESCOLAR
Estudo de Base sobre a Alimentação Escolar 
Guiné-Bissau 2016
Região:
Sector:
Nome da Escola:
Nome do Director da Escola: No de Contacto
Nome do Entrevistador:
Data da Entrevista: / / 2016
Estamos a realizar um estudo para aprender como os programas de alimentação escolar afectam o desempenho escolare 
a realização das crianças escolarizadas na Guiné-Bissau. Gostaríamos de lhe fazer algumas perguntas sobre a sua escola. 
Qualquer informação fornecida será mantida estritamente confidencial e não será mostrada a outras pessoas. No entanto, 
esperamos que participe, uma vez que seus pontos de vista são importantes.
Tem algumas questões?
Resultados da Entrevista: Completou ............................................ 1
Recusou ................................................ 2
Outro ..................................................... 6
Nome do(a) Supervisor(a): Nome do(a) Agente de Introdução de Dados #1:
Assinatura: Data de Introdução #1: / / 2016
Nome do(a) Agente de Introdução de Dados #2:
Data da Revisão: / / 2016 Data de Introdução #2: / / 2016
Pelo presente, certifico que o Estudo Básico da Alimentação Escolar foi administrada ao pessoal e alunosrelevantes nesta 
escola na data indicada:
Carimbo da Escola:
Assinatura do Director:
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
75
SECCÇÃO 1: INFORMAÇÃO DA ESCOLA
No Questão Resposta Saltar
SC1.01 Qual é o tipo de escola? Comunitária ou de iniciativa local ..................................... 1
Pública .............................................................................. 2
Privada laica ..................................................................... 3
Privada confessional ......................................................... 4
Autogestão ........................................................................ 5
Madrassa .......................................................................... 6
SC1.02 A sua escola funciona em? Periodo ............................................................................. 1
Turno ................................................................................ 2
Mista ................................................................................. 3
SC1.03 Quais os anos mais elevado de escolaridade 
que esta escola oferece?
Escolher apenas uma.
Pré-escolar ....................................................................... 1
1º Ano .............................................................................. 2
2º Ano .............................................................................. 3
3º Ano .............................................................................. 4
4º Ano .............................................................................. 5
5º Ano .............................................................................. 6
6º Ano .............................................................................. 7
7º Ano ou superior ............................................................ 8
SC1.04 Qual e a categoria da escola? (gênero)? Escola de Rapazes ........................................................... 1
Escola de Raparigas ......................................................... 2
Escola Mista ..................................................................... 3
SC1.05 Qual é o número total de alunos inscritos? Menino Meninas
⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕
SC1.06 Quantos professores é que a escola tem?
NB: Inclua o Director da Escola, em número.
Homens Mulhere
⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC1.07 Quantas salas de aula é que existem na 
escola? ⎕⎕
SC1.08 A escola tem uma biblioteca ou um espaço 
onde os livros são armazenados?
Sim .................................................................................. 1
Não .................................................................................. 2
SC1.09 A escola tem uma área de cozinha designada 
onde os alimentos podem ser preparados?
Isto refere-se a uma estrutura com paredes 
e/ou tecto. Ao ar livre não se aplica.
Sim .................................................................................. 1
Não .................................................................................. 2
SC1.10 A sua escola tem uma sala de armazenamento
/ instalação onde os produtos alimentares 
podem ser armazenados?
Sim .................................................................................. 1
Não .................................................................................. 2
SC1.11 Actualmente, qual é a principal fonte de água 
da escola?
ÁGUA CANALIZADA
Canalizada num prédio ................................................ 11
Canalizada num quintal/lote ........................................ 12
Torneiras públicas/fontanário ....................................... 13
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
76
POÇO TIBULAR OU FURO .......................................... 21
POÇO
Poço protegido ............................................................. 31
Poço desprotegido ....................................................... 32
POCO da COMUNIDADE ................................................ 33
ÁGUA DE NASCENTE
Nascentes protegidas ................................................... 41
Nascentes não protegidas ........................................... 42
ÁGUA DA CHUVA .......................................................... 51
CAMIÃO CISTERNA ....................................................... 61
CARRO COM TANQUE PEQUENO ............................... 71
ÁAGUA DA SUPERFICIE (RIO/BARRAGEM) ............... 81
ÁGUA ENGARRAFADA ................................................. 91
OUTRO ........................................................................... 96
SC1.12 Se a escola não tiver agua e deve comprar, 
qual e o valor a ser pago diariamente para o 
funcionamento da cantina?
⎕⎕⎕⎕⎕XOF
Não pague ....................................................................... 95
SC1.13 Que tipo (s) de instalações sanitárias tem a escola para estudantes e professores?
Confirmar através de OBSERVACAO.
Tipo de sanita # para 
rapazes
# para 
raparigas
# Unissexo # para professores
Código para Tipo de Sanita
Retrete tradicional ........................
Retrete melhorada ........................
1
2
A. ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
Latrina com autoclismo ................ 3
Latrina sem autoclismo ................
Enterra as fezes no quintal ...........
4
5
B. ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
Enterra as fezes fora do quintal ... 6
Na mata (natureza) ......................
Balde ............................................
7
8
C. ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
Outro ............................................ 9
SC1.14 Existem instalações de lavagem das mãos, dentro ou nas 
proximidades das casas de banho? (Sabão ou cinza e água)
Confirmar através de OBSERVAÇÃO.
