nfpa.org
Reference Study/Baseline of the 
«FY 16 McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in 
Haiti »
World Food Program
February 2017

Reference Study/Baseline of the 
« McGovern Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haiti »
Agreement: FFE-521-2016/016-00
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
Acknowledgements
This study benefited from the professional contribution of 
several individuals as much on the internal level of the firm 
Atlantis Global Vision as on the external level. The internal team 
members provided their input under the leadership of Mr. 
Johnson DESIR, CEO of the firm, who was also in charge of both 
the conceptual aspect and the editorial aspect of this study.
The firm’s management team would like to thank Mrs. Keitlène 
CHARLES, of the study's steering committee and an education 
specialist, for her contribution to the analysis of the qualitative 
data obtained from the focus groups interviews conducted with 
the community. It also acknowledges Gandy P. DORIVAL, a
member of the study's steering committee, a specialist in 
Statistics, Population and Development for his critical analysis 
of the report and his support for the English translation.
The technical support team included Mr. Alain G. FOURNIER and 
Mr. Gethro DAVANCE. They contributed to the programming of 
the data collection instruments and the training of Field agents
who participated in the collection of data. This field team 
essentially consisted of young university students whose names 
are as follow:
Table 1. List of Field agents
First Name and Last Name
Women
First Name and Last Name
Men
Ornica DAUDER Michel FLORESTANT
Darline RAPHAEL Joudlin PASCAL
Vialyne JEAN-LOUIS Jeff Angelo BAPTISTE
Daphnée S. POTEAU Jean-Marc TURENE
Stéphania JOSEPH Dieudonné TURENE
Féline RAPHAEL Roberto JEAN
Lessimène ADRIEN Nelson BROWN
Stéphanie TÉLÉMAQUE Patrick LÉON
Kesta AUGUSTIN Berly GÉNÉUS
Anne Lucette JOSEPH Joudlet PASCAL
Cindy Jaèlle CALIXTE Bernard JASMIN
Marie-Claire JULIEN Lecider LÉON
Milca JULMICE Daniel JEAN
Kattya C. MARCELLUS ORELUS Renel GUILLAUME
Fabiola ALABRÉ Jerry LAMY
Anne-Flore D. JOSEPH Raymond OSCAR
Isabelle E. OCTAVIUS Bonenfant DARÉUS
Lynecey TOUSSAINT Dydieu DORCÉLIS
Monaise JOSEPH -----------------------
Valérie CHÉRY -----------------------
The management of Atlantis Global Vision expresses special thanks 
to the WFP Technical Team for their valuable remarks, which
helped improve the work quality. Already, during training of the 
field staff, two members of the WFP technical team, Mrs. Claudia 
SCHWARZE and Mr. Tony DESIRAL, contributed to the training of 
Field agents preselected for data collection.
During the presentation of the preliminary report, the remarks of 
the WFP team also contributed to improve the study narrative.
Table 2. List of WFP team members who were present during the 
presentation of the Baseline preliminary report
No Names Functions at WFP
1 Damieta MENDES Consultant M & E
2 Peter VOEGTLI Chief of Operations
3 Claudia SCHWARZE Head of M & E
4 Roland FLEURANT Senior Program Assistant
5 Lorena Pontes MASRI Program Officer 
6 Myrlande NORELIA Program Assistant
7 Lesly GUILLAUME National Program 
OfficerCanteen
8 Raphy FAVRE Consultant
9 Monique BIEN-AIMÉ Monitoring Agent 
However, the management of Atlantis Global Vision expresses its 
sincere thanks to Mrs. Damieta MENDES and Mrs. Claudia 
SCHWARZE for the quality of the technical discussions conducted
by the firm throughout the implementation of this study. The 
quality of this technical collaboration is also one of the factors 
that have contributed to the success of this mission.
Acronym List
AGV: Atlantis Global Vision
KAP: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices
SC: School Council
SMC: School Management Committee 
CNAS: National School Feeding Commission
MAST: Ministry of Social Affairs and Labor 
MENFP: Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training 
WFP: World Food Program 
PNCS: National School Feeding Program 
PSNAS: National Policy and Strategy for School Feeding 
CBO: Community Based Organizations
SABER: Systems Approach for Better Education Results
List of tables
Table 1. List of Field agents------------------------------------------- 4
Table 2. List of WFP team members who were present during 
the presentation of the Baseline preliminary report ----------- 4
Table 3. List of some baseline indicators------------------------ 17
Table 4. The main research questions -------------------------- 19
Table 5. The SMC’s structure in the schools -------------------- 22
Table 6. Availability of school infrastructures------------------ 23
Table 7. Enrollment by grade level and gender in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools’ registers ----------- 24
Table 8. Attendance by grade level and by gender observed in 
the classroom of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24
Table 9. Enrollment by grade level and by gender in the 
decision lists of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools25
Table 10. Number of repeaters by grade level and by gender 
in the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools---------------- 26
Table 11. Success rate by grade level and by gender in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools ------------------------ 26
Table 12. Repetition rate by grade level and by gender in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools ------------------------ 27
Table 13. Drop-out rate by grade level and by gender in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools ------------------------ 27
Table 14. Causes of drop-out - Beneficiary schools----------- 28
Table 15. Causes of drop-out - Non-beneficiary schools----- 28
Table 16. Types of storage locations for the school canteen 
food ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 29
Table 17. Observations on the schools’ kitchen --------------- 29
Table 18. Availability of kitchen equipment and utensils in the 
schools------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
Table 19. Students’ access to water------------------------------ 32
Table 20. Compliance with good health and hygiene practices
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
Table 21. Compliance with good storage practices----------- 33
Table 22. Compliance with good practices for safe food 
preparation------------------------------------------------------------- 34
Table 23. Training areas of SMC members and service staff34
Table 24. Observation of school principals on the relevance of 
the school meal program in their school and on student 
behavior----------------------------------------------------------------- 35
Table 25. Teacher’s observations on students’ academic life 
and the meal available at school---------------------------------- 35
Table 26. Observations of school principals of non-beneficiary 
on school meals and students-------------------------------------- 36
Table 27. Principals’ remarks from non-beneficiary schools 
(Continued)------------------------------------------------------------- 37
Table 28. Teachers’ comments on students’ school life in non￾beneficiary schools --------------------------------------------------- 37
Table 29. Distribution of the sample of students interviewed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38
Table 30. Eating habits and preferences of beneficiary 
students----------------------------------------------------------------- 41
Table 31(Continued)-------------------------------------------------- 42
Table 32. Food preferences of non-beneficiary students---- 45
Table 33. Motivation and academic performance of non￾beneficiary students-------------------------------------------------- 45
Table 34. Profile of the Focus-Groups participants ----------- 46
List of figures
Figure 1. Profile of the positions within the SMC and 
distribution of functions by gender-------------------------------22
Figure 2. Gender Ratio of students enrolled in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools’ registers ----------23
Figure 3. Gender Ratio of students present in the classroom 
of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools-----------------24
Figure 4. Gender Ratio of students recorded in the 2015-
2016 decision lists (1st Grade to 6th Grade)---------------------25
Figure 5. Gender Ratio of students promoted in 2015-2016 
from the 1st Grade to the 6th Grade -------------------------------26
Figure 6. Availability of kitchen equipment and cooking 
utensils in the schools-------------------------------------------------30
Figure 7. Sources of cooking energy used in the schools’ 
kitchens------------------------------------------------------------------31
Figure 8. Sources of cooking energy used in the schools’ 
kitchens based on residence area---------------------------------31
Figure 9. Origin of the water used in the school’s kitchen--32
Figure 10. Status of students aged 7 to 10 in the beneficiary 
schools--------------------------------------------------------------------38
Figure 11. Status of the students aged 11 to 13 in the 
beneficiary schools----------------------------------------------------38
Figure 12. Status of students aged 14 to 16 in the 
beneficiary schools----------------------------------------------------39
Figure 13. The status of students interviewed in the 
classrooms of beneficiary schools---------------------------------39
Figure 14. Status of students aged 7 to 10 in non-beneficiary 
schools--------------------------------------------------------------------40
Figure 15. Status of students aged 11 to 13 in non￾beneficiary schools----------------------------------------------------40
Figure 16. Status of students aged 14 to 16 in non￾beneficiary schools----------------------------------------------------40
Figure 17. Status of students interviewed in the classrooms of 
non-beneficiary schools ----------------------------------------------40
Figure 18. The repeaters interviewed in regards to the 
benefits gained from the food served at their school’s 
canteen-------------------------------------------------------------------42
Figure 19. The graduates with an intermediary average 
interviewed in regards to the benefits gained from the meal 
served in their school canteen -------------------------------------43
Figure 20. The graduates with an average greater than 
7/10 interviewed in regards to the benefits gained from the 
meal served in their school canteen------------------------------43
Figure 21. Total percentage of the students interviewed in 
regards to the benefits obtained from the meal served at 
their school canteen --------------------------------------------------44
Figure 22. Habits related to the nutrition of the non￾beneficiary students of a school meal program---------------44
Figure 23. Distribution of the 30 communities for the Focus￾Groups--------------------------------------------------------------------46
Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...............................................................................................4
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................6
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................6
CHAPTER I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................9
1.1. EDUCATION CONTEXT IN HAITI AND GENERAL 
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................9
1.2. THE STUDY BACKGROUND........................................................ 10
1.3. NATIONAL POLICY FOR SCHOOL FEEDING.............................. 10
1.4. MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY ................................................. 11
1.4.1. The results of the quantitative school survey ...............11
1.4.1.1. Organizational structures and infrastructures in the 
schools 11
1.4.1.2. Students’ enrollment and school performance........ 11
1.4.1.3. Organization and operation of the school canteen in 
the beneficiary schools......................................................................... 11
1.4.1.4. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) of the 
school canteen managers .................................................................... 12
1.4.1.5. Observations of beneficiary school principals on the 
relevance of the school canteen and students’ behavior....... 12
1.4.1.6. Observations of beneficiary schools’ teachers on the 
relevance of the canteen in the schools ........................................ 13
1.4.1.7. Observations of the principals from the non￾beneficiary schools................................................................................. 13
1.4.1.8. Observations of the teachers from the non￾beneficiary schools................................................................................. 13
1.4.2. The results of the students quantitative survey...........14
1.4.2.1. Eating habits and academic performance of 
beneficiary students .............................................................................. 14
1.4.2.2. Eating habits and academic performance of non￾beneficiary students .............................................................................. 14
1.4.3. Results of the qualitative survey of community actors
15
1.4.3.1. Results of interviews conducted with the community 
actors 15
1.5. PARTIAL CONCLUSION ............................................................... 16
1.6. SOME KEY INDICATORS ............................................................. 17
CHAPTER II: OBJECTIVES, GENERAL ORIENTATIONS, AND STUDY 
METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................18
2.1. STUDY OBJECTIVES .................................................................... 18
2.2. STUDY’S GENERAL ORIENTATION........................................... 18
2.3. MAIN RESEARCH QUESTIONS ................................................... 19
2.4. STUDY METHODOLOGY.............................................................. 20
2.4.1. Sampling........................................................................................20
2.4.2. Data collection sources and respondents.......................20
2.4.3. Data collection............................................................................20
2.4.4. Data limitations.........................................................................21
2.4.5. Narrative chronology of the study implementation ..21
CHAPTER III: THE MAIN RESULTS OF THE STUDY ........................................22
3.1. THE QUANTITATIVE SCHOOLS SURVEY ...........................................22
3.1.1. SMC structure ..............................................................................22
3.1.2. School infrastructures availability ....................................23
3.1.3. School enrollment analysis....................................................23
3.1.3.1. In the registration records.................................................23
3.1.3.2. Attendance in the classroom.............................................24
3.1.3.3. About academic performance...........................................25
3.1.4. The main causes of academic drop-out in the 
beneficiary schools......................................................................................27
3.1.5. The main causes of academic dropout in the non￾beneficiary schools......................................................................................28
3.1.6. The canteen: organization, operation and availability 
of kitchen equipments................................................................................28
3.1.6.1. Food Storage ............................................................................28
3.1.3.1.1 Description of the school canteen kitchen ..........29
30
3.1.6.3. Availability of equipment and utensils.........................30
3.1.6.4. Availability of kitchen cooking equipment and 
utensils in the schools ...........................................................................30
3.1.6.5. Sources of energy used for cooking ...............................30
3.1.6.6. Sources of cooking energy used by residence area.31
3.1.6.7. The source of the water used in the school’s kitchen
31
3.1.6.8. Students’ access to water....................................................32
3.1.7. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) of School 
Canteen Managers.......................................................................................32
3.1.7.1. Compliance with good health and hygiene practices..32
3.1.7.2. Compliance with good storage practices in the kitchen
33
3.1.7.3. Compliance with good practices for safe food 
preparation ...................................................................................................34
3.1.7.4. Training of SMC members and of Service Staff...........34
3.1.8. School Administrators’ observations on the relevance 
of the canteen and students’ behavior................................................34
3.1.8.1. Remarks of beneficiary schools’ principals...................34
3.1.8.2. Observations of the teachers from the beneficiary 
schools on the relevance of the school meal program ............35
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.....................................36
3.1.8.3. Observations of principals from non-beneficiary
schools 36
3.1.8.4. Teachers’ observations from non-beneficiary schools
37
3.2. THE QUANTITATIVE SURVEY OF STUDENTS ...........................38
3.2.1. Distribution of the students’ sample interviewed........38
3.2.2. Status of the beneficiary students......................................38
3.2.3. Status of the non-beneficiary students.............................39
3.2.4. Dietary habits and academic performance of 
beneficiary students and the canteen.................................................41
3.2.4.1. Students’ eating habits and preferences......................41
3.2.4.2. Diversity and frequency of the students’ diet in the 
school 41
3.2.4.3. Benefits gained by the beneficiary students ..............42
3.2.4.4. Benefits gained by the students based on their 
academic performance ......................................................................... 42
3.2.5. Eating Habits and academic performance of the non￾beneficiary students....................................................................................44
3.2.5.1 Habits associated with the students’ nutrition ........ 44
3.2.5.2 Food preferences of non-beneficiary students......... 44
3.2.5.3 Motivation and academic performance of the non￾beneficiary students .............................................................................. 45
3.3. THE QUALITATIVE SURVEY OF THE COMMUNITY GROUPS .. 46
3.3.1. Choice and distribution of communities for the Focus￾Groups 46
3.3.2. Profile of the discussion groups’ participants...............46
3.3.3. Discussion topics with the participants...........................46
3.3.4. The Focus-Groups results.......................................................47
3.3.4.1 Discussions with school principals................................ 47
3.3.4.2 Discussion with the teachers............................................ 48
3.3.4.3. Discussions with the service personnel ...................... 48
3.3.4.4. Discussions with the students ......................................... 48
3.3.4.5. Discussions with the SMC members and the Parents
48
3.4. DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE REFLECTIONS ON SCHOOL 
FEEDING IN HAITI ........................................................................................ 49
BIBLIOGRAPHY3 .................................................................................................................52
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRES ............................................................................................53
08
CHAPTER I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Education context1 in Haiti 
and general introduction
For several decades, the recurring problems faced by the 
education system have been a major obstacle to its 
development and to the provision of quality educational 
services. Pointed out by all the strategic and operational 
documents of the Ministry of Education, these problems mainly 
relate to the governance of the sector, the access and the 
provision of education, the internal and external efficiency of 
the system.
In greater detail, these salient features relate to: (i) the 
shortage and inequitable distribution of the predominantly
private school system; (ii) the poor quality of the provision of 
education and the weakness of the internal efficiency resulting 
in very low rates of academic achievement and relatively high 
rates of repetition and drop-out; (iii) the weakness of the 
education system governance which prevents the MENFP from 
effectively performing its major roles of regulating, planning 
and guiding. The massive destruction of school and 
administrative infrastructures, the material and human losses 
caused by the devastating earthquake and hurricane have 
magnified the situation with the risk of an increase in the 
number of school-age children outside of the system. 
(Approximately 500,000).
According to the latest school census (2011), only 20% of the 
provision of education comes from the public sector; the
remaining being in the hands of the non-public sector most of 
the time managed without regulation and operating below 
minimum quality standards. Despite its proven importance, 
access to activities targeting young children (0-5 years)
remains very limited (67% of gross enrollment rate for pre￾school 3-5 years, MENFP 2011). Poor quality is reflected in 
particular by average repetition rates of 15% and drop-out 
rates around 13%. Combined with late entry, these factors 
increase the proportion of over-age children in primary school 
(65%). It is noted that the survival rate in 5th grade of primary
school is low (25%). This alarming situation is largely due to 
the high proportion of unskilled teachers (more than 65%), 
unfavorable learning conditions, and the non-application of
norms and standards that can guarantee a quality education.
1 Operational Plan MENFP 2010-2015
Among the children most affected by limited access and lack of quality 
are those in rural areas, low-income families in slums of large urban 
centers, children separated from their families (residential centers, 
children in domestic service, children living in the streets), children 
with disabilities and displaced children.
The social shocks of recent global crises have led to increased demand 
for school feeding programs in low-income countries. These programs 
are part of the response to social shocks but are also a sustainable 
financial investment in human capital as part of the long-term global 
efforts to achieve Education for All (EFA) and social protection for the 
poor.
This study is carried out before the implementation of the McGovern 
Dole International program in support of the Government of the 
Republic of Haiti. Implemented by the World Food Program (WFP) 
and its partners, it addresses issues related to health, nutrition and 
students’ performance in schools. A set of indicators implemented
will help monitor actions and evaluate the results associated with the 
implementation of the program activities. Thus, this study, by 
measuring the baseline values of the benchmarks, will help program 
managers to better focus on the effectiveness of their actions to 
achieve the set goals.
This report presents the results of this study carried out from 
November 2016 to February 2017 and is structured in three 
chapters. The first chapter summarizes the main findings of this 
study. It provides a summary description of the most relevant points 
associated with this research. The second chapter presents the 
objectives, the elements of orientations and methodology which 
guided the implementing actions of this study. The third chapter 
presents the main results of the study, considering three levels of 
analysis: 1) the quantitative survey of the schools, 2) the quantitative 
survey of the students, and 3) the qualitative survey with community 
actors.
The results from the quantitative survey of the schools present their 
organizational and infrastructural state, their enrollment, and their 
technical and managerial capacities to oversee the activities 
associated with the management of a school feeding program.
The quantitative students survey examines students' eating habits 
and preferences while highlighting the relationship between the 
availability of a canteen at the school and students’ motivation as well 
as academic performance. The analysis of the perception of school 
principals and teachers on the importance of school meals forms an 
integral part of this section of the report.
 09
As for the qualitative survey of community actors, it presents 
the results of discussions on the different topics of interest for 
the management of the program.
1.2. The Study background
This baseline study is carried out to support the approach for 
the implementation of a school meal program. This program 
will be implemented by WFP and its partners and will support 
the Government of the Republic of Haiti. It is expected, mainly,
to provide nutritional support to 176,765 schoolchildren 
attending public primary schools in the program’s priority 
areas. Implementation will be carried out in conjunction with 
WFP’s partners.
This nutritional intake will provide school children with a daily 
hot meal. This meal will contain 120 grams of cereals, 30 grams 
of vegetables, 10 grams of vegetable oil and 5 grams of iodized 
salt.