Sim ............................................................. 1
Não ............................................................. 2
SC1.15 A escola tem uma Associação de Pais e Professores (PTA), 
ou estrutura de Gestão semelhante? Sim ............................................................. 1
Não ............................................................. 2
SC1.16 A escola tem um Comité de Gestão Escolar (CGE)? Sim ............................................................. 1
Não ............................................................. 2
SC1.17 Qual é o número de membros no Comité de Gestão Escolar 
(CGE) ? ⎕⎕
SC1.18 O Comité de Gestão Escolar tem quantas mulheres? ⎕⎕
SC1.19 Quantas vezes é que o CGE, encontrou-se, na realidade, no 
ultimo ano?
Confirmar através do livro de registo ou acta de reunioes.
⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
77
SC1.20 Qual é o nível de participação e engajamento do CGE nos 
aspectos da gestão escolar?
Escolher apenas uma.
CGE reuniu-se pelo menos uma vez este 
ano lectivo …………………………………... 1
CGE reuniu-se pelo menos três vezes …… 2
CGE reuniu-se pelo menos três vezes e 
Plano de Acção existe ……………………… 3
SC1.21 Qual é a distância por estrada (km) ao mercado de alimentos 
(lumo ou diario) mais próximo relativamente escola?
Registar ‘00’ se menos de 1.
⎕⎕km
SECÇÃO 2: PROGRAMA DE ALIMENTAÇÃO ESCOLAR (PAM)
No Questão Resposta Saltar
SC2.01 Esta escola tem um programa de alimentação escolar? Sim ........................................................... 1
Não ........................................................... 2 →SC3.01
SC2.02 Onde os alimentos são armazenados? Armazem ................................................. 1
Sala de Aula ............................................ 2
Sala dos professores ............................... 3
Cozinha .................................................... 4
Espaço aberto .......................................... 5
Outro (especificar) ................................... 6
SC2.03 A escola usa paletes de madeira levantadas para o 
armazenamento dos produtos (ou seja, armazenamento de 
produtos longe do chão)?
Confirmar através de OBSERVACAO.
Sim ........................................................... 1
Não ........................................................... 2
SC2.04 Quantas pessoas (não alunos) estão envolvidas, a nível da 
escola, na preparação dos alimentos (preparadores de 
comida, cozinheiro e responsável de armazém)? ⎕⎕
SC2.05 Aonde é que a comida é normalmente preparada? Armazem ................................................... 1
Sala de Aula ............................................... 2
Sala dos professores .................................. 3
Cozinha .................................................... 4
Espaço aberto ........................................... 5
Outro (especificar) ..................................... 6
SC2.06 A escola usa fogões eficientes de combustível?
Confirmar através de OBSERVACAO.
Sim ........................................................... 1
Não ........................................................... 2
SC2.07 Qual é o nível de participação e compromisso da CGE na 
escolar cantina?
Nenhum ……………………………………… 1
CGE ajuda de descarga e armazenamento 
de alimentos ................................................ 2
CGE supervisiona regularmente o 
desempenho do cozinheiro ………………… 3
CGE ativamente envolvido em todas as 
etapas e de gestão ……………………… 4
SC2.08 Os membros do CGE receberam alguma formação na 
gestao de cantinas escolar do PAM?
Sim ........................................................... 1
Não ........................................................... 2
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
78
SC2.09 Por quantos anos ou meses que esta escola tem recebido 
apoio do Programa de Alimentação Escolar (IPHD ou PAM)?
NB: Isso abrange qualquer componente do programa de 
alimentação escolar.
⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
ou
Anos Meses
SC2.10 Quais são os caminhos ou canais de comunicação através 
dos quais os pais e alunos, podem obter informações sobre 
o Programa de Alimentação Escolar ou fazer reclamações 
sobre o programa?
Não avisar. Resposta múltipla – coloque um circulo à volta 
de todas que se aplicam.
Nenhum …………………………………...... A
Reuniões regulares com a comissão de 
gestão escolar (CGE) ................................ B
Reuniões regulares com administradores 
escolares ................................................... C
Caixa de sugestão ..................................... D
Linha de apoio ........................................... E
Comunicação informal (verbal) com .......... F
Professores ............................................... G
Não sabe ................................................... H
Outro (especificar) ..................................... I
SC2.11 Contribuição não-alimentar
Item Não Alimentar
Contribuiu durante o 
ano escolar 2015?
Quem contribuiu? (Escolher todos que se aplicam)
S N Comunidade Pais Doadores Escola Outro
A. Água 1 2 A B C E F
B. Lenha 1 2 A B C E F
C. Utensílios de cozinha 1 2 A B C E F
D. Produtos de limpeza 1 2 A B C E F
E. Pratos e talheres 1 2 A B C E F
F. Subsídio do/a cozinheiro/a 1 2 A B C E F
G. Subsídio do Armazenista 1 2 A B C E F
H. Outro (especificar) 1 2 A B C E F
SECÇÃO 3: REGISTO DE DIAS ESCOLARES
Registar o número de dias de acordo com cada categoria.
Registar ‘00’ se nenhum.
Numero total de dias de 
aulas
Dias livres oficiais
(Feriados / Fins-de￾semana)
Encerramentos não 
planeados (Greve de 
professores, etc.)
Soma
Mês A B C D
SC3.01 Outubro 2015 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.02 Novembro 2015 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.03 Dezembro 2015 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.04 Janeiro 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.05 Fevereiro 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.06 Marco 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
79
SC3.07 Abril 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.08 Maio 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC3.09 Junho 2016 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
80
SECÇÃO 4: INFORMAÇÃO SOBRE O CORPO DOCENTE – HISTORIAL
SC4.01 SC4.02 SC4.03 SC4.04 SC4.05 SC4.06 SC4.07 SC4.08
ID Nome
Sexo
Idade
Função na 
escola Qualificação
Anos de 
serviço
Anos na 
actual 
função
A tempo 
inteiro ou 
parcial?
Formado em gestão 
e armazenamento 
seguro de 
alimentos do PAM?
M F TI TP S N
01 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
02 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
03 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
04 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
05 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
06 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
07 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
08 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
09 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
10 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
11 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
12 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕ ⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ 1 2 1 2
Códigos para SC4.03 Códigos para SC4.04
Director(a) / Professor(a) principal ..... 1 Professor(a) (contratado/a) ....... 4 Mestrado ou mais .............. 1 Secundario ( 11º - 12º) ... 5
Director(a) Adjunto(a) ......................... 2 Professor(a) (voluntário/a)) ....... 5 Licenciatura ...................... 2 EBº 3 ciclo ( 9º ano) ....... 6
Professor(a) (permanente / regular) ... 3 Outro (especificar) .................... 6 Bacharelato ...................... 3 EBº 2 ciclo (6º ano) ........ 7
Pos-secundario (medio) .... 4 EBº 1 ciclo (4º ano) ......... 8
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
81
SECÇÃO 5A: MATRICULA DOS ALUNOS (2015)
Registar o número de alunos de acordo com cada categoria.
Marque ‘N/A’ se nível de classe não se aplica. Em caso de nenhum, registe ‘00’.
Número total de 
alunos: Matriculado 
(Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Matriculado (Feminino)
Número total de alunos: 
Transferência para fora 
(Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Transferência para fora 
(Feminino)
Número total de 
alunos: Abandono 
(Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Abandono (Feminino)
Ano A B C D. E F
SC6.01 Pré-Primário ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.02 1º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.03 2º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.04 3º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.05 4º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.06 5º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.07 6º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SECÇÃO 5A: INCRIÇÃO DOS ALUNOS (2014)
Registar o número de alunos de acordo com cada categoria.
Registar ‘N/A’ se nível de classe não se aplica. Em caso de nenhum, registe ‘00’.
Número total de 
alunos: Matriculado 
(Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Matriculado (Feminino)
Número total de alunos: 
Transferência (Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Transferência 
(Feminino)
Número total de 
alunos: Abandono 
(Masculino)
Número total de alunos: 
Abandono (Feminino)
Ano A B C D. E F
SC6.08 Pré-Primário ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.09 1º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.10 2º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.11 3º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.12 4º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.13 5º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
SC6.14 6º Ano ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
82
SECÇÃO 6: REQUÊNCIA DOS ALUNOS 2015
Total dias frequentados cada mês do ano escolar 2015
Marque '99' se não aplicável (e.g. aluno não inscrito na altura)
Classe:
(2, 3, 4, etc.) ⎕ Turma:
(A, B, C, etc.) ⎕ Hora de inicio das aulas : 
Hora de termino das aulas:
⎕⎕:⎕⎕
⎕⎕:⎕⎕
SC7.01 SC7.02 SC7.03 SC7.04 SC7.05 SC7.06 SC7.07 SC7.08 SC7.09
ID Nome
Sexo
Out-15 Nov-15 Dez-15 Jan-16 Fev-16 Mar-16 Abr-16 Mai-16
M F
1 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
2 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
3 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
4 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
5 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
6 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
7 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
8 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
9 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
10 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
11 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
12 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
13 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
14 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
15 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
83
SECÇÃO 6: REQUÊNCIA DOS ALUNOS 2015 (CONT.)
Total dias frequentados cada mês do ano escolar 2015
Marque '99' se não aplicável (e.g. aluno não inscrito na altura)
Classe:
(2, 3, 4, etc.) ⎕ Turma:
(A, B, C, etc.) ⎕ Hora de inicio das aulas : 
Hora de termino das aulas:
⎕⎕:⎕⎕
⎕⎕:⎕⎕
SC7.01 SC7.02 SC7.03 SC7.04 SC7.05 SC7.06 SC7.07 SC7.08 SC7.09
ID Nome
Sexo
M F Out-15 Nov-15 Dez-15 Jan-16 Fev-16 Mar-16 Abr-16 Mai-16
18 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
19 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
20 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
21 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
22 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
23 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
24 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
25 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
26 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
27 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
28 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
29 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
30 1 2 ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
84
Número da Escola: ⎕⎕⎕
Identificação do(a) Aluno(a): ⎕⎕
QUESTIONÁRIO DA CRIANÇA ESCOLARIZADA
Estudo de base sobre a Alimentação Escolar 
Guiné-Bissau 2016
Região:
Sector:
Nome da Escola:
Nome do(a) Aluno(a):
Sexo: M F
Idade:
Classe: ⎕ Turma: ⎕
Nome do/a Inquiridor/a:
Data da Entrevista: / / 2016
Resultado da Entrevista: Completou ............................... 1
Recusou .................................. 2
Outro ....................................... 6
Nome do/a Supervisor/a: Nome do/a agente de Introdução de Dados #1:
Assinatura: Data de Introdução #1: / / 2016
Nome d/a agente de Introdução de Dados #2:
Data da Revisão: / / 2016 Data de Introdução #2: / / 2016
SECÇÃO 1: COMPORTAMENTO DA CRIANÇA E REFEIÇÕES ESCOLARES
No Questão Resposta Saltar
ST1.01 Ontem, comeu uma refeição na escola?