The implementation of this project and the results it pursues
are focused on achieving the two most important strategic 
objectives of the McGovern-Dole program. The first relates to 
improving the literacy level of school-age children and the 
second relates to the increased use of good dietary and sanitary 
practices in schools.
This program seeks to achieve the following key outcomes that 
are stated in the study’s terms of reference:
i. Students’ attendance at school is improved;
ii. The policy and regulatory framework is improved;
iii. Increased involvement of local organizations and 
community groups to strengthen their knowledge of
nutrition;
iv. Hunger is reduced in the short term;
v. Increased access to food through school meals;
vi. Nutrition and health practices are improved.
However, the achievement of these results is conditional on the 
realization of a set of key activities among which:
i. The capacity building of actors at national, regional, and
local levels;
ii. The distribution of storage and food preparation
equipment, and kitchen utensils to 325 schools;
iii. The provision of a meal to 176,765 students through 
these 325 schools;
iv. The training on storage and storage room management 
for project partners;
v. The training on food preparation and storage practices in 
the school;
vi. The training on good nutrition and health practices in the 
school.
1.3. National policy for school 
feeding
A national policy and strategy document on school feeding was
published in January 2016 by the Ministry of National Education 
and Vocational Training (MENFP) and the National School Feeding
Program (PNCS). The government's vision for school feeding is 
clearly stated in this document. It reads:
This policy and strategy document benefited from the support of
the Canadian Government through its Embassy in Haiti. WFP also 
provided technical assistance to prepare this document.
However, it should be noted that in its clearly stated direction, the
government's strategy to ensure school feeding differs from the 
strategy of the McGovern Dole International program. For 
example, the first focuses on buying local products while the 
second one provides direct food aid to schools. On the other hand, 
the government's strategy prioritizes the use of local food service 
providers through competitive bidding, while the McGovern Dole 
program focuses on the direct management of the kitchen in 
schools.
The vision of the Haitian Government, through the Ministry 
of National Education and Vocational Training (MENFP), is to 
ensure that all school children enjoy a good nutritional
health necessary for learning through the provision of a 
complementary healthy and balanced diet in schools, 
prepared with almost exclusively local products and 
respecting nutritional standards so that hunger does not 
constitute a barrier to education. PP. 16
10
1.4. Main results of the study
These results cover 225 schools, 1,766 students and 30 
communities where focus groups were conducted. 
The 2% attrition rate in the student sample is due to the heavy 
rainfall that struck several regions of the country in early 
January 2017 before the actual start of the survey.
1.4.1. The results of the quantitative school 
survey
Among the 225 concerned by those results, (1/3) of them (N 
= 75) does not have a school meal program, and (2/3) (N = 
150) are beneficiaries of this program for which this baseline 
study has been conducted. It should be noted that the baseline 
indicators essentially focus on the 150 beneficiary schools in 
the program.
Per the methodology, all the samples were randomly selected. 
Data collection was carried out from the 16th to the 31st of
January 2017 on the Geographical Area of this study.
Data from the quantitative survey (schools and students) 
were collected using a digital application and tablets. More 
than thirty field agents took part in this operation.
The qualitative survey of the 30 communities mobilized thirty 
professionals in groups of two (one facilitator and one 
rapporteur) per town. 
This survey was conducted during the second week of 
December 2016.
1.4.1.1. Organizational structures and
infrastructures in the schools
On the organizational level, the 150 schools benefiting from 
the program are provided at 93.3% with a school 
management committee (SMC) made up of the different 
groups of actors, including the school administration, the
teachers, the students, the parents' associations and the 
service personnel. These committees play an important role 
in managing the daily activities of their school canteen.
In regards to the allocation of school infrastructures, there is 
not a significant difference in the allocation of both school 
groups. However, the beneficiary schools are allocated a 
library at a 32% rate whereas the non-beneficiary schools are 
at a 22.7% rate. Electricity is available in 18% of the
beneficiary schools as compared to 25.3% for the non￾beneficiary schools. 
With regard to latrines for students and teachers, they are 
available in 66.7% of beneficiary schools, while the availability is
72% for the observing schools.
1.4.1.2. Students’ enrollment and school performance
In the beneficiary schools’ records, 38,288 students were 
counted. with a gender ratio of 1.04, more boys were enrolled in 
school in 2016-2017 than girls.
The non-beneficiary schools’ records made it possible to count 
15,255 students. With a gender ratio of 0.99, more girls were 
enrolled in these schools in 2016-2017 than boys.
However, the number of students present in the classroom of the 
beneficiary schools during the survey is 22,553 with a male 
gender ratio of 1.03. 
In the observing schools, 9,770 students were present in the 
classroom with a gender ratio of 1.004.
This gap of 41.09% and 35.95% compared to the enrollment
numbers, respectively in the beneficiary schools and observing
schools, is explained by the torrential rains that hit several 
regions of the country one week before effectively restarting the 
data collection operations.
In terms of academic performance, the overall promotion rate in 
2015-2016 estimated for the beneficiary schools is 74.04%. 
Allocated by gender, girls were more successful during the school 
year, with a promotion rate of 74.20% against 73.90% for boys.
In the observing schools, the promotion rate calculated is 77.99% 
with a rate of 78.45% for girls and 77.53% for boys. The 
repetition rate is estimated at 21.08% and 19.30% for the 
beneficiary schools and the observing schools respectively. As for 
the drop-out rate, it is around 4.88% for beneficiary schools and 
2.72% for the observing group.
Analyzing the drop-out phenomenon in the beneficiary schools, 
the study revealed that there are two main causes of drop out 
among students: economic problems and parental migration. 
Those two factors contribute at 86.6% to explain the drop-out
cases recorded in these schools.
1.4.1.3. Organization and operation of the school 
canteen in the beneficiary schools
The observations on food storage facilities and the cooking 
conditions within the beneficiary schools (N = 150) showed that:
i. 90.8% of the schools have a storage room to store the food;
ii. This food is put on pallets in 88.7% of the cases;
iii. The percentage of schools with a closed kitchen is 48%;
iv. This kitchen, although closed, is a cramped and poorly 
maintained space in 38% of the cases;
 11
v. 48% of the beneficiary schools have a kitchen that operates 
outdoors.
Regarding availability of equipment and cooking utensils, the 
situation at the beneficiary schools is as follow:
i. Food storage facilities are available in 76.7% of the schools;
ii. Food cooking equipment (boilers, pots and pans) are 
available in 79.3% of the schools; in other cases, the school 
borrows them to cook the food. It should be noted that the 
survey did not attempt to measure the percentage of schools 
where equipment is borrowed to prepare the food;
iii. Kitchen utensils (plates, spoons) to feed students are 
available in 51.3% of the schools. In other cases, the children 
bring them or they all eat in the same dish with their hands.
It should be noted that this assessment of the availability of such 
kitchen equipment and utensils is based on factual answers from 
school managers and not on the basis of a systematic inventory
taken during the survey. The unavailability of such equipment 
and utensils based on the same principle can only be an 
approximation of reality.
When it comes to using energy for cooking, most schools use 
traditional cooking methods. Indeed, the study showed that:
i. 78% of schools use dried wood in their kitchen to cook the 
food;
ii. 22.7% of them use charcoal;
iii. And only a small fraction of 4.7% uses propane gas in an 
improved oven or fireplace.
The data structure suggests that a school can use several
sources of cooking energy.
Regarding the use of water in the school kitchens, it has 
observed the following:
i. The percentage of schools using tap water is 42%, which 
does not necessarily imply that it is a water faucet 
connected to a public water system. It can also come from 
a water reservoir;
ii. Rainwater is used in 26.70% of the schools;
iii. Water from boreholes or village pumps is used in the 
kitchen of 22% of the schools;
iv. As for surface water (ponds, lakes, rivers, etc.), it is used in 
16.70% of the schools.
Access to water for handwashing purposes is available in 
92.7% of the schools. Drinking water is available in 72% of the
schools, while the use of water for sanitary purposes (washing 
spaces, utensils, waste disposal) is only available in 50% of 
the schools.
1.4.1.4. Knowledge, Attitude and Practices (KAP) of 
the school canteen managers
The knowledge, attitudes and practices of school canteen
managers were viewed from three perspectives. It relates to:
i. Compliance with good health and hygiene practices in the 
kitchen;
ii. Compliance with good food storage practices;
iii. And compliance with good practices for safe food 
preparation.
For each of these analysis viewpoints, the interest in the study 
was to identify the three principles that are most respected in 
the canteen, according to the observations made by the school 
principals on the operating practices of their service personnel.
Thus, in terms of compliance with good health and hygiene 
practices, SMC members:
i. Do the dishes immediately after the meal is finished in 
95.3% of the cases;
ii. Wear clean clothes and cover their hair in 94.7% of the 
schools;
iii. Wash their hands with clean water and soap when leaving
the restroom in 92.7% of cases.
With respect to good food storage practices, SMC members:
i. Properly handle the products to prevent any damage in 97.3% 
of the schools;
ii. Conduct periodic inventories to ensure continuity of kitchen 
operations and avoid supply shortages in 97.3% of the 
schools;
iii. Maintain store inventory in good condition in 96% of the 
cases.
As for compliance with good practices for safe food 
preparation, the members of the SMC:
i. Serve hot meals to students in 95.3% of the schools;
ii. Respect the steps of food preparation in 94.7% of the cases;
iii. Maintain in spotless condition the food preparation spaces 
and surfaces in 93.3% of the schools 
1.4.1.5. Observations of beneficiary school principals 
on the relevance of the school canteen and 
students’ behavior 
Beneficiary schools’ principals were asked about the role of the 
SMC, the relevance of the school meal program in their school and 
the impact on academic performance. About the role of the SMC:
i. The effectiveness of these structures is recognized by 72% of 
the school principals interviewed;
12
ii. Their ability to solve problems is recognized by 70% of the 
school principals.
Answering yes or no to some statements about the relevance of 
the meal program within their school:
i. A percentage of 69.3% of the principals interviewed, admit 
that this program meets the nutritional needs of their
students;
ii. A percentage of 68% of the principals share the idea that 
the food offered to students meets their parents’ 
expectations;
iii. According to 67.3% of the principals surveyed, students eat 
in their own plates;
iv. Considering the needs for equipment identified in their 
school kitchen, 85.3% of the principals have detected a lack 
of equipment for food preparation and cooking.
By examining the impact of the meal program in their school, the 
principals have come to the following main conclusions:
i. The meal has a positive effect on the students' motivation 
to come to school. A percentage of 96.7% of the principals 
agree with this statement;
ii. The meal has the power to keep the students at school. 98% 
of the principals interviewed agree with this conclusion;
iii. The availability of the school canteen improves school 
performance. This assertion is considered true by 94.7% of 
the school principals interviewed.
1.4.1.6. Observations of beneficiary schools’ teachers on 
the relevance of the canteen in the schools
With the teaching staff of the beneficiary schools, the 
discussions focused:
i. The students' attention in the classroom;
ii. Their receptive state of mind;
iii. And the link between the availability of the school meal and 
their students’ academic performance.
For each of these three aspects, a percentage of 90% of teachers 
from 1st to the 6th elementary school grades admit that the 
school meal program:
i. Helps the students to be more attentive in the classroom;
ii. Makes their minds more receptive to the subjects taught in 
the classroom;
iii. Significantly improves the students academic performance
at school.
1.4.1.7. Observations of the principals from the non￾beneficiary schools
The principals in the observing schools were asked to comment 
on 1) the organizational structures within their school, 2) the 
nutritional needs of their students, and 3) the academic
performance of their school in the absence of a school meal 
program. In terms of their organizational structures, the 
observing schools have School Councils (SC) composed of 
parents’ representatives, teachers and students.
i. These structures, available in 77.3% of the surveyed
observing schools, play a supporting role for the managers 
in their decision-making;
ii. Regarding the nutritional needs of their students, 90.7% of 
the observing schools’ principals think that the parents 
would appreciate having a canteen within the school facility;
iii. In regards to their school’s performance, 92% of principals
interviewed think their school would have a better 
performance if there were a canteen available.
1.4.1.8. Observations of the teachers from the non￾beneficiary schools
Teachers from the observing schools were asked about:
i. The students’ attention in the classroom;
ii. The receptive state of mind of their students in the 
classroom;
iii. The nature of the students’ diet at school.
On the issue of students' attention in the classroom, between 
50% and 60% of the teachers in the 1st to the 6th elementary 
school grades share the idea that their students pay attention in 
class. Regarding their receptive state of mind, less than 50% of 
teachers come to this conclusion. On the nature of students’ diet, 
80% of teachers admit that in general their students’ food is not 
balanced based on their own observations.
 13
1.4.2. The results of the students quantitative
survey
The quantitative survey was conducted on a total of 1,766 
students, of which 1,193 (67.6%) were in the beneficiary schools 
and 573 (32.4%) were in observing schools. The breakdown of 
interviewees by gender in the beneficiary schools is 67.7% for 
girls and 67.4% for boys. Within the observing schools, it is 32.3% 
for girls and 32.6% for boys. Thus, an almost equal distribution 
between the sexes was obtained.
1.4.2.1. Eating habits and academic performance of 
beneficiary students
The questions addressed to the direct beneficiary students (N =
1,193) of the school meal program were on:
i. Their habits as well as their preference for food;
ii. The diversity and frequency of the food served at school;
iii. The benefits obtained from the food offered at the school.
In terms of habits and preferences related to their nutrition:
i. The percentage of students who usually eat their breakfast 
at home is estimated at 81.1%;
ii. A percentage of 41.4% prefers the food at home to that 
offered at school because at home the food is better 
prepared and comes with meat;
iii. It should be noted that only 2.1% recognize that the food 
offered at school taste bad and that 23.9% did not express 
any preference.
Regarding the food diversity and the frequency of school feeding, 
the beneficiary students: 
i. Declare at a rate of 86.8% that the food offered is not very 
diversified and is based solely on wheat;
ii. Recognize at a rate of 73.3% that the wheat comes with a 
legume such as beans. This implies that in 27% of the 
cases, the portion served to students is based on wheat 
only;
iii. Admit at a rate of 10.8% only that sometimes the food 
comes with meat or fish.
In regards to the frequency of food consumption at school, 81.6% 
of students eat five (5) days a week in the school canteen. While 
rice remains the favorite dish for 50.9% of them, 47.3% enjoys 
having wheat as well.
As for the benefits gained from their school meal, students share 
the following opinions:
i. The school meal helps to better focus in the classroom. A 
percentage of 36.4% of students is of this opinion;
ii. The school meal is a source of encouragement to study more. 
26.2% of the students interviewed shares this statement;
iii. The school meal encourages students to be present in class. 
A percentage of 18.9% of the students agrees with this 
statement;
iv. The school canteen enables the enjoyment of a hot meal 
daily. This is the point of view of 18.5% of the surveyed 
students;
v. Finally, the interviews conducted with beneficiary students 
revealed the following: those who completed their school 
year in 2015-2016 and admitted to having benefited from 
the advantages offered by the school meal to concentrate in 
the classroom and make more effort in their studies account 
for 51.97% of all the students.
1.4.2.2. Eating habits and academic performance of 
non-beneficiary students
The students (N = 573) of the observing schools were asked to 
answer questions about:
i. Their eating habits;
ii. The benefits they would get from having a canteen at their
school and their preference for food;
iii. Their motivation and their academic performance.
In terms of eating habits:
i. A percentage of 56.2% of non-beneficiaries reported 
having breakfast every morning at home before coming to 
school;
ii. A low percentage, 0.7%, of them bring their lunch box to 
school. This bears witness to the economic difficulties of 
parents in the in the semi-urban and rural areas of the 
country;
iii. Coming to school with pocket money given by their 
parents is a privilege reserved only for 14.7% of them.
Looking at the advantages that the students would benefit from 
the presence of a canteen at their school:
i. 32.1% of them believe that the school meal could help them 
solve the problem of hunger;
ii. 27.1% would be more motivated to come to school;
iii. 22% would pay more attention to the courses;
iv. 18.8% would make more effort in their studies.
In analyzing their food preferences, the students from the 
observing schools interviewed commented that:
i. At 78% they take more pleasure from eating rice;
ii. Only 14.7% would like to consume wheat;
iii. 94.4% would have wanted a vegetable (bean) with their 
cereal;
iv. 95.6% would enjoy if their dish came with meat;
v. 91.6% would agree to eat five (5) days a week at school.
14 onclusion 
Regarding the students' motivation and academic performance:
i. 64.6% of the interviewed students consider that their 
classmates are attentive in the classroom;
ii. 42.6% believe that the absence of a canteen at their 
school is a factor of discouragement for students to come to 
school;
iii. 30% felt that their classmates were not able to have a 
better school performance due to the absence of a canteen at 
their school;
iv. 38.4% say that another school with a canteen and not too 
far away could encourage them as well as their peers to 
abandon their current school to benefit from the canteen of 
the new one. 
The beneficiary schools are public schools. In general, the 
children attending these schools come from far away, this 
explains why a higher percentage of them (81.1%) take their 
breakfast before coming to school compared to the non￾beneficiary students (56.2%). Besides, their meal in the canteen
is served at midday. As far as the non-beneficiary schools’ 
students, who do not have a canteen at school, their response 
may be, in a local context, an expectation to intuitively anticipate 
an offer to have a meal in the future.
1.4.3. Results of the qualitative survey of 
community actors
This qualitative survey conducted among stakeholders in about 
30 communities was able to bring together the following 
discussion’ groups:
i. The Parents’ Associations with a participation of 15.14% 
of the total reported attendance;
ii. The SMC members with a participation of 29.82%;
iii. The school principals representing 12.84% of the 
reported attendance at the meetings;
iv. The students with a percentage of participation of 
11.47%;
v. The teachers with a participation rate of 17.89%.
The other poorly represented community groups included 
ASECs, CASECs, community leaders, religious leaders, highly 
respected people in the community and representatives of 
community based organizations (CBO).
1.4.3.1. Results of interviews conducted with the 
community actors
The interviews were carried out with the groups of actors 
separately. Discussions with the school principals focused on 
the operation of the SMC as a support structure for the school 
canteen management.
School principals believe that SMC members do a great job. They 
supervise the operation of the school canteen on a daily basis, 
monitor operations and ensure compliance with the basic 
hygiene rules. In addition, they monitor the use of food 
inventory to ensure continuity of operations and prevent stock￾outs. Moreover, SMC members participate in the 
implementation of small gardening projects and the cleanliness 
of the school space.
However, regarding needs, school officials noted the lack of 
equipment and kitchen utensils. The needs expressed include 
boilers, cooking pans as well as plates and spoons to feed the
students.
One of the things to highlight is that, unanimously, the school 
principals recognize that the canteen is a source of motivation
for the students to come to school and stay. The teachers 
themselves unanimously concluded that the canteen:
i. Helps the students pay more attention in the classroom;
ii. Stimulates the students’ mind receptivity;
iii. Contributes to a significant improvement in their 
academic performance.
As for the service personnel, they claim to follow the basic rules 
regarding health and hygiene as well as safe food preparation.
In addition, they manage the inventory according to the 
protocol established by WFP in its worksheet distributed to the 
schools. 
With the students, the questions about the quality of the meals 
and their main demands made it clear that students show a 
great interest in the food that is offered to them in the canteen. 
Their main demands are essentially the lack of variety and 
integration of meat or fish in the menu.