NB: Se não houve escola no dia anterior, 
perguntar sobre o mais recente dia de escola.
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ................................................................ 2
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
85
ST1.02 Normalmente, que fornece o alimento que você 
come na escola?
Refeição oferecida pela escola .................... 1
Trouxe comida própria e comeu na escola .. 2 →ST1.11
Comprou o almoço e.g. quiosque ................. 3 →ST1.11
Foi para casa almoçar e depois regressou .. 4 →ST1.11
Outro (especifique) ....................................... 6 →ST1.11
ST1.03 Como você avalia a quantidade dos alimentos 
dados?
Insuficiente ……………………………………. 1
Aceitável ……………………………………… 2
Suficiente ………………………………………. 3
Muito bom …………………………………… 4
Bastante ……………………………………….. 5
ST1.04 Como você avalia a qualidade dos alimentos 
dados?
Má ................................................................. 1
Razoavel ....................................................... 2
Boa ............................................................... 3
Muito boa ...................................................... 4
Excelente ...................................................... 5
ST1.05 Você já enfrentou problemas durante a 
distribuição de alimentos? [por exemplo troca de 
alimentos por favor / trabalho, pagar para 
receber o alimento, etc.]
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ............................................................... 2
ST1.06 Você recebeu uma ração de arroz para levar a 
casa ou de alimentos durante este ano lectivo?
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ............................................................... 2
ST1.07 Ainda estava com fome após a refeição? Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ............................................................... 2
ST1.08 Normalmente, a que horas é que a escola servir 
a refeição? ⎕⎕:⎕⎕
ST1.09 Normalmente, se uma refeição não é oferecida 
na escola, volta para casa antes do final do dia 
de escola?
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ............................................................... 2
Não se aplica ................................................ 8
ST1.10 Normalmente, se fica a saber que a comida da 
escola terminou, volta para lá no dia seguinte?
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ............................................................... 2
Não se aplica ................................................ 8
ST1.11 Ontem, comeu uma refeição antes de ir para a 
escolar?
NB: Se não houve escola no dia anterior, 
perguntar sobre o mais recente dia de escola.
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não: Não faz parte de pratica regular .......... 2
Não: Sem fome ............................................. 3
Não: Não tinha comida suficiente em casa .. 4
Não: Doença ................................................. 5
Não: Não teve tempo suficiente ................... 6
Não: Outro (especificar) ................................ 7
ST1.12 Ontem, comeu uma refeição depois da escola (e 
antes de ir dormir)?
NB: Se não houve escola no dia anterior, 
perguntar sobre o mais recente dia de escola.
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não: Não faz parte de pratica regular .......... 2
Não: Sem fome ............................................. 3
Não: Não tinha comida suficiente em casa .. 4
Não: Doença ................................................. 5
Não: Não teve tempo suficiente ................... 6
Não: Outro (especificar) ................................ 7
ST1.13 Quanto tempo é que leva para chegar à escola? ⎕⎕⎕ Minutos
ST1.14 Normalmente, de que forma vai para a escola? A pé ................................................................ 1
De bicicleta ..................................................... 2
De carro .......................................................... 3
De autocarro ................................................... 4
De motorizada ................................................ 5
Outro transporte local ..................................... 6
Outro ............................................................... 7
86
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Número da Escola: ⎕⎕⎕
Identificação do(a)
Aluno(a): ⎕⎕
QUESTIONÁRIO DOS PAIS
Estudo de base sobre a Alimentação Escolar 
Guiné-Bissau 2016
Região:
Sector:
Nome da Escola:
Nome do(a) aluno(a):
Classe: ⎕ Turma: ⎕
Nome dos Pais (Respondente): No de contacto:
Sexo do Respondente : M F
Nome do(a) Inquiridor(a):
Data da Entrevista: / / 2016
Resultado da Entrevista: Completou
.............................. 1
Recusou
.................................. 2
Outro
....................................... 6
Nome do(a) Supervisor(a): Nome do(a) Agente de Introdução de Dados #1:
Assinatura: Data da Introdução #1: / / 2016
Nome do(a) Agente de Introdução de Dados #2:
Data de Revisão: / / 2016 Data da Introdução #2: / / 2016
87
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
SECÇÃO 1: COMPOSIÇÃO DO AGREGADO FAMILIAR
No Questão Resposta Saltar
Um agregado familiar é definido como uma pessoa ou grupo de pessoas que costumam comer juntos, vivem no mesmo 
local e reconhecem a autoridade da mesma pessoa chamada chefe do agregado familiar. É possível que essas pessoas 
vivem em casas diferentes.
HH1.01 Qual é a sua relação com (Nome do/a 
aluno/a)?
Pai ................................................................ 1
Mãe ............................................................... 2
Guardião/a Nomeado/a ................................ 3
Avó/Avô .............................................................. 4
Outro ............................................................. 6
HH1.02 Qual é o sexo do chefe do agregado familiar? Masculino ..................................................... 1
Feminino ....................................................... 2
HH1.03 Qual e o estado civil do actual chefe do 
agregado familiar?