With the SMC members and parents, program governance 
issues as well as recommendations for improving its 
management were discussed. From these discussions, the 
participants showed that:
i. Regarding transparency, all information relating to
management of the school canteen is available;
ii. Regarding their participation in decision-making, they 
report that they are always invited in every meeting to take 
useful decisions for the proper operation of their school 
canteen. Furthermore, according to them, not only is the 
information available but accessible to all SMC members;
iii. On the other hand, food in the storage room is never used
for purposes other than feeding the students. Thus, at the 
governance level, actors seem to be permeated with the 
values associated with it.
The recommendations made by the community actors are 
fourfold:
15
i. First, they recommend a revision of the quota of the ration 
distributed in some schools in order to meet students’ 
nutritional needs;
ii. Second, they recommend integrating new products 
including fish, packaged juice, in the food basket given to 
the schools. The iodized salt is not provided in sufficient 
quantity;
iii. Third, they recommend to provide the schools with enough 
equipment and kitchen utensils to properly operate the 
school canteen;
iv. Finally, they recommend diversity in the food provided to 
the schools.
1.5. Partial Conclusion
In conclusion, the study answered all the important questions 
about this program. It has highlighted the central role of the 
SMCs in managing the program's field operations. These 
structures, in fact, are very representative of the communities 
where the schools are located. Any effort to strengthen them will 
improve or optimize the program social benefits for local 
communities.
The study indicates that all stakeholders recognized the 
importance of the program. The school principals consider it as 
a source of motivation for students and an incentive to keep 
them in school. In this sense, the program has a direct impact on 
the reduction of school abandonment. Teachers, for their part,
see this as a mean to keep the students’ attention in the 
classroom and to maintain their receptive state of mind, and the
effort they are willing to make for their academic success. All 
these conditions contribute to improving the academic 
performance of the students and of the schools in general.
The students, themselves, admit that they find their own 
benefits from the availability of the canteen in their school. They 
see it as a source of motivation to come to school and to study 
more.
The community actors also understand the importance of the 
program in the students’ academic life. Moreover, most of them
commit, despite the challenges, to give their best for the proper 
functioning of the school canteen in their schools. 
The need for kitchen equipment and utensils, the demand for a 
greater variety in the food supply, are the main claims they make
to the WFP. The big question remains in how to articulate a 
greater synergy of action among all these interested 
stakeholders to maximize the program’s outcomes and ensure 
its sustainability. All the recommendations made at the end of 
this document are intended to provide an answer to this 
question.
 16
1.6. Some Key indicators
Table 3. List of some baseline indicators
Monitoring Indicators Baseline
2016-2017
1. Percentage of schools with improved 
storage equipment, food preparation tools 
and eating utensils as a results of USDA 
assistance
1.1. Percentage of schools with improved storage 
equipment 77%
1.2. Percentage of schools with food preparation 
tools 79%
1.3. Percentage of schools with eating utensils 51.30%
2. Percentage of targeted schools equipped with fuel efficient stoves as a results of USDA 
assistance 4.70%
3. Proportion of household involved in 
briquettes' purchase for improved stoves
4.1. Proportion of household involved in briquettes' 
purchase 4.52%
4.2. Proportion of household involved in propane 
gas' purchase 3.36%
4. Percentage of schools’ management committees who can identify at least three improved 
health and hygiene practices 94%
5. Number of students regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported classrooms / 
schools (female/male)
5.1. Number of female students regularly attending 
USDA supported classrooms 18762
5.2. Number of male students regularly attending 
USDA supported classrooms 19526
5.3. Total number of students regularly (80%) 
attending USDA supported classrooms / schools 
(female + male)
38288
6. Percent of student missing less than 20 days a year due to illness 3.2%
7. Number of schools using an improved water 
source
7.1. Number of schools using water coming from a 
tap 63
7.2. Number of schools using a protected drilling￾well water source 25
8. Pass rate (Female/Male) in the assisted 
schools
8.1. Pass rate female in the assisted schools 74.20%
8.2. Pass rate male in the assisted schools 73.90%
8.3. Pass rate in the assisted schools 74.04%
9. Retention rate (Female/Male) in the 
assisted schools
9.1. Retention rate female in the assisted schools 94%
9.2. Retention rate male in the assisted schools 96%
9.3. Retention rate in the assisted schools 95%
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
 17
CHAPTER II: OBJECTIVES, GENERAL 
ORIENTATIONS, AND STUDY METHODOLOGY
2.1. Study Objectives
The completion of this baseline study provided program 
managers with the necessary information to:
i. Establish realistic and accurate targets for monitoring 
activities of the portfolio indicators according to the 
program's tracking plan. This way, program managers will 
be able to monitor the progress achieved and the 
performance in the execution of activities by the expected 
results;
ii. Strengthen the common and immediate understanding of 
the program implementation requirements. For example, 
the fact of having information available on contextual 
factors which may, in the future, constitute obstacles to or 
accelerate the progress towards objectives is a determining
factor for the continuation of activities until the 
achievement of the program’s results. The information 
provided in the framework of this study can be used in a 
reengineering process of project activities for better 
performance in achieving the objectives and the results.
2.2. Study’s General Orientation
The program plans to provide food assistance to 176,765 
students attending national education public sector primary 
schools through 595 beneficiary schools. However, the study to 
establish the baseline used a sample of 150 beneficiary schools 
and 75 non-beneficiary schools. Thus, the overall sample size is 
225 schools.
On the spatial level, these schools are divided into groups 
scattered in geographic strata or departments. The selection
method for each of the schools in the sample is based on a 
probabilistic approach where each unit has an equal chance of 
being selected. In addition to the schools, the study planned to 
interview a sample of 1,800 students randomly selected and 
with equal gender parity, including 1,200 in the beneficiary 
schools and 600 in the non-beneficiary schools.
Thus, the sample of schools, as well as the students, were the 
subject of the quantitative survey that provided the 
information used to fill the portfolio of the program monitoring
indicators.
In parallel with this quantitative survey, the study also 
conducted focus groups in 30 communities which were chosen
randomly. This qualitative survey led to the organization of
discussion groups with the community stakeholders involved 
in the actual implementation of the program. The qualitative 
data allowed triangulation with the quantitative data for a 
better appreciation of the study’s results.
STUDY ORIENTATION AND SURVEY 
STRUCTURE
225 schools 1,800 students 30 Towns
 18
2.3. Main research questions
The research questions, that are a fundamental concern in this study, focus on a set of themes incorporated into the various data 
collection tools. These themes guided the development of the data collection tools used to conduct the field investigations among the 
three target groups of the survey. The main results of this study are the answers to these research questions. These questions were 
organized by target group investigated as follows:
Table 4. The main research questions
 
.
Survey
Target 
Groups
Research Themes Basic Research Questions
Schools
Organization, Schools’ 
Enrollment and Infrastructures
i. How do SMCs operate?
ii. How many students? What is the academic performance level? 
iii. Are there adequate infrastructures in these schools?
Operation of the canteen and 
availability of equipment and 
kitchen utensils
i. Is there a mastery of the skills associated with the canteen
management?
ii. Are equipment and utensils sufficient?
iii. What are the identified needs?
Management of the canteen, 
Knowledge, Attitudes and 
Practices (KAP) of participants
i. Does the service personnel understand its role?
ii. Are health and hygiene rules respected?
iii. What are the identified training needs?
Perception of school 
administrators
i. Is the school meal program relevant?
ii. Does the program address beneficiaries’ real needs? 
iii. Does the program have a positive impact on school 
performance?
Students
Students’ profile and status i. Who are the beneficiaries?
Students’ perception of the 
school meal
i. Are beneficiaries satisfied?
ii. Does the program benefit its intended beneficiaries? 
iii. Are the program’s outcomes positive on the lives of 
beneficiaries?
Availability of the canteen and 
school performance
i. Is there an improvement in school performance which can be linked 
to a result of the school meal program?
Towns
Establishment and operation of 
the community groups
i. Do participative structures play their role?
ii. Do they get involved in the life of the community?
Appreciation of community 
groups regarding the school 
meal program
i. What is the level of appreciation of community groups for the 
program?
ii. What are their complaints about the program’s
implementation on the field?
Knowledge, Attitudes, and 
Practices (KAP) of service 
personnel in relation to the 
canteen
i. Does the service personnel demonstrate that it is up to its 
tasks?
ii. Does it master the rules associated with the accomplishment of 
its tasks?
Recommendations of the 
community groups to improve 
program governance
i. What do the community groups want to see improved in the 
management of the program?
ii. Are the requests made realistic?
 19
2.4. Study methodology
2.4.1. Sampling
The distribution of the sample (N = 225 schools) across the 
different strata follows the same distribution as all 595 schools in 
the five strata or geographic departments of Haiti.
In the first stage, the selection of each school in the sample was 
done independently at each stratum level using a probabilistic 
method giving each school an equal chance to be selected.
A selection also taking into account different rural (66%) and 
urban (34 %) areas was done. On the other hand, it was not 
possible to have the same types of schools. Thus, observing schools 
are only 24% of public schools against 84% of WFP beneficiary 
schools.
At the second stage, two students, one girl and one boy, were 
randomly selected in the third, fourth, fifth and sixth grade in each 
of the sampled schools. The 30 villages for the organization of 
focus groups were also randomly selected from among the 150 
beneficiary schools’ communities in the sample.
2.4.2. Data collection sources and respondents
Data were essentially collected through primary sources. For the 
schools, the questionnaire used collected information on the 
characteristics of the school facilities, the management structures, 
the schools’ infrastructures, the enrollment and the general
information on the management of the school meal program. The 
school’s principal was the main respondent for the collection of 
these data. As for the students interviewed with a 
questionnaire, the questions sought to establish a certain 
relation between the availability of the canteen and the
academic performance. For community groups, questions 
structured on an interview guide used to conduct focus 
groups made it possible to assess the program’s relevance, 
the level of involvement of community actors in the 
program’s implementation.
2.4.3. Data collection
Data collection, particularly in the context of the quantitative 
survey, was carried out using digital technologies. The 
schools and students questionnaires were programmed 
from an online Android application 
(www.harvestyourdata.com) and downloaded on tablets 
which served to perform the data collection.
Qualified personnel capable of using these technologies 
were mobilized to collect data on the field. The data was then 
retrieved in SPSS format.
Regarding the collection of the qualitative survey data, two 
professionals per school, including one facilitator and one 
note taker, facilitated each of the 30 focus groups in the 
selected villages. 
The meetings were conducted with community’s interest
groups separately. A structured interview guide was used to 
facilitate the discussions with specific questions for each 
interest group convened to these meetings.
The sample size (n = 225) was calculated as follows:
n: The sample size to be drawn;
z: The confidence interval associated with the Standard Normal 
Distribution (For a 95% confidence interval, the corresponding 
value is z = 1.96)
p: The proportion of the schools’ population presenting a certain 
characteristic (P being unknown, the value retained is p = 1
2
) ;
e: Acceptable margin of error (5% to 10%). The margin of error is 
set at e = 6.53%
The sample size is calculated by the following formula:
n = 𝑧𝑧2 . 𝑝𝑝(1−𝑝𝑝)
𝑒𝑒2 , With p = 1
2 n = 𝑧𝑧2
4𝑒𝑒2 = 225
 20
2.4.4. Data limitations
The main limitations of the data result essentially from the 
following factors:
i. Record keeping in schools: In some cases, student 
enrollment data are not very well documented through 
school records properly kept. In other cases, information on 
the school canteen operation in beneficiary schools does not 
have documented sources. The same observation was made
about the information relating to food stocks management 
and the inventory of the equipment and kitchen utensils 
used in the schools’ canteen. For some schools, despite the 
training and refresher sessions, the absence of data is due to 
the lack of knowledge by school principals, the replacement 
with new principals, etc.;
ii. A rainy season preceding the data collection period: Data 
were collected between the 16th and the 31st of January 2017. 
In some areas, including the North and the North East 
departments, the bad weather at the beginning of January 
had a negative impact on the proper functioning of the 
schools. In some cases, the number of students in the 
classroom did not reflect the reality of surveyed schools. In 
other cases, all the classes did not work during the survey
period. This has had a minor impact on the number of 
students interviewed. In fact, if the coverage rate of the
schools sample is 100%, that of the student is estimated at 
98%. In some classrooms, only one student attended school 
on the day of the survey. Thus, the attrition rate of 2% 
observed in the student sample is mainly a result of this 
unpredictable factor;
iii. Control schools: WFP faced challenges in identifying public 
schools that were not part of a school feeding program, given 
there was no up to date list of public schools available at 
government level. WFP therefore chose to at least identify 
schools without canteen in the same areas, to ensure 
comparability on geographic zones. Indeed 84% of the 
beneficiary schools are public schools, while in the control 
schools the majority are private and religious schools. 
Due to this difference in school characteristics is not possible
to fully compare the two schools results (beneficiary schools 
and control schools) but it does give an indication though on 
how well beneficiary schools are doing. Impact will mainly
be measured in terms of progression of beneficiary schools, 
i.e. improvement of indicators’ results between baseline and 
final evaluation. During this assessment, if it is possible to 
identify public schools without a canteen, this will be done in 
order to allow comparison.
2.4.5. Narrative chronology of the study 
implementation
At the start of the process, all the operations and 
implementation tools of the study were recorded into a 
detailed methodological document validated by the Project 
Owner (WFP). This document described in detail the sample 
structure, the selection method, the structure of the data 
collection tools and the operational processes to guide the 
Contractor in the realization of the study.
During the effective implementation of the operations, the 
survey staff was mobilized and trained on the theoretical 
and practical aspects of data collection. A pre-test enable an
evaluation of the robustness of the digital application of data 
collection and the recovery of the database in SPSS format.
At the end of the data collection process, the database was 
downloaded from the online platform hosting the collection 
application and subjected to a cleaning process. Consistency 
tests were performed, and validation of the sample 
confirmed before the statistical processing and data analysis 
phase to calculate the indicators and produce this report.
Source: Picture 1 & 2 Baseline study 2017, AGV/WFP.
Source photo 1 and 2: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Photo 1. An almost empty class room during the day of the 
visit with the presence of a girl only
Photo 2. An almost empty class room during the day of the visit
with the presence of a boy only
 21
CHAPTER III: THE MAIN RESULTS OF THE 
STUDY 
3.1. The Quantitative Schools 
Survey 
The results of the quantitative schools’ survey cover 225 
schools. One-third (1/3) of this sample consists of non￾beneficiary institutions of a school feeding program.
3.1.1. SMC structure
A School Management Committee (SMC) exists in 93.3% of the 
schools. The school’s Principal plays the role of the president of 
the SMC in 50% of the cases. The Parents' Associations come 
second in playing the president role in 28.7% of the SMCs. The 
teachers, for their part, chair this committee in 13.3% of the 
schools. The position of secretary is, in most cases (54%), 
occupied by the teachers. It is followed by the School 
Management (20.7%) then by the Parents' Associations (14%). 
Parents manage the cash in 32% of the committees. The teachers 
and the School Management manage it in 24% of cases. The 
other functions are shared among the interest groups with a 
strong representation of the staff as the first members of the 
SMC.
In total 918 people were identified as members of the SMCs in 
the schools. Women represent 43.03% and men 56.97%. The 
executive functions of President (80%), Secretary (59%) and 
Storekeeper (65%) are mainly occupied by men. However, 
women are mostly represented as Treasurers (61%).
Table 5. The SMC’s structure in the schools
Interest 
group 
represented 
in the SMC
Title of the Position occupied by each group of 
interest in the SMCs
(N = 150)
P S T Sk M1 M2 M3
In % In % In % In % In % In % In %
Management 50.0 20.7 24.0 22.7 28.7 17.3 16.0
Teacher 13.3 54.0 24.0 7.3 3.3 14.7 10.0
Personnel 1.3 2.7 10.7 42.7 10.0 10.7 10.7
Students 0.0 2.0 2.7 0.7 20.0 15.3 15.3
Parents’ 
Association 28.7 14.0 32.0 20.0 31.3 35.3 41.3
SMCs 
nonexistent 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Definition of 
Acronyms
P : President ; S : Secretary ; T : Treasurer ; Sk : 
Storekeeper; M1 : 1st Member ; M2 : 2nd Member ;
M3 : 3rd Member
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Figure 1. Profile of the positions within the SMC and distribution of 
functions by gender
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Photo 1. Photo shoot of an SMC in a school
80.00%
59.29%
38.41%
65.44%
50.00%
45.90%
57.76%
20.00%
40.71%
61.59%
34.56%
50.00%
54.10%
42.24%
0% 50% 100%
President
Secretary
Treasurer
Storekeeper
1st Member
2nd Member
3rd Member
Distribution of SMC's positions by 
gender
Man Woman
 22
 
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.2. School infrastructures availability
The observation of the physical space of the two groups of 
school examined made it possible to note the availability of 
certain school infrastructures mentioned in the adjacent table: 
Table 6. Availability of school infrastructures
Source: Baseline study 2017, AGV/WFP.
However, it should be noted that an eating area where students 
can sit is available in 18.7% of the schools benefiting from the 
program compared to 16% for non-beneficiary schools.
3.1.3. School enrollment analysis
3.1.3.1. In the registration records
Looking at the records of the schools benefiting from a school 
meal program, 38,288 students were enrolled for the academic 
year 2016-2017.
The overall masculinity ratio (B/G = 1.04) indicates that boys 
are numerically superior in these schools’ registers. However, 
the gender ratio is 0.97 and 0.96 respectively for the 5th and 
6th grades, which indicates the fact that more girls than boys 
are on the enrollment list for these grades. For non-beneficiary 
schools, 15,255 enrolled students are recorded in their 
registers. With an overall masculinity ratio of 0.99, more girls 
than boys were enumerated in these schools’ registers.
Figure 2. Gender Ratio of students enrolled in the beneficiary and 
non-beneficiary schools’ registers
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
 
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
1.08
1.11
1.02
1.06
0.97
0.96
1.13
1.05
0.97
0.98
0.86
0.88
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
Gender ratio of students enrolled in the 
1st Grade to 6th Grade Classes
School Beneficiary School Non-Beneficiary
Availability of 
infrastructures
Beneficiary
School
(N = 150)
Non 
Beneficiary 
School
(N = 75)
Play ground 68.0% 68.0%
Library 32.0% 22.7%
Computer room 8.7% 12.0%
Internet connection 18.0% 28.0%
Electricity 18.0% 25.3%
Teachers and students 
latrines 66.7% 72.0%
Running water 52.0% 52.0%
Drinking water 52.7% 52.0%
Canteen 18.7% 16.0%
Infirmary 14.7% 13.3%
Photo 2. Class attendance observed in a school
 23
Table 7. Enrollment by grade level and gender in the beneficiary 
and non-beneficiary schools’ registers
 Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.3.2. Attendance in the classroom
The number of students present in the classroom in the 
beneficiary schools during the collection period shows a 
decrease of 41.09% compared to the enrollment number in 
the registers. Boys were predominantly present considering 
the masculinity ratio (B/G = 1.03). For the non-beneficiary 
schools, this presence gap compared to the enrollment was 
35.95%. As for the gender ratio indicator, it shows an almost 
equal parity (B/G = 1.004) in the attendance of both sexes in 
the classroom. The relative margin in the attendance 
observed in the classroom can be explained by the rainy days 
in several regions of the country in early January 2017. More 
than two weeks after this rainy season, most of the schools 
had difficulties remobilizing their students.
Photo 3. Picture of an empty classroom
 Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Figure 3. Gender Ratio of students present in the classroom of the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Source: Baseline study 2017, AGV/WFP
Table 8. Attendance by grade level and by gender observed in the 
classroom of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Grades
Number of students
present in class during the 
survey
Total
Beneficiary 
Schools Girls Boys G + B
1st Grade 2457 2167 4624
2nd Grade 1956 2066 4022
3rd Grade 1894 2646 4540
4th Grade 1775 1783 3558
5th Grade 1657 1470 3127
6th Grade 1384 1298 2682
Total 11123 11430 22553
Non-Beneficiary
Schools Girls Boys G + B
1st Grade 892 986 1878
2nd Grade 883 1020 1903
3rd Grade 848 898 1746
4th Grade 817 783 1600
5th Grade 745 624 1369
6th Grade 690 584 1274
Total 4875 4895 9770
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
0.88
1.06
1.40
1.00
0.89
0.94
1.11
1.16
1.06
0.96
0.84
0.85
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
Gender ratio of students present in the 
classrom from 1st Grade to 6th Grade
Beneficiary Schools Non-Beneficiary Schools
Grades Enrollment in the registers 
for 2016-2017 Total
Beneficiary
Schools Girls Boys G + B
1st Grade 3755 4038 7793
2nd Grade 3423 3808 7231
3rd Grade 3440 3524 6964
4th Grade 3086 3284 6370
5th Grade 2819 2724 5543
6th Grade 2239 2148 4387
Total 18762 19526 38288
Non￾Beneficiary
Schools
Girls Boys G + B
1st Grade 1437 1623 3060
2ndGrade 1355 1421 2776
3rd Grade 1339 1305 2644
4th Grade 1253 1228 2481
5th Grade 1191 1028 2219
6th Grade 1101 974 2075
Total 7676 7579 15255
 24
3.1.3.3. About academic performance
Three indicators were selected to analyze the level of 
schools’ performance:
i. The success rate;
ii. The repetition rate;
iii. And the drop-out rate.
Due to the non-standardization of statistics in Haitian 
schools, the use of standards to calculate these indicators 
according to the approach proposed by UNESCO is 
difficult to apply. Thus, the approximate calculation of 
these indicators of academic performance is obtained 
from the enrollment figures in the school's year-end 
decision lists (2015-2016).
In these decision lists, from the beneficiary schools 32,189 
students were counted. This number is closer to the total 
enrollment of 38,288 students recorded in the class 
registers compared to the overall number of presence 
(22,553) in the classroom during the survey. With an 
overall gender ratio of 1.08, there were more boys than 
girls on the year-end charts in 2015-2016 for the schools 
benefitting from the school feeding program.
Figure 4. Gender Ratio of students recorded in the 2015-
2016 decision lists (1st Grade to 6th Grade)
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
The situation in the non-beneficiary schools is not really different. 
Their (2015-2016) year-end decision lists counted 14,659 students.
Only, their gender ratio indicator in this list is 0.99, which proves a 
slight numerical superiority of girls compared to boys.
However, this number (14,659) recorded on their decision lists is 
closer to the total enrolment (15,255) from the records that were 
found in the classroom (9,770) during the survey period.
Table 9. Enrollment by grade level and by gender in the decision lists 
of the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Classes Numbers in the 2015-
2016 decision lists Total
Beneficiary Schools Girls Boys G + B
1st Grade 3190 3346 6536
2nd Grade 2296 3416 5712
3rd Grade 2787 2991 5778
4th Grade 2731 2710 5441
5th Grade 2459 2365 4824
6th Grade 2001 1897 3898
Total 15464 16725 32189
Non-Beneficiary 
Schools Girls Boys Total
F + G
1st Grade 1349 1464 2813
2nd Grade 1243 1276 2519
3rd Grade 1356 1349 2705
4th Grade 1273 1253 2526
5th Grade 1106 1074 2180
6th Grade 1031 882 1913
Total 7358 7298 14656
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
The number of graduates and the number of repeaters are two 
types of information that appear on the year-end decision list.
The number of graduates recorded in this list in 2015-2016 
was 24,278 students in the beneficiary schools. The gender 
parity indicator (B/G = 1.04) shows that more boys were 
promoted to a higher grade level compared to girls. In the non￾beneficiary schools, 11,430 students were promoted to higher
grades in 2015-2016. The gender ratio value (B/G = 0.98) 
shows that more girls have successfully completed their school 
year than boys.
1.05
1.49
1.07
0.99
0.96
0.95
1.09
1.03
0.99
0.98
0.97
0.86
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
Gender ratio of the students in the 
2015-2016 decision list from 
1st Grade to 6th Grade
Beneficiary Schools Non Beneficiary Schools
 25
Figure 5. Gender Ratio of students promoted in 2015-2016 
from the 1st Grade to the 6th Grade
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Regarding the number of repeaters, a total of 6,911 students
were recorded in the 2015-2016 decision list of the 
beneficiary schools with an estimated gender ratio of 1.17. In 
the non-beneficiary schools, 2,828 repeaters are included on 
their decision list for a gender ratio of 0.96. Thus, there are 
more boys repeating years in the beneficiary schools 
compared to girls. In the control schools, the reverse situation
was observed.
Table 10. Number of repeaters by grade level and by gender in 
the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Number of repeaters in the 2015-2016 decision list 
Grades Gender
Total
Beneficiary 
Schools F G
1st Grade 760 896 1656
2nd Grade 632 843 1475
3rd Grade 597 686 1283
4th Grade 558 642 1200
5th Grade 437 427 864
6th Grade 199 234 433
Total 3183 3728 6911
Non-Beneficiary 
Schools F G Total
1st Grade 279 304 583
2nd Grade 295 302 597
3rd Grade 266 294 560
4th Grade 275 254 529
5th Grade 186 155 341
6th Grade 138 80 218
Total 1439 1389 2828
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
A. The success rate
The overall success rate calculated from the ratio between the 
number of graduates and the enrollment number on the decision 
lists is estimated at 74.04% for the beneficiary schools and 77.99% 
for the non-beneficiary schools. These results do not allow a quick 
comparison between the performances of the two groups of 
schools. In fact, it is not a group of homogenous schools 
(beneficiaries and observing). Analyzing the characteristics of the 
beneficiary schools, a percentage of 84% of them have a public 
school status. On the other hand, for the control schools, only a 
percentage of 24% has this same status. The vast majority of 
control schools, a percentage of 76% among which (40%) has a 
private school status, (13.3%) are religious mission schools, and 
(22.7%) are private community schools.
The disaggregated rate of success by gender shows that girls 
(74.20%) have overall been more successful compared to boys
(73.90%) in the beneficiary schools. It is the same observation that 
appears in the data on promotion to higher grade level within the 
non-beneficiary schools. Thus, girls succeed better than boys in the 
first two cycles of fundamental education.
Table 11. Success rate by grade level and by gender in the 
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Rate of promotion to higher grade level in 2015-2016
Grades Gender
Both sexes Beneficiary 
Schools F G
1st Grade 68.31% 70.71% 69.54%
2nd Grade 74.10% 64.26% 68.77%
3rd Grade 72.69% 74.69% 73.73%
4th Grade 72.90% 74.72% 73.81%
5th Grade 75.88% 79.45% 77.63%
6th Grade 85.51% 87.51% 86.48%
Total 74.20% 73.90% 74.04%
Non-Beneficiary 
Schools F G Total
1st Grade 77.32% 73.16% 75.15%
2nd Grade 76.03% 75.63% 75.82%
3rd Grade 76.25% 75.17% 75.71%
4th Grade 77.93% 75.26% 76.60%
5th Grade 81.46% 83.61% 82.52%
6th Grade 83.12% 86.96% 84.89%
Total 78.45% 77.53% 77.99%
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
B. The repetition rate
Regarding the overall repetition rate, it is estimated at 21.08% for 
the beneficiary schools compared to 19.30% for the non￾beneficiary schools. However, when analyzing the data, it appears
that students of both sexes (girls: 19.81% and boys: 22.29%) 
were more willing to redo the grade level in the beneficiary￾schools compared to the students (girls: 19.56% and boys: 
19.03%) in the non-beneficiary schools.
1.09
1.02
1.10
1.02
1.01
0.97
1.03
1.02
0.98
0.95
1.00
0.79
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
4th Year
5th Year
6th Year
Gender ratio of students promoted in 
2015-2016 from 1st Grade to 
6th Grade
Beneficiary Schools Non-Beneficiary Schools
 26
This situation may be due to the presence of the canteen
in the schools if we consider the comments of the 
different groups of actors on the issue. 
Table 12. Repetition rate by grade level and by gender in 
the beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Repetition rate in 2015-2016
Grade Gender
Both Sexes Beneficiary 
Schools Girls Boys
1st Grade 23.82% 26.78% 25.34%
2nd Grade 21.82% 24.68% 23.37%
3rd Grade 21.42% 22.94% 22.20%
4th Grade 20.43% 23.69% 22.05%
5th Grade 17.77% 18.05% 17.91%
6th Grade 9.95% 12.34% 11.11%
Total 19.81% 22.29% 21.08%
Non￾Beneficiary 
Schools
Girls Boys Total
1st Grade 20.68% 20.77% 20.73%
2nd Grade 23.73% 23.67% 23.70%
3rd Grade 19.62% 21.79% 20.70%
4th Grade 21.60% 20.27% 20.94%
5th Grade 16.82% 14.43% 15.64%
6th Grade 13.39% 9.07% 11.40%
Total 19.56% 19.03% 19.30%
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
C. The drop-out rate
The drop-out rate, calculated from the promotion rate and 
the repetition rate, is an estimate of the percentage of 
students in the 2015-2016 decision lists but which are not 
found promoted or repeated in a specific grade level in 
2016-2017. 
The information system available in the schools do not 
make it possible to trace drop-outs. However, the analysis 
of a decision list allows the following principle to be
established:
Decision = Promotion + Repetition + Drop-out.
By dividing by the number of students in the decision list 
(D), we have:
𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷
= 
𝑃𝑃
𝐷𝐷
+ 
𝑅𝑅
𝐷𝐷
+ 
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷 ,
With 1) 𝑃𝑃
𝐷𝐷
: Success rate; 
 2) 𝑅𝑅
𝐷𝐷 ∶ Repetition rate;
 3) 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷 ∶ Drop-out rate;
Thus, the drop-out rate is estimated by the following 
formula:
𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷
𝐷𝐷 = 100% – (
𝑃𝑃
𝐷𝐷
+ 
𝑅𝑅
𝐷𝐷).
Table 13. Drop-out rate by grade level and by gender in the
beneficiary and non-beneficiary schools
Drop-out rate in 2015-2016
Grade Gender
Both Sexes
Beneficiary 
Schools Girls Boys
1st Grade 7.87% 2.51% 5.13%
2nd Grade 4.07% 11.07% 7.86%
3rd Grade 5.88% 2.37% 4.07%
4th Grade 6.66% 1.59% 4.14%
5th Grade 6.34% 2.49% 4.46%
6th Grade 4.55% 0.16% 2.41%
Total 5.99% 3.81% 4.88%
Non-Beneficiary 
Schools Girls Boys Total
1st Grade 2.00% 6.08% 4.12%
2nd Grade 0.24% 0.71% 0.48%
3rd Grade 4.13% 3.04% 3.59%
4th Grade 0.47% 4.47% 2.45%
5th Grade 1.72% 1.96% 1.83%
6th Grade 3.49% 3.97% 3.71%
Total 2.00% 3.44% 2.72%
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Thus, the overall drop-out rate in 2015-2016 for beneficiary and 
non-beneficiary schools is estimated respectively at 4.88% and at 
2.72%. The girls (5.99%) were more affected by the dropout 
phenomenon compared to boys (3.81%) in the beneficiary 
schools. 
On the other hand, boys (3.44%) were more affected by the 
dropout phenomenon than girls (2%) in the non-beneficiary 
schools.
3.1.4. The main causes of academic drop-out in 
the beneficiary schools
The main causes of drop-out among girls according to the school 
principals interviewed are, in order of importance, economic 
problems (43.3%), parental migration (43.3%) and various other 
reasons (44.0%). It is the same causes evoked for girls, in 
different proportions, which explain the school dropouts for boys. 
For the latter, economic problems (44.7%), parental migration 
(43.3%) and other reasons identified (38.7%) are, in order of 
importance, the three main causes of school drop-out mentioned
by the people in charge of the schools. It should be noted that in 
33.3% of cases, health and disability problems are reported as the 
leading cause of school abandonment among boys.
 27
Table 14. Causes of drop-out - Beneficiary schools
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.5. The main causes of academic dropout in the 
non-beneficiary schools
According to the school principals interviewed, the students 
attending the control schools drop out for the following main 
reasons listed in order of importance:
i. Health problems or disabilities are mentioned by school 
principals as 29.3% and 28% respectively for girls and 
boys as the primary cause of school dropout;
ii. Economic problems come in second place as a cause of 
school drop-out. A percentage of 25.3% of principals 
argue that economic problems explain the drop-out
phenomenon among girls, while 26.7% among them admit 
that school drop out among boys is linked to the parents' 
economic problems. Two observations are worth noting. 
The first is that, in the beneficiary schools of the program, 
the principals recognize that economic problems are the 
first cause of school drop-out among students. In contrast, 
in the control schools these problems rank second as an 
explanatory factor of the drop out phenomenon. The 
second observation is that a higher percentage of 
beneficiary schools principals admit that school drop-out 
is related to the parents’ economic problems compared to 
the situation observed in the control schools. This is due 
to the well-known fact that the parents of students
attending the public schools are less fortunate compared 
to those attending the control schools, which are made up 
of 76% of private schools;
iii. Even if parental migration is an important cause of 
academic drop-out in the control schools, however, other 
unspecified reasons have been recognized by the 
principals to explain the drop-out phenomenon in their
schools.
Table 15. Causes of drop-out - Non-beneficiary schools
Main causes of 
academic drop￾out
Drop-out causes 
among girls
Drop-out causes 
among boys
# 1 # 2 # 3 # 1 # 2 # 3
Health and 
disability 
problems
29.3 6.7 4 28 8 10.7
Economic 
problems 25.3 12 6.7 26.7 13.3 5.3
Parents Moving
(Migration) 16 30.7 12 14.7 26.7 14.7
Abandon to go 
to another 
school
6.7 14.7 18.7 8 12 17.3
Stay home to 
care for a 
younger child
1.3 5.3 12 0 5.3 8
Other (explain) 21.3 30.7 46.7 22.7 34.7 44
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
In terms of academic performance, the results of this study do 
not significantly differ from the analysis done by the WFP in the 
framework of its annual report. According to the SPR (Standard 
Project Report) 2015 and 2016, the retention rate is respectively 
92.5% and 92.2%. The study found a rate of 94%.
The Baseline study showed that the overall success rate in 
2015/2016 for the beneficiary schools of the MGD program is 
estimated at 74.04% and 77.99% in the control schools. This
result is almost similar to the analysis made by the WFP for its
SPR 2015 and 2016, the success rate of the sample schools 
(schools of the MGD and Canada funding) was 77.85% and 
80.20% respectively.
3.1.6. The canteen: organization, operation and 
availability of kitchen equipments
3.1.6.1. Food Storage
The majority of schools benefiting from the school feeding 
program have a storage room (90.7%) to store food. In their 
storage room, the food is placed on pallets 88.7% of the time.
Most schools have their stock of food stored in various locations. 
Even if the main location where the food is stored is directly 
linked to the school facility, it is none the less true that other 
places are used for storage purposes. This is what stands out, 
essentially, from the answers given by the school managers when 
identifying the various food storage locations. They mentioned, in 
fact, the school principal’s home, the home of a SMC member, a 
store, as well as other storage locations are used for storing food
to serve in the school canteen.
Main causes 
of academic 
dropout
Drop-out causes
among girls
Drop-out causes
among boys
# 1 # 2 # 3 # 1 # 2 # 3
Health and 
Disability 
problems
24.0% 13.3% 8.7% 33.3% 8.7% 6.7%
Economic 
problems 43.3% 23.3% 6.7% 44.7% 22.0% 6.0%
Parents 
Moving 
(Migration)
24.7% 43.3% 12.7% 0.0% 43.3% 18.7%
Abandon to 
go to another 
school
4.0% 8.7% 16.0% 4.7% 8.0% 13.3%
Stay home to 
care for a 
younger child
1.3% 4.7% 12.0% 2.0% 7.3% 16.7%
Other 
(explain) 2.7% 6.7% 44.0% 0.0% 10.7% 38.7%
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
 28
Table 16. Types of storage locations for the school canteen 
food
Food storage locations
# of 
Schools
(N = 150)
In %
The school has an 
appropriate storage 
room to store the 
food
Yes 136 90.7
No 14 9.3
The food is placed on 
pallets
Yes 133 88.7
No 17 11.3
The food is stored at
the Principal’s home
Yes 15 10.0
No 135 90.0
The food is stored at a 
SMC member’s home
Yes 9 6.0
No 141 94.0
The food is stored in a 
boutique
Yes 7 4.7
No 143 95.3
The food is stored at
other locations
Yes 25 16.7
No 125 83.3
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Source : Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.3.1.1 Description of the school canteen kitchen 
The kitchen where the food is prepared before feeding the 
students has many physical characteristics. According to the 
field observations, 48% of these kitchens are closed-structures, 
clean and have some equipment and sanitary facilities. Others 
(38%) are confined spaces and are poorly maintained. 
Still others (48%) are in an open air space using dried wood 
placed in between three rocks.
Table 17. Observations on the schools’ kitchen
Description of the school ‘s kitchen
# of 
Schools
(N = 150)
In %
A closed, clean, ventilated 
space with tools, 
equipment and modern 
installations.
Yes 72 48.0
No 78 52.0
An open, cramped, poorly 
maintained room with no 
equipment and kitchen 
utensils
Yes 57 38.0
No 93 62.0
An open-air space on the 
ground with dried wood 
placed in between three 
rocks. 
Yes 72 48.0
No 78 52.0
The food is prepared at an 
ordinary location outside 
of the school before 
serving the students.
Yes 31 20.7
No 119 79.3
The school has an 
appropriate kitchen to 
prepare the food served 
to the students. 
Yes 107 71.3
No 43 28.7
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
Photo 6. Food stored in a school
Photo 7. A look into the kitchen of some schools
 29
3.1.6.3. Availability of equipment and utensils
Based on the survey's findings, food storage facilities are 
available in 76.70% of the schools benefitting from the school 
meal program. Those equipped with boilers and pans to 
prepare the food are estimated at 79.30% of the sample. To 
feed the student, a percentage of 51.30% of the schools has 
plates and spoons to feed their students. It should be noted that 
a percentage of 26.70% of the schools do not have any 
equipment and kitchen utensils.
Figure 6. Availability of kitchen equipment and cooking utensils
in the schools
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.6.4. Availability of kitchen cooking equipment
and utensils in the schools
Assessing the need for equipment and kitchen utensils is a
key element that will enable schools to be supplied as part 
of the program. Data collected in the field makes it possible 
to estimate the percentage of schools equipped with 
cooking equipment and utensils. The information reported 
will help identify the needs to develop a procurement plan 
for the schools benefitting from the program.
The profile of the needs expressed by the school principals 
is presented below according to four scenarios which are: 
1) Schools deprived of everything, 2) Schools with few 
equipment and utensils, 3) Schools that have enough, and 
4) Schools that are fully equipped. The following table 
shows the general situation of the provision of schools in 
equipment and kitchen utensils.