Casado(a) monógamo(a) ............................. 1
Casado(a) polígamo(a) ................................ 2
Viúvo(a) ........................................................ 3
Separado(a)/Divorciado(a) ........................... 4
Solteiro(a)/Nunca foi casado(a) .................... 5
HH1.04 O chefe do agregado familiar pertence a que 
grupo étnico?
Fula ............................................................... 1
Mandinga ...................................................... 2
Balanta ......................................................... 3
Manjaco ........................................................ 4
Pepel ............................................................ 5
Outro ............................................................. 6
HH1.05 Qual é o número total de pessoas que 
normalmente vivem nesta casa?
NB: O número de pessoas que comem e 
dormem nas mesmas instalações
⎕⎕
HH1.06 Determine o número total de pessoas normalmente a viver nesta casa, por categoria de idade e de 
sexo.
Escreve “00” se não existe nenhum.
Certifique que a soma A-H equivale a HH1.05 Masculino Feminino
Crianças com menos de 5 anos de idade A ⎕⎕ B ⎕⎕
Crianças entre os 5 e 17 anos de idade C ⎕⎕ D ⎕⎕
Pessoas entre 18 e 65 anos de idade E ⎕⎕ F ⎕⎕
Idosos > 65 G ⎕⎕ H ⎕⎕
SECÇÃO 2: CARACTERÍSTICAS DO AGREGADO FAMILIAR
No Questão Resposta Saltar
HH2.01 Qual é o seu tipo de habitação Propriedade própria ...................................... 1
Arrendamento ............................................... 2
Fornecido pelo empregador .......................... 3
Gratuito, autorizado ....................................... 4
Gratuito, não autorizado (ocupação) ............. 5
88
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Outro ............................................................. 6
HH2.02 As paredes exteriores da habitação principal do 
agregado familiar são predominantemente feitos 
de que material?
Confirmar via OBSERVAÇÃO.
MATERIAL NATURAL
Não tem parede ........................................ 11
Cana de bambu/palmeira/tronco .............. 12
Lama e resíduos vegetais ........................ 13
MATERIAL RUDIMENTAR
Bambu/kirintim com lama ......................... 21
Pedra com lama ....................................... 22
Adobe não recoberto ................................ 23
Contraplacado .......................................... 24
Cartão ....................................................... 25
Madeira de recuperação ........................... 26
Taipe ......................................................... 27
MATERIAL ACABADO
Cimento .................................................... 31
Pedra com gesso/cimento ........................ 32
Tijolos ....................................................... 33
Bloco de cimento ...................................... 34
Adobe reforçado ....................................... 35
Adobe recoberto ....................................... 36
Pranchas de madeiras/shingles ............... 37
OUTRO ....................................................... 96
HH2.03 O telhado da habitação principal do agregado 
familiar é predominantemente feito de que 
material?
Confirmar via OBSERVAÇÃO.
MATERIAL NATURAL
Não tem tecto/telhado .............................. 11
Palha/folha de palmeira ............................ 12
Erva .......................................................... 13
MATERIAL RUDIMENTAR
Esteira ...................................................... 21
Palmeira/bambu ....................................... 22
Prancha de madeira ................................. 23
MATERIAL ACABADO
Metal ......................................................... 31
Madeira ..................................................... 32
Zinco ......................................................... 33
Fibra de cimento ....................................... 34
Telha ......................................................... 35
Cimento .................................................... 36
Prancha de madeira/shingles.................... 37
OUTRO ....................................................... 96
89
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
HH2.04 Pavimento principal é feito predominantemente 
de que material?
Confirmar via OBSERVAÇÃO.
CHÃO NATURAL
Terra batida .............................................. 11
CHÃO RUDIMENTAR
Madeira rudimentar .................................. 21
Palmeira/cana de bambu .......................... 22
CHÃO TERMINADO
Parquet ou madeira encerrada ................. 31
Mosaico .................................................... 32
Cimento .................................................... 33
Vinil ou asfalto .......................................... 34
Outro ........................................................... 96
HH2.05 Qual é a principal fonte de energia ou 
combustível que o agregado familiar mais usa 
para cozinhar?
Electricidade ............................................... 1
Gás natural ................................................. 2
Petróleo/parafina/querosene ...................... 3
Carvão vegetal ........................................... 4
Carvão mineral ........................................... 5
Lenha .......................................................... 6
Fezes de animais ....................................... 7
Aparra ......................................................... 8
Outro ........................................................... 9
HH2.06 Alguém, no agregado familiar possui um 
telemóvel que funciona?
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ................................................................ 2
HH2.07 Qual é a sua fonte principal de água? ÁGUA DA TORNEIRA
Canalizada dentro da casa ....................... 11
Canalizada fora da casa (pátio/quintal) .... 12
Canalizada ao vizinho .............................. 13
Torneira pública/natural fontanário ........... 14
Poço a bomba/forragem ........................... 21
POÇO CAVADO
Poço protegido ......................................... 31
Poço não protegido .................................. 32
ÁGUA DE NASCENTE
Nascente/fonte protegida ......................... 41
Nascente fonte não protegida .................. 42
Água da chuva .......................................... 51
Carroça com pequena cisterna/barril ....... 52
Camião cisterna ........................................ 61
Furo .......................................................... 71
Água superficial (rio/lagoa/canal etc.) ...... 81
Água mineral (de garrafa) ......................... 91
Outro .......................................................... 96
HH2.08 Qual tipo de casa de banho é que os membros 
deste Agregado Familiar, normalmente utilizam?