Table 18. Availability of kitchen equipment and utensils in the 
schools 
Availability of 
equipment and 
utensils
Not at 
all Few
In 
sufficient 
quantity
Fully 
equipped
Food storage 
equipment 12.00% 52.60% 28.70% 6.70%
Food 
preparation 
utensils
12.70% 64.60% 18.00% 4.70%
Cooking 
utensils 8.00% 64.00% 20.70% 7.30%
Propane gas 
oven 87.30% 4.70% 4.00% 4.00%
Charcoal
burning simple
stove
71.30% 18.00% 6.70% 4.00%
Briquettes
burning
improved stove
90.70% 4.70% 2.00% 2.70%
Dishes and 
spoons to serve 
the food
32.00% 50.70% 10.00% 7.30%
Drinking cups 52.00% 32.70% 7.30% 8.00%
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.6.5. Sources of energy used for cooking
The use of dried wood placed in between three rocks is the 
dominant source of energy for cooking in the kitchen of the 
schools benefitting from the school feeding program. Indeed, 
78% of schools adopt this traditional method of cooking food,
typical to the rural area. In second place, charcoal burned in a 
simple stove is used in 22.7 % of the schools. These two cooking 
practices, harmful for the environment, remain the most 
common choice of energy in the schools’ canteen.
However, it should be noted that schools use several sources of 
cooking energy in their kitchen. The use of a propane gas burner
oven or an improved stove is very rare. Only 4.7 % of the schools 
adopt these methods of cooking. As for the briquettes of coal, 
they are used only in 4.7 % of the schools.
0 50 100
A. Food Storage
Equipments
B. Boilers and pans for
food preparation
C. Dishes and spoons to
serve the students
D. All Category A, B, and
C
E. The school lacks
everything
76.7
79.3
51.3
39.3
26.7
23.3
20.7
48.7
60.7
73.3
Availabillity of Equipments and Cooking 
Utensils in the schools
N = 150
Yes No
 30
Figure 7. Sources of cooking energy used in the schools’ 
kitchens
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP 
Source: Baseline study 2017, AGV/WFP
3.1.6.6. Sources of cooking energy used by residence 
area 
The analysis of the use of the different energy sources used 
for cooking according to the area of residence indicates the 
following:
i. Propane gas burned in an oven is used in the kitchen 
of 4.7% of the schools located mainly in urban areas;
ii. However, in rural areas, propane gas used with an
improved oven is used for cooking by 1.3% of the
schools;
iii. Charcoal as a source of cooking energy in a single stove 
is used in the kitchen of 14.7% of the schools in urban 
areas and 8.0% of the schools in rural areas;
iv. The use of an improved stove to burn charcoal as a 
source of cooking energy is used in the kitchen of 4.7% 
of the schools located in urban areas compared to 
0.7% of schools located in rural areas;
v. As for dried wood placed between three rocks, its use 
is widespread, especially in rural areas where 60.7% 
of the schools use dry wood for cooking compared to 
17.3% of the schools in urban areas.
Figure 8. Sources of cooking energy used in the schools’ kitchens 
based on residence area
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.6.7. The source of the water used in the school’s 
kitchen
Water from a tap is used in 42% of the schools. This source of water
supply is the most common in the schools. Secondly, rainwater is 
used in 26.7% of cases. The use of water from village boreholes or 
pumps is common practice in 22% of the schools. Surface water 
(water puddles, river, creek), which represents potential sources 
of bacterial contamination, is used in 16.7% of kitchens in the 
beneficiary schools. However, the schools use multiple sources of 
water supply for their sanitary and cooking needs. The question of 
water decontamination by the use of bactericides remains 
pending.
0 50 100
Propane gas burned on a
stove
Propane gas burned on a
improved stove
Charcoal burned in a
simple stove
Briquettes burned in an
improved stove
Dried wood burned
between three rocks
4.7
4.7
22.7
4.7
78
95.3
95.3
77.3
95.3
22
Sources of energy used for cooking in the 
beneficiairy schools
Yes No
4.7%
3.3%
14.7%
4.0%
17.3%
0.00%
1.30%
8.00%
0.70%
60.70%
PROPANE GAS BURNED 
ON A STOVE
PROPANE GAS BURNED 
ON AN IMPROVED STOVE
CHARCOAL BURNED IN A 
SIMPLE STOVE
CHARCOAL BURNED IN AN 
IMPROVED STOVE
DRIED WOOD BURNED IN 
THE MIDDLE OF THREE 
ROCKS
USE OF ENERGIE SOURCES BY PLACE OF 
RESIDENCE
Urban Rural
Photo 4. Two examples of the use of cooking energy in the 
schools’ kitchen
 31
Figure 9. Origin of the water used in the school’s kitchen
 
 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.6.8. Students’ access to water
Students have access to water to wash their hands before a 
meal in 92.7% of the schools. On the other hand, they have 
access to drinking water in 72% of beneficiary schools’
facilities. As for the availability of water for sanitary 
purposes, it is only accessible to students in 50.7% of the 
schools.
Table 19. Students’ access to water
Students’ use of water in 
schools
# of 
Schools
(N = 150)
In %
Wash hands before 
meal
Yes 139 92.7
No 11 7.3
Potable water to 
drink
Yes 108 72.0
No 42 28.0
Water to evacuate 
human waste
Yes 76 50.7
No 74 49.3
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.7. Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) 
of School Canteen Managers
3.1.7.1. Compliance with good health and hygiene 
practices
According to the school administrators’ observations, the three 
good health and hygiene practices that the SMC members 
respect the most are the following:
i. 95.3% of SMC members wash the dishes immediately after 
the meal using clean water and soap;
ii. 94.7% of SMC members wear clean clothes and cover their 
hair when in the kitchen;
iii. 92.7% of SMC members wash their hands with water and 
soap after going to the restroom.
0 50 100
Faucet, Running water
Drilling / Village pump
Improved well (Protected)
Traditional well (Not
protected)
Surface water (water
puddles, river, creek)
Rainwater
42.2
22
16.7
9.3
16.7
26.7
57.8
78
83.3
90.7
83.3
73.3
Source of water used in the kitchen
No Yes
Photo 5. An example of the availability of water to wash hands
 32
Table 20. Compliance with good health and hygiene
practices
Good health and hygiene practices of 
SMC members in the school kitchen
# of SMC
N = 150 In %
Wipe hands while rubbing them 
together or using a reserved clean 
towel
122 81.3
Have fingernails short and clean with a 
bandage in case of injury 121 80.7
Wash hands with soap and clean water 
(especially after going to the 
restroom)
139 92.7
Do not cough or blow your nose near 
food or water 96 64
Do not wipe hands on clothes or serve 
meal with hands 86 57.3
Immediately discontinue work in case 
of illness (diarrhea, vomiting, boil, 
wound, ulceration on the exposed 
parts of the skin) and inform your 
colleagues
124 82.7
Buy fresh milk , meat, and fish, on the 
day of consumption and keep them 
fresh and covered
27 18
Keep the food in a clean place out of 
reach of animals, insects, rodents and 
other pests. 
132 88
Have a regulatory wash station and 
keep the restrooms clean 120 80
Use water supply and water pump 75 50
Keep drinking water in a clean, 
covered container 127 84.7
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.7.2. Compliance with good storage practices in the 
kitchen
According to the observations made by the school principals
on the operation of the canteen, the SMC members generally 
respect the good practices associated with stock 
management. Of all the factors considered, the three most 
respected best practices are, in order of importance, as 
follows:
i. Careful handling of products to prevent damage: 97.3% 
of SMCs comply with this practice;
ii. Conducting periodic inventories to monitor product 
quantity and to take corrective measures: 97.3% of 
SMCs comply with this good practice;
iii. Maintaining stocks and stores in good condition: 96.0% 
of SMCs make good use of this practice.
Table 21. Compliance with good storage practices
Good Storage Practices in the kitchen # of SMC 
(N = 150) In %
Securing food from theft, fire, and work 
accidents 138 92.0
Regularly check for the absence of rodents or 
insects. In case of their presence, take 
measures to destroy them
140 93.3
Handle products with care to avoid damage 146 97.3
When stacking, allow space for ventilation 131 87.3
Stack products on pallets by separating food 
from non-food and hazardous products 139 92.7
Maintain the store and the stocks clean and in 
good condition 144 96.0
Have the necessary space and prepare it 
before receiving the food 142 94.7
Make regular inventories to monitor the 
products quantity and take the necessary 
corrective measures
146 97.3
Limit losses by repackaging damaged food in 
time 128 85.3
Prepare management reports and update 
documents with each stock movement 143 95.3
Make stock movements only with the 
authorization of the person in charge 128 85.3
Apply the FIFO method (Meaning the food 
which comes in first into the storage room
goes out first to the kitchen)
137 91.3
 Source: Baseline study 2017, AGV/WFP.
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
 
Photo 6. Overview of food storage in a school
3.1.7.3. Compliance with good practices for safe 
food preparation
The good practices for food safety preparation help 
prevent food poisoning. Thus, by observing the SMC 
members during operation of the canteen, school 
managers believe that there are three good food 
preparation practices that are respected. They are:
i. Serve hot meals to students: 95.3% of SMC 
members respect this practice;
ii. Follow the food preparation steps: 94.7% of the 
SMC members make good practice of this 
requirement;
iii. Maintain spaces and surfaces used for food 
preparation clean: 93.3% of the SMC members 
make good practice of it.
Table 22. Compliance with good practices for safe food
preparation
Good practices for food safety
preparation
# of SMC In 
(N = 150) %
Maintain surfaces used to prepare 
the food clean 140 93.3
Wash vegetables, fruits, and 
ingredients with clean water 90 60
Meat, fish, and offal must be well 
cooked 65 43.3
Follow the food preparation steps 142 94.7
Never mix raw and prepared 
foods 88 58.7
Never store meals for warming up 
and eating them the next day 56 37.3
Serve the daily meal hot 143 95.3
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.7.4. Training of SMC members and of Service 
Staff
The survey found that a percentage of 64% of the schools
have an SMC whose members are trained on various 
topics related to canteen management. However, a 
percentage of 36% did not receive any training. The main 
topics of training for SMC members and service staff are:
i. Food Storekeeping: In this area, 47.3% of the 
schools received this training program for their 
members while 52% of the schools did not receive it;
ii. Health and Hygiene in School: A percentage of 48% 
of the beneficiary schools benefitted from such a 
training for their staff. However, 52% of them did not 
benefit from it;
iii. Nutrition: Nutrition skills are essential for the
management of the school canteen in order to
provide nutritional value to the students’ diet. In this 
area, the SMC of 44.7% of the schools have obtained
these skills, while members of 55.3% of the schools 
have not;
iv. For Food Safety Preparation: the SMC of 57.3% of 
the schools were trained and those of 42.7% of other 
schools received nothing in terms of training in this 
area.
Table 23. Training areas of SMC members and service 
staff
Training areas of SMC members 
and service staff
# of Schools
(N = 150) In %
SMC members are trained 96 64.0
Management of food stock 71 47.3
Health and hygiene 72 48.0
Nutrition 67 44.7
Food safety preparation 86 57.3
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.8. School Administrators’ observations on 
the relevance of the canteen and students’ 
behavior
3.1.8.1. Remarks of beneficiary schools’ principals
School principals were asked to comment on the functioning of 
the Management Committee (SMC), the relevance of the canteen
in the school and its impact on academic performance. The 
results obtained from their assessment of these questions are 
articulated as follows:
About the SMC’s role:
i. 72% of school principals acknowledged that the
school management committees play their role 
adequately;
ii. 70% of school principals believe that the SMC is 
effective in finding solutions to the problems.
On the relevance of the school meal program:
i. 69.3% of school principals think that the school 
meal meets the nutritional needs of students;
ii. 68% of school officials believe that the food given 
to children meets their parents’ expectations;
iii. According to the principals, not all students eat in 
their own plates. Only a percentage of 67.3% of 
them get to eat on their own plate;
iv. 85.3% of school principals have identified some 
equipment needs for the kitchen operation and for 
cooking.
On the impact of the school meal on school 
performance
i. Regarding the relationship between the school 
meal and student motivation, 96.7% of the school 
principals believe that the school meal has a 
positive effect on students’ motivation to come to 
school;
ii. Opinionating on students’ retention in schools, 
98% of principals think that the school meal has a 
retention power on the students at school;
iii. On the impact of the school meal program on 
academic performance, 94.7% of school officials 
associate academic success in the school 
establishment with the existence of the school 
feeding program;
iv. Thus, it is logical that 80% of the principals 
confirm the parents’ contribution to the
functioning of the canteen at their children school.
Table 24. Observation of school principals on the relevance 
of the school meal program in their school and on student 
behavior
School principals’ observations on 
the school meal and on the 
students’ behavior
# of 
Schools
N = 150
In %
Do you consider that the BSMC 
plays its role in the day-to-day 
management of the school canteen
operations?
108 72
Are the BSMC members effective in 
providing solutions to the 
problems encountered in the 
program management?
105 70
Do you think that the school meal 
meets the basic nutritional needs 
of students?
104 69.3
Are parents' expectations met in 
terms of their children’s nutrition 
considering the food served at the 
school?
102 68
Do all students eat in their own
plates? 101 67.3
Have you noticed a need for 
kitchen cooking equipment? If yes, 
identify these needs
128 85.3
Are you convinced that the meal is 
a motivating factor for students to 
come to school?
145 96.7
Do you think that the meal acts 
positively on the retention of 
students at school?
147 98
Do parents contribute to the 
functioning of the canteen? 120 80
Do you think that the overall 
academic success within your 
school is positively impacted by 
the availability of the canteen
142 94.7
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.8.2. Observations of the teachers from the beneficiary 
schools on the relevance of the school meal 
program
Teachers from 1st grade to the 6th grade in all the program 
beneficiary schools were invited to give their opinion on the 
importance of the school’s meal in the students’ academic life. They 
had to express themselves on three issues. The first relates to the 
possible relationship between students' attention in the classroom
and the school meal. The second question deals with the students’ 
receptive state of mind in the classroom and the third question 
addresses the relationship between an improvements of the 
students' academic performance and the availability of a meal at 
school.
The results of this discussion done individually with the teachers are 
shown in the following table.
Table 25. Teacher’s observations on students’ academic life and the 
meal available at school
Teachers 
observations on 
students in the 
beneficiary schools
#
of Schools
(N = 150)
List of the questions asked to the teachers
Did you 
observe that 
the students 
pay more 
attention in
the
classroom
with the 
canteen at 
the school?
Did you 
observe that 
the students 
become 
more 
receptive 
and learn 
more 
because of 
the meal 
available at 
school?
Did you 
observe a 
significant 
improvement 
in the 
students’ 
performance 
with the school 
meal?
Grades Qty In % Qty In % Qty In %
1st 
Grade
Yes 139 92.7 138 92.0 137 91.3
No 11 7.3 12 8.0 13 8.7
2nd
Grade
Yes 137 91.3 136 90.7 136 90.7
No 13 8.7 14 9.3 14 9.3
3rd 
Grade
Yes 142 94.7 142 94.7 140 93.3
No 8 5.3 8 5.3 10 6.7
4th 
Grade
Yes 141 94.0 140 93.3 140 93.3
No 9 6.0 10 6.7 10 6.7
5th 
Grade
Yes 137 91.3 134 89.3 135 90.0
No 13 8.7 16 10.7 15 10.0
6th 
Grade
Yes 138 92.0 138 92.0 135 90.0
No 12 8.0 12 8.0 15 10.0
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Regarding students’ attention in class:
When examining the data, more than 90% of all teachers 
in all grades (1st to 6th) conclude that the availability of 
a canteen at school has a positive effect on students’ 
attention in the classroom. This makes it easier to teach
the courses.
Regarding the students’ receptive state of mind:
These are the same observations as before. Teachers in 
all classes, 90% recognize that the availability of the
school meal makes students more receptive to the 
subjects they teach. According to them, students learn 
the lessons better and assimilate them more.
Regarding the link between the canteen and the 
academic performance:
With the canteen, teachers observed an improvement in 
students’ performance. This observation is made by at 
least 90% of teachers in all classes from 1st grade to 6th
grade.
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.8.3. Observations of principals from non-beneficiary
schools
Principals from non-recipient schools were also asked to 
give their opinion on the general operation of their school as 
well as on the students’ nutritional needs and their behavior 
in the classroom. The results of these discussions with the 
people in charge are stated in the following points.
Organizational structures in non-beneficiary schools
Non-beneficiary schools have a School Council (SC) whose 
members are parents, teachers, students. This council
assists the school principal in his daily management of the 
school.
Thus, 77.3% of the non-beneficiary schools principals 
interviewed believe that their Council plays its role 
effectively. Moreover, according to 72% of them, the 
members of their School Council participate in the execution 
of small projects of gardening and cleanliness of the school 
space. 
Regarding the nutritional needs of the children:
Even though these schools do not have a school feeding 
program, 90.7% of their managers think that the parents 
would appreciate if their children school had such a 
program. Indeed, according to their observations:
i. 30.7% of these principals think that students’ parents 
provide some adequate management of their children’s 
diet by giving them an adequate quantity, quality and 
variety of food;
ii. Only 9.3% of them are used to observe that the students 
bring something to eat in a lunch box;
iii. Thus, 77.3% observe that students sleep in the classroom 
and that this behavior may be related to a deficit in their 
diet;
iv. While, 8% of them believe that students eat foods that do 
not meet their actual nutritional needs during recess.
Observations on academic performance:
Principals of non-recipient schools expressed their 
understanding of the link between school meal and 
academic performance. According to 92% of them, their 
school would have a better academic performance if it had a 
functional canteen.
Table 26. Observations of school principals of non-beneficiary 
on school meals and students
Observations of non-beneficiary 
schools principals on the SCs and 
the students
# of 
Schools In %
(N = 75)
Do you consider that the School 
Council (SC), if there is one, in 
your school plays its role
effectively?
58 77.3
If yes, are the SC members 
involved in the promotion of 
small projects (Gardening, 
cleanliness of the school space)?
54 72
Do you think the parents and 
the students would appreciate
having a canteen in your school?
68 90.7
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Photo 7. Food served in a classroom
 36
Table 27. Principals’ remarks from non-beneficiary schools 
(Continued)
Observations of principals from 
non-beneficiary schools on SCs and 
students
# of 
Schools
(N = 150)
In %
Based on your observations, do 
parents adequately take care of 
their children's food when sending 
them to school?
23 30.7
Did you observe that the majority of 
students come to school with their 
lunch box or with pocket money to 
buy food at recess?
7 9.3
Did you observe that most students 
are attentive in the classroom or 
tend to sleep during class?
51 68
If Yes, students sleep in the 
classroom, do you think this is 
related to a certain deficit in diet?
58 77.3
The food you see that students eat 
at school during recess, does it meet 
their actual nutritional needs?
6 8
Do you consider that school 
performance in your school would 
be better if there were canteen at 
school?
69 92
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.1.8.4. Teachers’ observations from non￾beneficiary schools
In the non-beneficiary schools, teachers in 1st through 6th
grades commented on students in the classroom. Three 
issues related to their students’ behavior were addressed. 
They were about:
i. Knowing if the students usually pay attention in the
classroom;
ii. Checking on the students’ receptive state of mind;
iii. Commenting on the balanced nature of the students’ 
diet.
The results obtained from these interviews with the 
teachers are indicated in the table below:
Table 28. Teachers’ comments on students’ school life in 
non-beneficiary schools
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
About students’ attention in the classroom:
50% to 60% of teachers in 1st to 6th grades in non-beneficiary 
schools have noticed that students pay attention in the
classroom. Note that on the same issue of attention in the 
classroom in the beneficiary schools, 90% of teachers conclude 
that their students pay attention to their classes. 
About students’ receptive state of mind in the classroom:
On the question whether students are receptive or have a 
tendency to sleep in the classroom, less than 50% of teachers 
generally observe a receptive state of mind in their students. The 
majority of teachers recognize that usually students sleep in the
classroom when they teach.
About the nature of the food offered at school:
Teachers commented on the content of the food given to student 
in the non-beneficiary schools. The majority of them arrived at 
the conclusion that the students do not eat a balanced diet. 
Indeed, the majority of teachers interviewed in all the classes of 
these schools, a percentage of 80% recognizes that the students’ 
diet is not balanced.
Teachers 
comments 
on students 
in non￾beneficiary 
schools
List of questions asked to the teachers
Did you 
observe that 
the majority of
students are 
paying close 
attention to the 
classroom 
lessons?
Did you observe 
that the 
students are 
receptive and 
do not sleep 
during teaching 
hours?
In general, do 
you observe 
that the 
students eat a 
balanced diet?
Grades
# of 
Schools
(N = 75)
In %
# of 
Schools
(N = 75)
In %
# of 
Schools
(N = 75)
In %
1st 
Grade
Yes 44 59 37 49 12 16
No 31 41 38 51 63 84
2nd
Grade
Yes 45 60 33 44 12 16
No 30 40 42 56 63 84
3rd 
Grade
Yes 47 63 36 48 14 19
No 28 37 39 52 61 81
4th 
Grade
Yes 38 51 31 41 10 13
No 37 49 44 59 65 87
5th 
Grade
Yes 46 61 27 36 11 15
No 29 39 48 64 64 85
6th 
Grade
Yes 45 60 33 44 9 12
No 30 40 42 56 66 88
 37
3.2. The quantitative survey 
of students
As part of this quantitative survey, 1,193 students of the 
schools benefitting from the school meal program were 
interviewed. The 1% attrition rate (7 students) of the observed 
sample is due to the bad weather that disrupted the reopening 
of classes at the beginning of January 2017.
In the schools not benefitting from the school meal program, 
573 students were interviewed, with a 5% attrition rate (27 
students) of the calculated sample size.
3.2.1. Distribution of the students’ 
sample interviewed
The sample distribution indicates an almost equal parity 
between the sexes from the 3rd grade to the 6th grade. Overall, 
67.6% of the students interviewed come from the schools 
benefiting from the school meal program and 32.4% come
from non-beneficiary schools.
Table 29. Distribution of the sample of students interviewed
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.2.2. Status of the beneficiary 
students 
Students aged 7 to 10 represent 22.2% of the sample in the 
beneficiary schools. The majority of them are female with a 
percentage of 23.5%. Boys in this age group are estimated at 
20.9%. 
The statement made on their status in the classroom is as 
follows:
i. In total 18.2% of the students in this age group were 
promoted in 2015-2016, of which 20.2% were girls and 
16.1% were boys;
ii. 1.9% of them have a repeaters status with 1.5% girls 
and 2.4% boys;
iii. 2.1% is considered new in their class with 1.8% girls 
and 2.4% boys.
Figure 10. Status of students aged 7 to 10 in the 
beneficiary schools
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
For students aged 11 to 13, the results of the survey show that 
they represent 42.0% of the sample with 42.2% of girls and 
41.8% of boys. The status of the students in this age range is as 
follows:
i. 33.6% have a status of promoted in their class. The
girls make up 35.3% whereas the boys make up
31.9% of this group;
ii. Those in this group who have a status of repeaters
represent 4.9%, of which 4.5% are girls and 5.3% are 
boys;
iii. As for the new students, they represent 3.5% in this 
group, with 2.5% girls and 4.6% boys.
Figure 11. Status of the students aged 11 to 13 in the
beneficiary schools
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
As for the older students (14 to 16 years), they represent 
35.8% of the beneficiary students’ sample, of whom 34.3% are 
girls and 37.4% are boys. The status of the students from this 
age group in their classroom is as follows:
16.1% 2.4% 2.4%
20.2% 1.5% 1.8%
0%
50%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of student aged 7 to 10 in the classroom 
of the schools benefitting from the 
school meal program
(N =1193)
Boys Status Girls Status
31.9% 5.3% 4.6%
35.3% 4.5% 2.5%
0%
50%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of the students aged 11 to 13 in the 
classrooms of the the schools benefitting from 
the school meal program 
(N = 1193)
Boys status Girls status
Grade
Students Category 
Beneficiary Students
(N = 1193)
Non Beneficiary Students
(N = 573)
Gender Gender
B G Total B G Total
3rd Grade 66.8% 68.1% 67.5% 33.2% 31.9% 32.5%
4th Grade 65.9% 67.4% 66.7% 34.1% 32.6% 33.3%
5th Grade 68.2% 67.9% 68.0% 31.8% 32.1% 32.0%
6th Grade 68.7% 67.4% 68.1% 31.3% 32.6% 31.9%
Total 67.4% 67.7% 67.6% 32.6% 32.3% 32.4%
 38
i. The graduates who make up this age group are 
estimated at 29.8% with a percentage of 29.1% of 
them females and 30.1% males;
ii. The repeaters, on the other hand, are estimated at 
3.2% with 2.2% girls and 3.2% boys;
iii. The new students this year within this age group 
are estimated at 2.8% of which 3% are girls, and 
2.5% are boys.
Figure 12. Status of students aged 14 to 16 in the beneficiary 
schools 
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Overall, for all age groups, 81.6% of the students 
interviewed in the beneficiary schools have a promoted
status in the classrooms. The girls, with a percentage of 
84.6%, were more successful in the 2015-2016 school 
year compared to boys whose promoted percentage is 
78.6%. 
This confirms the gender structure of the success rate 
previously calculated from the statistics obtained in the
registers of the program’s beneficiary schools.
The repeaters, among the sample of students 
interviewed, are estimated overall at 10% of which
11.9% for boys and 8.1% for girls. As for the new 
students, they represent 8.4% of the students 
interviewed with 9.5% of boys and 7.3% of girls.
Figure 13. The status of students interviewed in the 
classrooms of beneficiary schools 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.2.3. Status of the non-beneficiary 
students
In the non-beneficiary schools, students aged 7 to 10 make up 
23.7% of the sample of the non-beneficiary students of a 
school meal program. The percentage of girls in this age group 
is estimated at 24.3% as opposed to 23.2% for the boys. The 
status of the students in this group in the classroom fit the 
following profile:
i. The percentage of graduates is 20.6% with 22.6% for 
girls and 18.6% for boys;
ii. The repeaters are estimated at 1% of which 0.7% for 
girls and 1.4% for boys;
iii. As for the new students in this group they are estimated
at 2.1% with 1% for girls and 3.2% for boys.
30.6% 4.2% 2.5%
29.1% 2.2% 3.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of students aged 14 to 16 in the 
classroom of the schools benefitting from the 
school meal program
(N = 1193)
Boys status Girls status
78.6% 11.9% 9.5%
84.6% 8.1% 7.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of all students in the classrooms of the 
schools benefiting from the school meal 
program (N = 1193)
Boys status Girls status
Photo 8. Picture of students in a classroom in a non￾beneficiary school
39
Figure 14. Status of students aged 7 to 10 in non-beneficiary 
schools 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Regarding the group aged between 11 and 13, the 
students represent 38.9% of the sample, with 39.6% girls 
and 38.2% boys. Their status in their classroom is as 
follows:
i. A percentage of promoted of 32.6% of which 33% 
are girls, and 32.3% are boys;
ii. A percentage of repeaters estimated at 4% with 3.8% 
girls, and 4.2% boys;
iii. A percentage of new students evaluated at 2.3% of 
which 2.8% are girls, and 1.8% are boys.
Figure 15. Status of students aged 11 to 13 in non-beneficiary 
schools
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
As for the students aged 14 to 16, they represent 37.3% 
of the sample of non-beneficiary students. The girls make 
up 36.1% of this group, compared to 38.6% for the boys. 
Their status in the classrooms has the following profile:
i. The graduates represent 31.8% with a representation 
of 29.2% of girls against 34.4% for the boys;
ii. The repeaters are estimated at 3% with a proportion 
of girls evaluated at 3.8% against 2.1% for the boys;
iii. For the newcomers, they are estimated at 2.6% with 
a girls’ presence of 3.1% against 2.1% for the boys.
Figure 16. Status of students aged 14 to 16 in non￾beneficiary schools 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
When considering all the age groups combined, the graduate
students represent 85% of the sample with a representation 
of 84.7% of girls against 85.3% for the boys. The repeaters, 
on the other hand, account for 8% of those interviewed of 
whom 8.3% are girls, and 7.7% are boys. As for the newly
enrolled, they are estimated at 7% with 6.9% of girls and 7% 
of boys.
Figure 17. Status of students interviewed in the
classrooms of non-beneficiary schools
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
18.6%
1.4% 3.2%
22.6%
0.7% 1.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of students aged 7 to 10 in the classrooms 
of non-beneficiary schools 
(N = 573)
Boys status Girls status
32.3% 4.2% 1.8%
33.0% 3.8% 2.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of student aged 11 to 13 in the 
classrooms of non-beneficiary schools
(N = 573)
Boys status Girls status
34.4%
2.1% 2.1%
29.2%
3.8% 3.1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted
this year
Repeaters New students
Status of student aged 14 to 16 in the 
classrooms of non-beneficiary schools
(N = 573)
Boys status Girls status
85.3% 7.7% 7.0%
84.7% 8.3% 6.9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Promoted this
year
Repeaters New students
Status of all students in classrooms of non￾beneficiary schools
(N = 573)
Boys status Girls status
 40
3.2.4. Dietary habits and academic 
performance of beneficiary students 
and the canteen
The following analysis is based on the results of the 
survey of students interviewed in the schools benefiting 
from the school meal program. It examines, on the one 
hand, the students’ habits and preferences in terms of 
diet. On the other hand, it highlights the relationship 
between students' motivation for schooling and the food 
they receive at school.
3.2.4.1. Students’ eating habits and 
preferences
The majority of students (81.1%) in the program’s 
beneficiary schools eat their breakfast at home every 
morning before coming to school. A large percentage of 
them (83.8%) like the food they are served at school. 
However, 88% eat it whenever the opportunity arises.
 Table 30. Eating habits and preferences of beneficiary students 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
On the other hand, 68.8% of the students say that their 
parents pay a fee for the food served to them at school; 
75.5% of them say having a preference for their parent’s food 
at home. The main reasons for this preference are as follows:
i. For 32.6% the food is more diverse at home than at 
school;
ii. 21.2% of the students interviewed preferred the food 
at home because it is better prepared;
iii. The 20.2% preference for the food at home is 
explained by the fact that it comes with meat;
iv. Only 2.1% recognize that the food at school has a bad 
taste;
v. Finally, no preference is expressed for 23.9% of the 
students interviewed. 
3.2.4.2. Diversity and frequency of the students’ 
diet in the school
The food served to the students in the school canteen is 
prepared from four basic cereals: wheat (86.8%), rice (12.7%), 
corn meal (0.3%) and millet (0.2%). Wheat is the cereal that 
students are served the most. A percentage of 73.3% of the 
students recognize, however, that this food usually comes with
a legume, such as pea for example. However, only 10.8% of the 
students confirm that the food is served with meat or salmon.
In terms of regularity in this diet, the majority of the students 
interviewed, a percentage of (81.6%) admit to consuming this 
food five (5) days a week. A percentage of 12.7% reported 
eating four (4) days a week at school. Finally, only 5.7% of the 
student admit to eating at their school canteen between one 
(1) and three (3) days a week.
Regarding food preference, rice remains the most popular food
for the students, even if it is the least common in school meals. 
In fact, 50.9% of the students interviewed say that they take 
more pleasure in eating rice. However, a percentage of 47.3% 
of them enjoy the same pleasure when they eat wheat. A very 
low percentage (1.8%) of the students said they enjoy eating 
corn meal.
Habits and preferences of the students 
in terms of diet
#
of Students
In %
(N = 1193)
Do you eat every morning 
before coming to school?
Yes 968 81.1
No 225 18.9
Do you like the food 
provided at school?
Yes 1000 83.8
No 193 16.2
Do you eat whenever there is 
food in the school canteen?
Yes 1050 88
No 143 11.9
Do your parents pay for the 
food you eat at school?
Yes 821 68.8
No 372 31.2
Do you prefer the food your 
parents give at home to the 
one you eat at school?
At 
home 901 75.5
At 
school 292 24.5
What is the 
most 
important 
reason for 
you 
supporting 
this 
preference?
The food is more 
diverse at home 389 32.6
The food is better 
prepared at home 253 21.2
There is meat in the 
food prepared at home 241 20.2
Because of the bad 
taste of the food at 
school
25 2.1
Does not express any 
preference 285 23.9
Diversity, frequency of feeding and 
benefits gained by the direct 
beneficiaries
# 
of 
Students
(N = 
1193)
In %
What food (Cereal) do 
they serve most at the 
school?
Wheat 1036 86.8
Rice 152 12.7
Corn meal 3 0.3
Millet 2 0.2
This food (Cereal) is it 
accompanied by a 
vegetable like pea for 
example?
Yes 874 73.3
No 319 26.7
This food (Cereal) is it 
accompanied by meat 
or salmon?
Yes 129 10.8
No 1064 89.2
Table 31. Meals diversity and frequency, as well as 
benefits gained by the beneficiaries
41
Table 31(Continued) 
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.2.4.3. Benefits gained by the beneficiary 
students
Eating in their school canteen provides the students 
with some benefits that they acknowledge as a matter 
of fact. The biggest benefit gained, for most of them, is
concentration in the classroom. In fact, 36.4% of the 
students interviewed reported that eating at school 
helps them to better focus in the classroom. The second 
biggest benefit derived from eating at school is the 
encouragement to study. 
A percentage of 26.2% of students share this view. The 
third benefit, per 18.9% of the students interviewed, is 
that eating at school motivates them to be present in 
class every day. Finally, for 18.5% of them, the main 
benefit is having a hot meal every day for free.
3.2.4.4. Benefits gained by the students based 
on their academic performance
The students who did not pass the 2015-2016 school 
year because they had an average of less than 5/10 
represent 17.3% of the sample with 16.2% of girls and 
18.3% of boys. The distribution of this group according 
to the benefits derived from the school meal is as 
follows:
i. Those for whom the main benefit is having a hot meal 
daily are estimated at 2.5% of which 1.8% are girls and 
3.2% are boys;
ii. Others, a percentage of 6.4% with 6.6% girls and 6.1% 
boys feel that eating at school helps them concentrate 
better in the classroom;
iii. Another group 4.1% of them among which 3.5% are girls 
and 4.8% are boys admit that the main benefit of eating 
at school is that it encourages them to be in class every 
day;
iv. As for those for whom it is an encouragement to study 
more, they represent 4.3% of repeaters with 4.3% of 
girls, and 4.2% of boys.
Figure 18. The repeaters interviewed in regards to the 
benefits gained from the food served at their school’s 
canteen
Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
The group of graduates with an average between 5/10 and 
7/10 represent 58.4% of the sample with a representation of 
girls estimated at 57.9% against 58.9% for the boys. With 
respect to the benefits they derive from the meal at school, the 
distribution is as follows:
i. 11.4% of which 11.8% of girls and 11.0% of boys have 
the greatest advantage of benefitting from a hot meal a 
day;
ii. A percentage of 21.6% with 23% of girls and 20.2% of 
boys think that eating at school has the advantage of 
helping them concentrate better in the classroom;
iii. They are estimated at 10.1%, of which 8.8% of girls and 
11.4% of boys, who say that eating at school encourages 
them to come to class every day;
iv. As for those who use this opportunity to study more, 
they represent 15.3% with 14.4% of girls and 16.3% of 
boys.
3.2%
6.1% 4.8% 4.2%
1.8%
6.6% 3.5% 4.3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A FREE HOT 
MEAL
IT HELPS ME 
CONCENTRATE 
IN THE 
CLASSROOM
IT MOTIVATES 
ME TO COME 
TO SCHOOL 
EVERY DAY
IT 
ENCOURAGES 
ME TO STUDY 
MORE
Percentage of the students from the beneficiary 
schools with an average < 5/10 last year 
considering their explanation of the greatest 
benefit they gain from eating at school
(N = 1193)
Boys Girls
How many days a 
week do you eat at the 
school canteen?
1 day 8 0.7
2 days 13 1.1
3 days 47 3.9
4 days 152 12.7
5 days 973 81.6
What food (Cereal) do 
they serve at school 
and which one do you 
enjoy eating the most?
Wheat 564 47.3
Rice 607 50.9
Corn meal 22 1.8
According to you, 
what is the biggest 
advantage do you gain 
from eating at school?
A free hot 
meal 221 18.5
It helps me 
concentrate
in the 
classroom
434 36.4
It motivates
me to come 
to school 
every day
225 18.9
It encourages 
me to study 
more
313 26.2
 42
Figure 19. The graduates with an intermediary average 
interviewed in regards to the benefits gained from the
meal served in their school canteen
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
The best academically performing students in 2015-2016 
who had an average greater than 7/10 represent 24.3% 
of the sample with 25.8% of girls and 22.8% of boys. Their 
distribution according to the advantage they gain from 
the meal served at their school canteen is the following: 
i. A percentage of 4.6% of them, from which 5.3% of girls 
and 3.9% of boys gain the greatest benefit from having a 
hot meal every day at school;
ii. Those whose school meal allows them to concentrate 
better in the classroom are estimated at 8.4% with 8.9% 
girls and 7.8% boys;
iii. Another group of 4.7%, of which the girls represent 5.1% 
and the boys 4.2% believe that eating at school helps them 
come to class every day;
iv. As for those whom eating at school is a source of 
motivation to study more, they are estimated at 6.6% of 
this group of excellence where the representation of girls 
is 6.5% against 6.8% for the boys.
Figure 20. The graduates with an average greater than 
7/10 interviewed in regards to the benefits gained from the 
meal served in their school canteen
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
In the end, 18.5% of all the beneficiary students interviewed agree 
that the greatest benefit of eating in their school canteen is that 
they can enjoy a hot meal every day. In this group, the girls 
represent 18.2% and the boys 18.9%.
In addition, when it comes to classroom concentration, 36.4% of 
beneficiary students admit that it is the greatest benefit that 
eating in the school canteen provides. This opinion is shared by 
38.6% of girls against 34.1% of boys.
Furthermore, the school served at the school attracts a group 
representing 18.9% of the students. For the latter, their greatest 
benefit is an encouragement to justify a regular presence in the 
classroom. The girls who share this opinion are estimated at 
17.4% against 20.4% for the boys.
Finally, a percentage of 26.2% of the beneficiary students 
interviewed acknowledge that the greatest benefit gained from 
the school meal is to encourage them to study more. This point of
view is shared by 25.2% of girls and 27.3% of boys.