Retrete tradicional ......................................... 1
Retrete melhorada ........................................ 2
90
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Latrina com autoclismo ................................. 3
Latrina sem autoclismo ................................. 4
Enterra as fezes no quintal ........................... 5 →HH2.11
Enterra as fezes fora do quintal .................... 6 →HH2.11
Na mata (natureza) ....................................... 7 →HH2.11
Balde ............................................................. 8 →HH2.11
Outro ............................................................. 9 →HH2.11
HH2.09 Esta casa-de-banho é normalmente partilhada 
como com outros agregados?
Sim ................................................................ 1
Não ................................................................ 2 →HH2.11
HH2.10 Quantas famílias usam esta casa-de-banho? Número de agregados ......................... 0⎕
10 agregados ou mais .............................. 95
Não sabe .................................................. 98
HH2.11 O agregado familiar possui: Sim Não
Electricidade Electricidade ............................ 1 2
Rádio Rádio ....................................... 1 2
Televisor Televisor ................................. 1 2
Frigorífico / arca congeladora Frigorífico /arca congeladora .. 1 2
Filtro de água (cerâmico) Filtro de água (cerâmico) ........ 1 2
Gerador Gerador ................................... 1 2
Ferro Ferro ....................................... 1 2
Telefone fixo Telefone fixo ........................... 1 2
HH2.12 Algum membro do agregado familiar tem o seu 
próprio: Sim Não
Telemóvel Telemóvel ............................... 1 2
Carro Carro ....................................... 1 2
Bicicleta Bicicleta ................................... 1 2
Motorizada Motorizada .............................. 1 2
Piroga/canoa Piroga/canoa ........................... 1 2
Carreta com tracção animal Carreta com tracção animal .... 1 2
Relógio Relógio .................................... 1 2
SECÇÃO 3: EDUCAÇÃO
No Questão Resposta Saltar
HH3.01 O pai do(a) aluno(a) ou guardião masculino vive nesta 
casa?
Sim .................................................. 1
Não ................................................. 2 →HH3.05
HH3.02 O pai/guardião masculino frequentou alguma vez, a 
escola ou pré-escola?
Sim .................................................. 1
Não ................................................. 2 →HH3.05
HH3.03 Qual é o nível de instrução do o pai/guardião 
masculino?
Nenhum …………………………… 1
Escola corânica (Leitura) ………..... 2
Escola corânica (Escrever) ……….. 3
Ensino Básico 1 (1-4 ano) ………… 4
Ensino Básico 2 (5-6 ano) ………..... 5
Ensino Básico 3 (7-9 ano) …………. 6
91
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Ensino Secundário (10-12 ano) ….. 7
Ensino Superior ……………………. 8
Ensino Técnico/profissional ………. 9
HH3.04 O pai ou tutor masculino sabe ler e escrever o 
Português?
Sim .................................................. 1
Não ................................................. 2
Não sabe ........................................ 8
HH3.05 A mãe do(a) aluno(a) ou tutora vive nesta casa? Sim .................................................. 1
Não .................................................. 2 →HH4.01
HH3.06 A mãe/tutora frequentou alguma vez a escola ou pré￾escola?
Sim .................................................. 1
Não ................................................. 2 →HH4.01
HH3.07 Qual é o nível de instrução do a mãe/tutora? Nenhum …………………………… 1
Escola corânica (Leitura) ………..... 2
Escola corânica (Escrever) ……….. 3
Ensino Básico 1 (1-4 ano) ………… 4
Ensino Básico 2 (5-6 ano) ………..... 5
Ensino Básico 3 (7-9 ano) …………. 6
Ensino Secundário (10-12 ano) ….. 7
Ensino Superior ……………………. 8
Ensino Técnico/profissional ………. 9
HH3.08 A mãe ou tutora sabe ler e escrever o Português? Sim .................................................. 1
Não ................................................. 2
Não sabe ........................................ 8
SECÇÃO 4: CLASSIFICAÇÃO DO CONSUMO DE ALIMENTOS
HH4.01 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu ARROZ ⎕
HH4.02 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu OUTROS CEREAIS ⎕
HH4.03 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Tubérculos 
(inhame, batata, etc.) ⎕
HH4.04 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Oleaginosas/ 
Leguminosas ⎕
HH4.05 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Legumes ⎕
HH4.06 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Frutos ⎕
HH4.07 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Carne, Frango e 
outra proteína animal? ⎕
HH4.08 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Peixe e frutos do 
mar? ⎕
92
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
HH4.09 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Ovo? ⎕
HH4.10 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Leite/ 
Iogurte/Produtos leiteiros? ⎕
HH4.11 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Óleo culinário / 
Gorduras? ⎕
HH4.12 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu Açúcar/Mel? ⎕
HH4.13 Nos últimos 7 dias, quantas vezes (dias) o seu agregado familiar consumiu 
Condimentos/especiarias? ⎕
SECÇÃO 5: SUBSISTÊNCIA
No Questão Resposta Saltar
HH5.01 Quantos membros actuais do agregado têm um 
rendimento?