11.0% 20.2% 11.4% 16.3%
11.8%
23.0% 8.8% 14.4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A FREE HOT 
MEAL
IT HELPS ME 
CONCENTRATE IN 
THE CLASSROOM
IT MOTIVATES 
ME TO COME TO 
SCHOOL EVERY 
DAY
IT ENCOURAGES 
ME TO STUDY 
MORE
Percentage of beneficiary schools students with an 
average between 5/10 and 7/10 last year considering 
their explanation of the greatest benefit they gain from 
eating at school
(N = 1193)
Boys Girls
3.9% 7.8% 4.2% 6.8%
5.3% 8.9% 5.1% 6.5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A FREE HOT 
MEAL
IT HELPS ME 
CONCENTRATE 
IN THE 
CLASSROOM
IT MOTIVATES 
ME TO COME 
TO SCHOOL 
EVERY DAY
IT ENCOURAGES 
ME TO STUDY 
MORE
Percentage of beneficiary schools students with an 
average greater than 7/10 last year considering their 
explanation of the greatest benefit they gain from 
eating at school
(N = 1193)
Boys Girls
43
Figure 21. Total percentage of the students interviewed in 
regards to the benefits obtained from the meal served at 
their school canteen
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
To conclude this section, it is important to bring out this 
general observation on all the students interviewed in the
beneficiary schools:
i. The overall percentage of students interviewed who 
confirmed having an average greater than or equal to 5/10 in 
2015-2016 is estimated at 82.73%. For the girls, this 
percentage is 83.8% against 81.7% for the boys. Note that 
these percentages are not very different from the responses 
provided by these students when asked what is their current
status in their class. Indeed, 81.6% of them confirmed a status 
of graduate in their class this year;
ii. For all these graduate students, 16.01% find their greatest 
advantage in a hot meal served at the school canteen every 
day;
iii. A percentage of 30.01% recognizes that the greatest 
advantage gained from a hot meal is that it enables the 
beneficiary students to better concentrate in the classroom;
iv. For 14.75% of them, eating at the school canteen is an 
attraction to come to school every day;
v. Finally, a percentage of 21.96% find in the meal served in the 
school canteen a source of encouragement to study more. 
Thus, for the two factors closely related to academic 
achievement, namely concentration in the classroom and 
assiduous study, eating at school has an impact on at least 
51.97% of the students interviewed. 
3.2.5. Eating Habits and academic 
performance of the non￾beneficiary students
With the non-beneficiary students, the survey looked at their 
eating habits and preferences on the one hand. On the other 
hand the emphasis was placed on their motivation to go to 
school in the absence of a school meal program while 
reviewing their academic performance during the year 2015-
2016.
3.2.5.1 Habits associated with the students’ nutrition
Analyzing the habits associated to the nutrition of the non￾beneficiary students of a school meal program, it appears as 
follows: 
i. A little more than half of these students, a percentage of
(56.2%) has the habit of eating every morning before 
coming to school, while 43.8% of them do not have that 
habit;
ii. A low percentage of 0.7% of students bring a lunch box to
school. This is very significant of the economic problems 
the population of the semi-urban and rural areas of the 
country are facing;
iii. Those who see their parents put money in their pocket to 
go to school are estimated at 14.7% only. 
Figure 22. Habits related to the nutrition of the non￾beneficiary students of a school meal program
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.2.5.2 Food preferences of non-beneficiary students
The non-beneficiary students would have probably preferred 
that a canteen be available in their school when analyzing the
advantages they could have benefited from. In fact, 32.1% of 
them could not have been hungry at school anymore.
A percentage of 27.1% would be more motivated to come to 
school, and 22% of them would have paid more attention in the
classroom. Finally, 18.8% would have put more effort into their 
studies.
Furthermore, if there was a canteen in their school 78% of the 
non-beneficiary students would prefer to consume rice, 14.7%, 
would have a preference for wheat and 6.3%, for corn meal. A 
18.2% 34.1% 20.4% 27.3%
18.9%
38.6% 17.4% 25.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A FREE HOT 
MEAL
IT HELPS ME 
CONCENTRATE 
IN THE 
CLASSROMM
IT MOTIVATES 
ME TO COME 
TO SCHOOL 
EVERY DAY
IT ENCOURAGES 
ME TO STUDY 
MORE
Total percentage of beneficiary schools students 
considering their explanation of the greatest 
benefit they gain from eating at school
(N = 1193) 
Boys Girls
56.2
0.7
14.7
43.8
99.3
85.3
0 100 200
DO YOU EAT EVERY MORNING 
AT YOUR HOME BEFORE 
COMING TO SCHOOL?
DO YOUR PARENTS GIVE YOU 
FOOD TO COME TO SCHOOL?
DO YOUR PARENTS GIVE YOU OF 
THE POCKET MONEY?
Habits related to school feeding of non￾beneficiary students of a school meal program
(N = 573)
No Yes
 44
percentage of 94.4% would like a legume to eat with their 
cereal of choice which is rice, 95.6% would have liked to see 
meat in their meal, and 91.6% would have wanted to eat five 
(5) days during the week.
Table 32. Food preferences of non-beneficiary students
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.2.5.3 Motivation and academic performance of the 
non-beneficiary students
The observation made by 64.6% of the non-beneficiary 
students interviewed on their classmates indicate that 
these are generally attentive in the classroom. However, 
42.6% of them think that the absence of a canteen at 
their school can be considered as a source of 
discouragement for students to come to school.
However, analyzing the academic performance of their 
classmates, 70% of the students interviewed think that 
even in the absence of a canteen in their school, the
students manage to maintain a certain academic 
performance. It should be noted that a percentage of 
30% feel that their classmates were not able to have a 
good academic performance in the absence of a canteen
in their school.
In fact, by examining the averages obtained for the 2015-
2016 school year, 27.9% of the students interviewed had 
an average of less than 5/10. A percentage of 49.7% had 
an average between 5/10 and 7/10 and 22.3% ranked at 
the top with an average greater than 7/10.
To the question of whether the school meal has an impact on 
the retention of the students at school, the students
interviewed think that 38.4% would opt for a school nearby 
with a canteen if they knew the existence of such school. They 
could have left their current school for this new school with a 
meal program.
Furthermore, among those who think (52.7%) that their 
classmates would have chosen to go to another school with a 
canteen or to stay, there would be at least 38.4% of the 
students of the non-beneficiary schools on which their school 
does not have a real power of retention. 
Thus, looking at these data, the canteen at a school in these 
targeted categories plays a big role in the ability of the school 
to retain its students. The economic difficulties make it so that 
these are attracted either to have a hot meal every day or to 
find the motivation necessary to study and to succeed in their 
schooling.
Table 33. Motivation and academic performance of non￾beneficiary students
Motivation and academic performance 
of non-beneficiary students
# of 
Student
En 
% (N =573)
Based on your usual 
observations, are the 
students attentive in the
classroom?
Yes 367 64
No 206 36
The fact that there is not a 
canteen in the school does
not this discourage the 
children from coming to 
school?
Yes 244 42.6
No 329 57.4
According to your 
observations, do the 
students in your school
usually have a school 
performance in the absence 
of a canteen?
Yes 401 70
No 172 30
What was your grade for 
the last school year?
< 5/10 160 27.9
5/10 – 7/10 285 49.7
7/10 and 
over 128 22.3
If you were aware that 
there was a school 
nearby where there is a 
canteen would you like 
to leave your school to 
go to this school?
Yes 220 38.4
No 353 61.6
Do you think that a 
majority of students of 
your school would do as 
much?
Yes 328 52.7
No 245 42.8
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
Food preferences of non-beneficiary 
students
# of 
Students
(N = 
573)
In %
What benefit do you 
think a canteen at 
the school would 
bring you the most?
No longer be 
hungry at 
school
184 32.1
More 
motivation to 
come to school
155 27.1
More attentive 
in the 
classroom
126 22.0
More assiduous 
in studying 108 18.8
What food (Cereal) 
would you prefer to 
eat the most at 
school if there was a 
canteen?
Wheat 84 14.7
Rice 447 78.0
Corn 36 6.3
Millet 6 1.0
This food (Cereal), 
you would prefer for 
it to come with a 
legume like pea for 
example?
Yes 541 94.4
No 32 5.6
This food (Cereal), 
you would have 
liked for it to come 
with meat or 
salmon?
Yes 548 95.6
No 25 4.4
How many days a 
week would you like 
to eat at the school if 
there was a canteen?
1 day 1 0.2
2 days 9 1.6
3 days 9 1.6
4 days 29 5.1
5 days 525 91.6
45
3.3. The qualitative survey of the 
community groups
The qualitative survey was conducted in about 30 communities 
in early December 2016. Each focus group was planned in 
conjunction with the schools’ managers and the school 
management committee (SMC). Exchanges on various aspects of 
the school feeding program were conducted with each group of 
actors seperately. Two professionals, one facilitator and one 
note taker, were sent in each community to organize these
exchanges with the schools’ key actors.
3.3.1. Choice and distribution of 
communities for the Focus-Groups 
The choice of the 30 communities followed the same protocol 
associated with the selection of the study sample. Based on the 
distribution size of the total number (595) of schools benefitting 
from the program at the level of the five (5) strata, the number 
of target communities for the organization of focus groups was 
determined and then randomly drawn. Thus, the 30 randomly
selected communities are distributed as follow:
Figure 23. Distribution of the 30 communities for the Focus-Groups
These 30 communities were randomly distributed at the level 
of the municipalities and the communal sections where the 
schools are located. Thus, coverage of this distribution of the 
focus groups over the entire geographical scope of the study
was obtained.
3.3.2. Profile of the discussion groups’ 
participants
Across the entire geographic scope of the study, all interest
groups were represented in the exchanges. The following table 
gives the sectoral profile of each participants at the meeting.
However, the groups with the best quantitative representation 
are in order of importance:
i. Members of the school management committee (SMC) with 
a percentage of participants evaluated at 29.82%;
ii. Teachers who were represented at 17.89%;
iii. The parents’ associations that were present at the meetings 
with 15.14% of their members;
iv. The school principals with a participation of 12.84%;
v. The students, the main direct beneficiaries of the program, 
were represented at 11.47% of the number of participants;
vi. Then there were all the actors present including ASEC / 
CASEC, food storage room security guards, community 
leaders, religious leaders, distinctive personalities in the 
communities and representatives of the community-based
organizations.
Table 34. Profile of the Focus-Groups participants
Profile of the participants Quantity In %
ASEC 1 0.46
Parents’ association 33 15.14
CASEC 4 1.83
SMC Members 65 29.82
School administration 28 12.84
Students 25 11.47
Teachers 39 17.89
Security guards 5 2.29
Community leaders 5 2.29
Religious leaders 3 1.38
Community’s distinctive 
personalities 3 1.38
CBO representatives 7 3.21
Total 218 100.00
 Source: Baseline survey 2017, AGV/WFP.
3.3.3. Discussion topics with the 
participants
Focus-Group discussions were conducted with each group 
of community actors separately. For each group met, 
discussion topics with specific questions allowed a 
facilitator and a note taker to conduct the discussions and 
report the participants’ contribution to the discussion 
sessions. The different topics discussed with the various 
groups of participants are the following:
Interest Group 1: School Principals
i. Implementation and operation of the SMC and the BSMC;
ii. Importance of the canteen within the school and the 
need for utensils and equipment;
iii. Link between the school meal and the classroom 
attendance;
iv. Forms of contribution and participation of the parents in 
the school canteen.
Interest Group 2: Teachers
i. The meal and student attention in the classroom;
ii. The meal, the students’ alertness and learning in the 
classroom;
8
2
7
6
7
0
5
10
West Center Artibonite North North East
DISTRIBUTION OF THE 30 COMMUNITIES WHERE 
THE FOCUS-GROUPS WERE CONDUCTED
 46
iii. The meal and the students’ performance.
Interest Group 3: Service Staff 
i. Nutrition knowledge and training needs;
ii. Inventory management, quantitative and qualitative 
aspects;
iii. Composition of the dishes served to the students;
iv. Cooking energy and use of water.
Interest Group 4: Students
i. General appreciation of the students for the food served 
in the school canteen;
ii. Main students’ grievances on the quality of the meals.
Interest Group 5: SMC members and the students’ 
parents
i. The school canteen and the increased students’ 
motivation to go to school;
ii. Students’ level of appreciation for the meal served in the 
canteen;
iii. Parents’ involvement in the canteen;
iv. Program governance within the school;
v. Recommendations to improve the program’s
management
3.3.4. The Focus-Groups results
3.3.4.1 Discussions with school principals
The implementation and the operation of the school 
management committee (SMC) is a topic discussed with 
the schools principals during the Focus-Groups. The 
questions evolved around the role and the contribution of 
this structure in the management of the canteen and the 
problems it faces in carrying out its functions. The points 
that emerged from these discussions are: 
i. Overall, the SMC members are cooperating to run the 
canteen in their school;
ii. They supervise the kitchen as required and ensure 
that the stoves meet the standards of cleanliness and 
food safety preparation;
iii. They ensure the mobilization of parents to discuss any 
subjects of interest for the operation of the school and 
the canteen;
iv. They manage food stocks and plan daily how much 
food to cook to meet the nutritional needs of the 
students present in the classrooms;
v. In short, the committee ensures the proper 
functioning of the school canteen, the control of the
storage room, the planning of the cooking, the 
purchases, the control of the canteen accessories, the 
respect of hygiene practices, the supervision of the 
children during lunch. 
In addressing the problems encountered by the SMC 
members while performing their duties, the school officials 
reported:
i. Recurring salary grievances of the service personnel;
ii. Insufficient availability of kitchen equipment and 
utensils;
iii. Difficult access to water and energy for cooking;
iv. Lack of variety in the food which causes grievances 
on the part of the students;
v. That, with the total depletion of the food stock, the 
students no longer come to school;
vi. Managing the food distribution to the students takes 
way too much time. In fact, when serving the meal, 
the teachers are involved to guarantee order. This
has a negative impact on the management of the time 
spent on school activities in the classrooms.
The discussions with the school principals also focused on 
the importance of the canteen in their schools, the need for 
kitchen equipment and utensils, and the types of 
contribution received from the parents. From these 
exchanges, it revealed the following:
On the satisfaction of the students' nutritional needs, the 
opinions are divided. Most principals argue that the 
school meal meets students’ dietary needs when 
considering the fact that without this opportunity, the
students would not have access to a daily hot meal.
Others argue that the food served in the canteen does not 
meet the students’ nutritional needs. According to them, 
there is a lack of variety in the meal and its content in 
terms of nutritional needs is not balanced. On this same 
subject, the opinions are divided on the fact of whether 
the parents’ expectations are met or not. Some principals 
believe that most parents are satisfied with the food
served to their children at school. Others, on the other 
hand, argue the opposite based on the quality of the food 
accessible at school. 
In addition, the lack of cooking utensils means that each
student does not eat in his own plate. In some schools, the 
students eat with their hands not being able to use a 
spoon. Under these conditions, the risks of contamination
from viral diseases are high. All these conditions mean 
that the expectations of all the parents are not met in 
regards to their children’s nutritional needs.
With regard to the lack of equipment and kitchen utensils, 
the schools’ principals pointed out that the needs are in 
terms of:
i. Boilers, pans for preparing the food;
ii. Plates and spoons for feeding children;
iii. Equipment (pallets) to ensure the proper storage of 
food in the storage room.
47
However, the principals unanimously recognize that the 
school meal is a source of motivation that attracts
students and has a positive effect on the retention of 
students at school. 
Pertaining to the types of parental contribution to the 
operation of the canteen, the principals report that they 
provide the following types of support:
i. For the most part, they give a modest financial 
contribution for the functioning of the school canteen;
ii. They participate in small cleaning and gardening 
projects that help keep the school’s immediate
environment clean;
iii. They bring wood as a source of energy and water for 
cooking the food.
It should be noted that in terms of energy consumption, 
most principals estimate between 3% and 5% the 
percentage of households that have a certain habit of 
buying coal briquettes.
3.3.4.2 Discussion with the teachers
The discussions with the teachers focused on the attention, 
the alertness and the performance of the students in the 
classroom while considering the availability of the canteen
at the school. The results of these exchanges reveal the 
following points:
i. On their considerations of the students’ attention in
the classroom, the teachers unanimously recognize 
that students are paying much more attention in the
classroom because of the meal now available. Most 
even compared the situation in which they taught 
before the canteen to support their arguments;
ii. With regard to the students’ receptive state of mind in 
the classroom, all teachers share the same point of 
view. The students are more receptive, learn better 
and more easily because of the meal available at their 
school;
iii. Regarding the students’ academic performance, they 
also acknowledged unanimously that the students’ 
academic performance improved greatly with the 
canteen. They based their conclusion on a comparison 
of when there was no canteen in the school.
3.3.4.3. Discussions with the service 
personnel
The list of discussions with the service staff in the school 
canteen focused on their knowledge of inventory
management, the use of energy and water. These 
exchanges also considered the types of dishes served to the 
students. These discussions revealed the following 
findings:
In terms of general knowledge of the service personnel, the 
members claim that they know the basic rules of cleanliness 
and food safety preparation. For example, they use chlorinated 
water for any type of washing and cleaning in the kitchen. They 
wash their hands regularly, take care of the hair holding, etc. 
They respect the standards of dosage for the different types of 
ingredients used in the composition of the dishes.
When it comes to stock management, the service staff explains
that the food in the storage room is placed on pallets. They take 
measures to prevent the presence of rodents (rats, mice, etc.) 
by allowing cats to sleep in the storage rooms, in most cases. 
They use pesticides to remove growth habitat of other pests. 
These precautions help prevent food contamination by these 
critters. 
The storage room under the supervision of the storekeeper is 
generally secure and properly closed. Every morning,
depending on the number of students present, the food to be 
prepared is sent to the kitchen. The staff uses the worksheets 
provided by WFP to monitor the depletion of the food stock.
For this, they apply the training received from the WFP on 
inventory management.
As for the availability of equipment, the service staff in most 
schools reported the lack of pallets and other equipment used 
to store the food.
Regarding the types of food served to the students, in most 
cases, the student's meal consists of wheat mixed with beans. 
Sometimes, the dish served includes rice.
As for the cooking energy used in the kitchen by the service 
staff, it is mainly provided by the use of dried wood. In some 
rare cases, propane gas and charcoal are used as a source of 
energy for cooking.
3.3.4.4. Discussions with the students
The discussion topics with the student representatives in the 
Focus-Groups focused on the students' overall appreciation of 
the food served and their main grievances in regards to the 
quality of the meal. Overall, the students’ representatives
recognize that their classmates enjoy the meal served at school. 
Their main demands are about the diversity of the food. In fact, 
they find the menu essentially based on wheat and bean too 
monotonous. 
Most students complain about the taste and the lack of meat or 
salmon. However, the food at school represents for them a real 
source of motivation not only to come to school but also to be more 
attentive in the classroom.
3.3.4.5. Discussions with the SMC 
members and the Parents
48
With the SMC members and the parents, the discussions 
focused essentially on issues of program governance and 
recommendations for improving program management. 
The results of this exchanges highlighted the following
points:
On the aspect of the program governance, issues dealing 
with transparency, participation, access and circulation of 
information were discussed during the exchanges. In terms 
of transparency, almost all the discussion groups of the SMC 
with the exception of one reported that all members have 
full access to all information related to the management of 
the canteen in their school. In terms of their participation in 
decision-making, it is the same observation. They are always 
invited to participate in the meetings where the decisions 
are taken about the management of the canteen. Likewise,
for the free flow of information, they say that all information 
is known and accessible to everyone.
 
Regarding the use of the canteen food, the SMC members 
and parents, unanimously, report that the merchandise
delivered by the WFP to the schools are exclusively used to 
feed the students. In no way, are they diverted for other 
purposes.