Homens Mulheres
⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
HH5.02 Qual foi a fonte de receita mais importante para o seu agregado familiar no último 
ano? Qual foi a segunda?
Não enumerar. Permitir ao inquirido responder. Se somente uma (1) fonte, registar “99” para 
a segunda fonte.
Códigos para 
0
1
Assalariado (privado, publico) 07 Marabout (“muro”)
0
2
Agricultor(a) 08 Artesanato
0
3
Criador(a) de gado 09 Caça/Pesca
0
4
Empreendedor(a) individual (pedreiro, pintura, 
carpintaria, artesanato, etc)
10 Colheita de lenha/palha
0
5
Comércio 11 Outros a especificar
0
6
Doméstico(a)
Primeira fonte Segunda fonte
⎕⎕ ⎕⎕
HH5.03 Qual é a renda (liquida) anual aproximada do 
seu agregado familiar? (Em XOF)
Menos de 60.000 ........................................... 1
Entre 60.000 e 150.000 .................................. 2
Entre 150.000 e 450.000 ................................ 3
Mais de 450.000 ............................................. 4
HH5.04 Em alguma altura nos últimos 4 meses, o seu 
domicílio recebeu apoio (dinheiro/senhas, 
alimentos, insumos agrícolas, materiais de 
construção, etc.) para ajudá-lo a lidar com a 
situação económica do seu agregado familiar?
Sim ................................................................. 1
Não ................................................................. 2 →HH5.06
Não sabe ........................................................ 8 →HH5.06
HH5.05 Recebeu de quem, tal apoio?
Não incitar a resposta. Resposta múltiplas, 
escolha (faça um círculo à volta) todas que se 
aplicam.
Familiares, vizinhos, ou amigos ..................... A
Governo .......................................................... B
Donativos Privados ........................................ C
ONG ............................................................... D
Outro .............................................................. E
HH5.06 A sua família está a apoiar familiares, vizinhos 
ou amigos com alimentos ou dinheiro de 
momento?
Sim ................................................................. 1
Não ................................................................. 2
93
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
SECÇÃO 6 – ESTRATÉGIA DE ADAPTAÇÃO E DE SOBREVIVÊNCIA
Estratégia alimentar: No decorrer dos últimos 7 dias, se houve períodos em que não 
teve acesso a comida suficiente ou recursos suficientes para comprar comida, quantas 
vezes seu agregado recorreu às práticas seguintes ?
Frequência 
(em numero de 
dias de 0 a 7)
HH6.01 Consumir alimentos menos preferidos e mais baratos ⎕
HH6.02 Emprestar comida ou contar com o apoio dos parentes/amigos ⎕
HH6.03 Diminuir a quantidade de comida no momento das refeições ⎕
HH6.04 Reduzir as quantidades consumidas pelos adultos ao benefício das crianças mais novas ⎕
HH6.05 Reduzir o número de refeições diárias (saltar 1 ou 2 refeições no dia) ⎕
Estratégia de stress (relativas aos meios de subsistência)
HH6.06 Enviar membros do agregado em migração de trabalho ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.07 Procurar actividades alternativas ou adicionais ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.08 Comprar / Pedir comida a crédito, Emprestar comida ou contar com a 
ajuda de amigos ou parentes ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.09 Vender bens não produtivos (ex.: móveis, jóias, etc.) ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.10 Vender animais (desabastecimento, ou seja vender mais que o habitual) ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.11 Utilizar a poupança do agregado ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.12 Emprestar dinheiro ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
Estratégia de crise (relativas aos meios de subsistência)
HH6.13 Vender bens produtivos (ex. carreta, charrua, sementes, etc.) ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.14 Reduzir as despesas de saúde e de educação ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.15 Retirar as crianças da escola ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.16 Vender ou consumir as sementes ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.17 Vender as fêmeas reprodutoras ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
Estratégia de urgência (relativas aos meios de subsistência)
HH6.18 Enviar membros do agregado mendigar ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
HH6.19 Vender parcelas de terreno ⎕ (1 = Sim; 2 = Não)
94
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
SECÇÃO 7: REFEIÇÕES ESCOLARES
No Questão Resposta Saltar
HH7.01 Qual é o ano de escolaridade que (Nome do/a 
aluno/a) frequenta?
Pré-primária .................................................. 1
1º Ano ........................................................... 2
2º Ano ........................................................... 3
3º Ano ........................................................... 4
4º Ano ........................................................... 5
5º Ano ........................................................... 6
6º Ano ........................................................... 7
Não sabe ...................................................... 8
HH7.02 Qual é o horário que (Nome do Aluno) 
normalmente frequenta na escola?
Manhã .......................................................... 1
Tarde ............................................................ 2
Dia inteiro ..................................................... 3
HH7.03 Nos últimos 5 dias de escola, quantos dias 
(Nome do/a aluno/a) comeu uma refeição antes 
de ir à escola? ⎕
HH7.04 Nos últimos 5 dias de escola, quantos dias 
(Nome do/a aluno/a)comeu uma refeição apos a 
escola (e antes de ir para a cama à noite)? ⎕
HH7.05 Actualmente, a escola oferece refeições 
GRATUITAS a (Nome do/a aluno/a) na escola?
Sim ............................................................... 1
Não ............................................................... 2 →HH7.13
Não sabe ...................................................... 8 →HH7.13
HH7.06 Nos últimos 5 dias escolares, quantos dias 
(Nome do/a aluno/a) comeu uma refeição na 
escolar?
Número de dias ....................................... ⎕
Não sabe .................................................... 8
HH7.07 Nos dias de escola, em que as refeições 
escolares são oferecidas, reduz a quantidade de 
comida servida a (Nome do/a aluno/a) 
comparado ao fim-de-semana?
Sim ............................................................... 1
Não ............................................................... 2 →HH7.09
HH7.08 Se sim: em média que quantidade reduz 
comparativamente ao fim-de-semana?
25% .............................................................. 1
50% .............................................................. 2
75% .............................................................. 3
HH7.09 Houve uma altura durante o ano escolar em que 
a escola não ofereceu refeições?
Sim .............................................................. 1
Não .............................................................. 2 →HH7.11
Não sabe ..................................................... 8 →HH7.11
HH7.10 Se sim: como é que (Nome do/a aluno/a) comeu 
na escola?
Criança levou a sua própria refeição e 
comeu na escola.......................................... 1
Deu dinheiro para comprar comida na escola 2
Criança veio para casa para a refeição, e 
depois voltou para a escola .......................... 3
Criança veio para a casa para a refeição e 
ficou, também em casa ................................ 4
Sem almoço ................................................. 5
Outro (Especificar) ....................................... 6
HH7.11 A escola, alguma vez, pediu o pagamento 
especifico de refeições escolares durante este 
ano escolar (2015)?
Sim ............................................................... 1
Não ............................................................... 2
95
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
HH7.12 Como pode obter informação sobre o programa 
de alimentação escolar ou fazer reclamações se 
necessário?
Nenhum ........................................................ 1
Reuniões regulares com a direcção da 
escolar (CGE) ............................................... 2
Reuniões regulares com Administradores da 
Escola ........................................................... 3
Caixa de sugestão ........................................ 4
Linha de Apoio ............................................. 5
Comunicação informal (verbal) com 
professor / CGE ............................................ 6
Não sabe ...................................................... 7
Outro (especificar) ........................................ 8
HH7.13 Durante o corrente mês, com excepção de 
feriados/fins-de-semana, o/a (Nome de/a 
Aluno/a) faltou dias de escola?
Sim ............................................................... 1
Não ............................................................... 2 →HH7.15
HH7.14 Quais são as razoes por faltar as aulas?
Registar ‘00’ se resposta for ‘Não’.
S N # de dias faltados
A. Problemas de Transporte 1 2 ⎕⎕
B. Criança trabalha na quinta /cuida do gado 1 2 ⎕⎕
C. Criança cuida dos irmãos/ trabalho domestico 1 2 ⎕⎕
D. Falta de alimentos em casa 1 2 ⎕⎕
E. Devido à insegurança, medo de ir à escola 1 2 ⎕⎕
F. Doença 1 2 ⎕⎕
G. Cerimonias, festivais ou eventos familiares 1 2 ⎕⎕
H. Castigo pela escola 1 2 ⎕⎕
I. Nenhum razão especifica (criança simplesmente faltou) 1 2 ⎕⎕
J. Outro (especificar) 1 2 ⎕⎕
HH7.15 Acredita que existe algum benefício na 
educação primaria?
Sim .............................................................. 1
Não .............................................................. 2 →HH7.17
HH7.16 Se sim: quais são alguns dos benefícios da 
educação?
NÃO incitar. Resposta Múltipla – Seleccione 
(com um círculo) todas que se aplicam.
Melhora a taxa de alfabetização ................. A
Desenvolvimento de competências sociais . B
Aumenta a capacidade de aprender novas 
competências (adopção de tecnologia) ...... C
As raparigas permanecem mais tempo na 
escola e casamentos precoces são 
atrasados ................................................... D
Melhora a coesão da comunidade ............. E
Ajuda a quebrar o ciclo de pobreza ............ F
Aumenta as perspectivas da futura auto￾suficiência económica do pupilo ................. G
96
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
A educação das meninas, melhora o bem￾estar geral das famílias (nutrição, saúde, 
etc.) ............................................................. H
Outro (especificar) ...................................... I
HH7.17 Nos últimos 30 dias, houve algum caso de 
ameaças físicas e/ou emocionais à segurança 
da sua criança, às quais ela foi exposta ao 
regressar da escola, ou na própria escola?
Sim .............................................................. 1
Não ............................................................... 2
Não sabe ...................................................... 8
HH7.18 Se ‘Sim’: Por favor, indique os tipos de 
ameaças.
Não avisar. Resposta múltipla – coloque um 
circulo à volta de todas que se aplicam.
Violação ........................................................ A
Assedio Sexual ............................................. B
Assalto ......................................................... C
Ataques de Animais .................................... D
Assédio/perseguição moral, intimidação ...... E
Abuso de drogas .......................................... F
Castigo corporal, insultos, intimidacoes por 
parte do corpo docente ou outro actor adulto 
da escola ...................................................... G
Outros (especifique) ..................................... H
Fim da entrevista.
Tirar uma foto à pessoa entrevistada (se ela aceitar) 
Agradecer o entrevistado pela sua paciência!
Considerações específicas sobre a entrevista:
97
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
Annex IV – MacGovern-Dole Performance Indicators 
98
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
99
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
100
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
101
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016
102
School Feeding Baseline Survey, Guinea-Bissau 2016