In terms of recommendations to improve the program 
management, the SMC members and the parents advocate 
for a set of requests they made. Their first request is for an 
increase in the quantity of food delivered to the schools. For 
them, the students are not eating enough and, besides, they 
have to handle conflicts with students from non-eligible 
classes in the program (7th grade to 9th grade) to benefit 
from the program. Their second type of request concerns 
ingredients such as: iodized salt, meat, salmon in order to 
improve the quality of the meals served to the students.
The third request was formulated to express their needs for 
storage equipment and kitchen utensils (plates, spoons, 
cups, etc.). Their fourth request concerns the diversity of the 
food. 
Currently, the bulk of the student nutrition is based on 
wheat. They want WFP to provide them with other foods 
such as rice, corn meal, flour, sardines, herring and juice
packs to meet the students’ nutritional needs.
3.4. Discussions around the 
reflections on school feeding 
in Haiti
Significant progress regarding strategic and operational 
management of the school feeding in Haiti has been
observed these last years. Strategically, reflection and 
orientation efforts having benefited from the support of
the WFP, have contributed to the definition and the 
adoption of a national school feeding policy. Program
actions included in this policy’s Agenda, particularly, the 
implementation of a legal and regulatory framework, the 
implementation of new structures (CNAS) and the capacity 
building of other existing structures (PNCS / MENFP) as 
well as institutional networks formed, aim at guaranteeing
the good governance of school feeding in Haiti in 
connection with the local economy.
During the workshop on the evaluation of national 
capacities and the elaboration of an action plan on the 
SABER, school feeding in Haiti on August 25th and 26th, 
2015, a set of strategic objectives based on the identified 
needs were highlighted by considering the following 
pillars:
i. The political frameworks;
ii. The financial capacity;
iii. The institutional capacity and coordination;
iv. The design and implementation;
v. The roles of communities – Taking actions beyond 
schools.
This national workshop organized by WFP made it possible 
to establish a diagnosis of the school feeding situation in 
the country and, especially, contributed to the 
development of an action plan to solve the problems 
identified.
On the operational level, WFP has developed a handbook 
for school canteen in Haiti. Through this guide, the 
operational management processes of the school’s canteen
are developed. Addressing operational management 
issues, this manual gives clear guidelines to the national 
schools participating in the school feeding program to 
adopt standardized norms of management while focusing 
on the issues of stakeholders’ participation while 
performing their roles and their responsibilities.
As part of the " Kore Lavi " program that supports the 
National Food Security and Nutrition Program, an 
experiment involving six community schools in Plateau 
Central was conducted. This program, implemented by the 
PNCS / MAST, is supported by WFP and other donors.
The implementation of this program was aligned with the
vision of the national policy for school feeding. The 
experimented model was based on local entrepreneurship 
and the supply of local products to satisfy the nutritional
needs of beneficiary students.
The use of local catering services while employing regular 
procurement procedures to support the preparation and 
distribution of food rations to the students enables the 
school stakeholders, particularly teachers, to focus on the 
learning objectives. 
 49
Indeed, the argument put forward to support this approach 
is that management of the canteen by the school consumes 
time that could have been allocated to educational activities 
for a better academic performance. By removing activities 
associated with the preparation and the distribution of food 
to students from the people in charge in the schools and the 
teaching staff, those will be able to devote their energy to 
meeting students’ learning goals. 
On the other hand, experience showed that by outsourcing
the preparation and the distribution of the food to the 
students, it is easier to ensure the quality of school feeding
at all times. Furthermore, the choices of energy associated 
with cooking the food based on the use of propane gas 
contribute to real cost-benefit advantages compared with 
the use of charcoal. These choices thus contribute to a 
decrease in the rate of tree cutting having a negative impact 
on the environment which would be attributable to the 
school canteen program.
CONCLUSION
The results of this study are the findings of an in-depth 
exploration of the three main sources of data collection, 
namely, schools, students and communities, in order to 
provide precise answers to a set of questions formulated 
beforehand. These results, as articulated, aim to provide 
program managers with the necessary level of 
understanding to better articulate program actions in the 
implementation of the feeding program in the schools.
The study showed that in terms of school organization, there 
is a SMC in 93.3% of the schools’ facilities. As to whether 
these structures play their role effectively, it was 
immediately revealed that the members of this structure are 
only getting bogged down in daily activities associated only
with the management of the school canteen’s routine 
operations. However, their statutory responsibilities, as 
defined in the TORs of their constitution, are more extensive. 
It should be noted that the function of president, for example, 
is occupied by the school's principal in at least 50% of the 
cases. However, the statutory regulations indicate that the 
SMC members must be democratically elected by the general 
assembly. Thus, it seems that there is a lack of a more formal 
normative framework that would have allowed the
members of this structure to more adequately fulfill the 
assigned mission.
For example, in 2015-2016, the students who had to repeat 
their class are estimated at 21.08%. If it is recognized that 
the school meal has a positive impact on the students' 
academic performance, how can the SMCs, the teachers, and 
the principals be involved in a joint effort to maximize the 
benefits of this program in order to reduce the repetition 
rate in the schools. This is a relevant issue that could help 
refocus the role of the SMC with its statutory rules.
In addition, the issue of school infrastructure management 
requires an attention from the community actors in the 
schools, particularly the SMC. For example, the study found 
that only 66.7% of the schools have latrines. Are SMC 
members aware of these issues?
When it comes to the upstream functioning of the canteen, 
there is the management of the storage room where the food 
is stored before being sent to the kitchen for cooking. The 
service personnel seems to know the basic rules associated 
with secure storage of goods. In fact, 90.7% of the schools 
have a storage room whereas pallets are available in 88.7% 
of the schools. For the kitchens’ compliance with minimum 
operating standards, only 48% of the schools meet these 
requirements. There is a lack of equipment and cooking 
utensils in the kitchens. Indeed, the study revealed that
there are no plates in 32% of the schools.
We must admit that these survey data do not come from a 
systematic inventory of equipment and utensils available at 
the schools. It was not possible to confirm all the 
information provided from the school property inventory
records properly maintained by the SMC.
When it comes to the management of the school canteen, the
staff seem to have some knowledge of the rules associated 
to cleanliness, hygiene and food safety preparation. 
In fact, by reviewing good practices in this field, 94% of the
schools have their SMC members or their service staff 
capable of identifying and applying at least three good 
practices. However, in terms of training, needs are identified
in food product stock management, in school health and 
hygiene, in nutrition and food safety preparation.
In its report of cause-effect beneficial with academic 
performance, unanimously shared by the various groups of 
stakeholders, the school canteen plays an undeniable role. 
All the actors (principals, teachers, parents) intervening in 
the school environment recognize it besides. Even the direct 
beneficiary who is the student is aware of the benefits he 
derives from the school meal program, the most important 
of which is his academic success. The study highlighted the 
relationship between community actors and the 
management of the program.
Their involvement and participation, despite the difficulties 
encountered with pay issues, continue to demonstrate their 
commitment to the implementation of the program in their 
schools. The question remains on how to create greater 
synergy in the actions of its stakeholder groups to maximize 
the benefits and long-term outcomes of the program?
Indeed, the new paradigm of development implies the 
development of local capacities in the effective management 
of their problems in the long term. This program, in itself,
represents a driving force around which could be grafted 
several dynamics that could influence the quality of 
education. The statements included in the ToR defining the 
 50
organizational and structural profile of the SMC, for 
instance, contain the seeds to give this new drive to these 
schools.
Although most community actors have certain grievances 
about the program that they generally formulate in the form 
of demands for adjustment in the supply of food in the 
schools, it remains nevertheless, that it is a program that 
local communities rely on. With its capacity building 
component, this program could leverage to help improve the 
quality of education while providing a balanced diet to the 
students. It is with this understanding that this study 
attempts to make the following recommendations to the 
program managers.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommendations made in this study are intended to assist program managers in strengthen the mechanisms for monitoring the 
actions they will have to undertake as part of the program’s implementation. It is important that these actions be part of a logical 
framework that tracks progress and makes corrections to ensure that progress is being made towards the program's stated goals and
outcomes. Thus, the main recommendations arising from this study are the following:
i. Refocus the functioning of the SMCs around the conceptual framework defined in the TORs organizing and structuring these 
entities as part of the management of the program in the schools;
ii. Define an operations manual for both the providers and the SMCs, as well as working tools that organize the operation of these 
structures, by bringing forward the production of quality information essential for monitoring the activities participating in the 
measurement of the different program performance indicators. To produce this information, it will be necessary 1) to set up a 
sound information system, 2) to identify the participants to feed the information system, 3) to clarify the communication 
mechanisms of information that are well known to all participants;
iii. Train the various workers having any contribution associated with the measurement of the program performance. Each type of 
worker could have, according to their own identified needs, their training program. For example, the study revealed training needs 
for school principals on management of the feeding program, monitoring and reporting, and for the SMC in the following areas: 
1) food inventory management, 2) health and school hygiene, (3) nutrition and (4) food safety preparation;
iv. Make a systematic inventory of the needs for equipment and kitchen utensils in order to plan the supply of schools with shortage 
of these materials. In this area, the competence of the SMC members will have to be strengthened in order to keep an inventory
register of the school property. The simplicity of the tools and the training of the users will make the task easy for the school staff 
assigned to this task;
v. Increase the diversity of the food rations distributed through the introduction of fresh vegetables, tubers, roots and local fruits in 
order to complement the current menu which is mainly based on imported cereal (73%). This request has appeared during 
discussions with the beneficiaries (students), and can be added to the local procurement initiatives currently being implemented
by WFP in Haiti. Nutritional input and the program’s contribution to the local economy are the two government’s priorities 
expressed in the National School Feeding Policy;
vi. Strengthen the sustainability and the long term effect mechanisms of the program so that the local actors can develop their 
leadership and be able to ensure the continuity of the school meal program management in their school even in the absence of 
any funding. Given the dependence expressed with respect to the program to operate the schools, such a strategy would help to 
make the supported school communities viable in the long-term.
Bibliography3
1. WFP: Plan of the academic manual for Haiti
2. WFP / MENFP: National Workshop for the implementation of the SABER system – School feeding, 
report of the progress of the activities
3. WFP / MENFP : SABER Workshop from August 25th to 26th, 2015 – Action Plan
4. World Bank: SABER final report, School Feeding, Country Report 2015.
5. KORE LAVI: Pilot School Canteen, Plateau Central, December 2015.
6. MENFP / PNCS: National School Feeding Policy and Strategy, January 2016.
7. MENFP Operational Plan 2010 -2015
______________________________________
3 These documents were provided by WFP to assist in the understanding of the initiatives supporting the Government of the Republic 
of Haiti in terms of school feeding.
APPENDIX: Questionnaires
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SCHOOL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
IDENTIFICATION OF THE SURVEY AGENT
Facilitator’s name __________
A.1
Facilitator’s code | | | 
Tel :____________________
A.2 Interview’s date : | | | / | 0 | 1 | / 2017
 Day Month
1. B INFORMATION NOTE
Before starting the interview, it is important to explain to your 
main respondent who welcomed you the objective of this study
and to thank him/her for having welcomed you. You must also 
explain:
- How the school was selected?
- How focus group participants have been identified?
« My name is [Facilitator’s name].
The World Food Program (WFP) and its national partners are 
conducting a baseline study prior to the implementation of a 
school feeding program. The WFP used the technical services of 
Atlantis Global Vision, which I represent, to conduct this study.
The discussions will take approximately one hour and a half (2 
hours at most). The information collected will remain strictly 
confidential and will not be shared with others for any reason 
whatsoever. They will be used for statistical purposes to inform 
the decision-making to improve the management of the canteen
program in schools supported by WFP.
Agent’s General Observation
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
 SECTION 1: SCHOOL MANAGERS, SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (SMC) AND NUMBER OF STUDENTS
1.1
Code 
assigned to 
the school:
Full name of 
the school:
1.2
Location of the school
Department’s code:
Department location of the school : | | << Insert the code
County:
Comm sect:
Locality:
Address:
1.3
School’s main 
representatives
A. Is there a canteen at 
school?
 | | 1= yes, 2 = No
If no, go to 1.5 up to 2.2 and 
then go to section 7, 9 and 10.
circle M or F School’s principal:
M
1
Telephone number_1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
circle M 
or F Administrator:
M
2
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
Governance structure of the 
school: The School 
Management Committee 
(SMC)
B. Does the school have an 
SMC?
 | | 1= Yes, 2 = No
 
C. Is there a school feeding 
program in the school?
 | | 1= yes, 2 = No
D. Is there an executive office
for the School Management 
Committee (EOSMC)?
 | | 1= yes, 2 = No
circle M 
or F ASEC/CASEC representative:
M
1
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
1.4
circle M 
or F Community leader:
M
2
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
circle M or 
F Local organization:
M
3
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
 circle M or 
F Parents’ association:
M
4
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
Note for the survey agent:
Ask the school’s principal to provide 
you with the list of people 
representing each of these sectors 
at the SMC to register their names, 
contact information and gender.
 Circle M or 
F Church leader:
M
5
Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
F E-mail:
M
6
Community member:
F Telephone number _1: Telephone number _2:
1.6
 Level of primary education 
available at school
1.5 Number of students by grade, by gender, by classroom accounted 
for in the school register in 2016-2017 and school fees.
Do students pay to attend the school? if 
yes, indicate the amount paid by students 
and by grade.
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
1 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No
# of grades >
1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
2 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No 
3 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No F M F M F M F M F M F M
4 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No Grade 1
5 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No Grade 2
6 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No Grade 3
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
1.7
Notes for the survey agent Number of students by grade, by gender, by classroom accounted for in the 
classrooms on the day of the survey agent’s visit
Go to each classroom 
to count the students 
present in the 
classroom on the day 
of the visit and then 
arrange the students 
and their teacher to 
take a picture of the 
class
Grades
1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
F G F G F G F G F G F G
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
1.8
Notes for the survey agent Number of students in the year-end decision list for the school year 2015-
2016 by level of education, grade and gender.
Ask the school’s 
principal to provide 
you with the year-end 
decision list for the 
2015-2016 school 
year and then report 
the numbers by grade 
level, gender and 
class
Grades
1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
F M F M F M F M F M F M 
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
1.9
Notes for the survey agent Number of students who move to higher grade in the year-end decision list 
for the school year 2015-2016 by level of education, grade and gender.
Refer to the year-end 
decision list for the 
2015-2016 school 
year and record the 
number of students 
promoted to the next 
grade by level of 
education, gender and 
class
Grades
1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY 
F M F M F M F M F M F M 
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
1.10
Notes for the survey agent Number of students who are repeating their grade in the year-end decision 
list for the school year 2015-2016 by level, grade and gender.
Refer to the year-end 
decision list for the 
2015-2016 school 
year and record the 
number of students 
who are repeating 
their grade by level of 
education, gender and 
grade
Grades
1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
F M F M F M F M F M F M 
Grade 1
Grade 2
Grade 3
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 2 : THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (EOSMC)
 AND SCHOOL INFRASTRUCTURES
2.1
School governance 
structures: the executive 
office of the School 
Management Committee 
(EOSMC)
Circle M or 
F President:
M
1
Telephone number_1: Telephone number_2:
Position in the 
EOSMC
Interest groups 
represented in 
the SMC
F E-mail:
Circle H 
or F Secretary:
M
2
Telephone_1: Telephone number_2:
1 President | | 01 : Direction F E-mail:
2 Secretary | | 02 : Teachers circle H or 
F Treasurer:
3 Treasurer | | 03 : Personnel M
3
Telephone_1: Telephone number_2:
4 Storekeeper | | 04 : Students F E-mail:
5 1st Member | | 05 : Students 
Parents 
Association 
(SPA)
circle H or 
F Storekeeper :
6 2nd Member | | M
4
Telephone number_1: Telephone number_2:
7 3rd Member | | F E-mail:
Note for the survey agent: Ask the 
school’s principal to give you the list of 
people who make up the Management 
Committee or the School Council to 
register their names (From 1 to 7), their 
contact details and their gender.
M
5
1er Member:
F Telephone number_1: Telephone number_2:
M
6
2nd Member:
F Telephone number_1: Telephone number_2:
M
7
 3rd Member:
F Telephone number_1: Telephone number_2:
2.2
Availability of 
school 
infrastructures
Types of infrastructures Existence
Does the school have a playground? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
 Does the school have a library? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Does the school have a computer room? | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
Does the school have an internet connection? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Does the school have electricity? | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
Does the school have separate restroom for teachers and students? | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
Does the school have water for uses other than drinking? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Does the school have drinking water? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Does the school have a canteen for the students? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Does the school have a health center to ensure first aid? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 3 – DISTRIBUTION : STORAGE, EQUIPMENTS, FOOD PREPARATION 
TOOLS, KITCHEN UTENSILES, COOKING ENERGY AND WATER USE
3.1 Does the school have an appropriate storage room to store canteen’s food? | | 1= Yes, 2 = No
3.2 Are the bags and boxes containing foods placed on pallets 
in a ventilated and secured storage room?
 | | 1= yes, 2 
= No
3.3 If the school does not have a storage room, the food is 
stored, in priority, in one of the following places:
A. At the Principal’s | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B. At one of the SMC member | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C. In a store, other than A and B | | 1= Yes, 2 = 
No 
D. Other, specify: ______________________________
3.4 How would you describe the 
cooking space?
A A closed, clean, well-ventilated area with modern 
equipment and facilities | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B An open, narrow, poorly maintained room with no 
equipment and kitchen utensils | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C A traditional outdoor space using dried wood and 
rocks as a sort of makeshift stove | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
D Food is prepared in another kitchen which is external 
to the school | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
3.5 Does the school have an adequate kitchen? | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
3.6
Does the school have the 
following equipment, food 
preparation tools and 
kitchen utensils:
A Food storage equipment: | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B Pots and pans: | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C Dishes, spoon for students: | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
D All category specified in A, B and C | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
E The school has no equipment | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
3.7
The school uses these 
following types of cooking 
energy sources:
A Gas stove | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B Gas improved stove | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C Charcoal simple stove | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
 D Coal briquette stove | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
E Traditional stove (a sort of makeshift using rocks and dried wood) | | 1= 
Yes, 2 = No 
3.8
Indicate, in terms of 
percentage, how often these 
types of cooking energy are 
used in the school canteen
 A Gas stove %
B Gas improved stove %
C Charcoal simple stove %
D Coal briquette stove %
E Traditional stove (a sort of makeshift using rocks and dried wood %
3.9 In terms of cooking energy, indicate, based on your 
experience, the percentage of students’ parents who buy:
Coal briquette %
Propane gas %
3.10
Specify the different 
sources of water supply in 
the school canteen?
A Tap water commonly used | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B Community well/ Community pomp | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C Improved well (Protected) | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
D Traditional well (unprotected) | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
E Surface waters (stream, river, etc.) | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
F Rain water | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
G Other, specify_____________________________ | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
3.11
Students have access to 
water for the following 
needs:
A Wash hands before eating | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
B Drinking water (Potable water) | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
C Water to evacuate human waste | | 1= Yes, 2 = No 
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 4 – THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL CANTEEN: Knowledge –
Attitudes – Practices (KAP)
4.1 The structure of the school 
canteen management:
A committee manages the school canteen: | | 1= yes, 2 = No
If yes, indicate the number of members that are: | | Female: | |Male 
4.2 Training of members of the 
SMC or service staff:
Members or staff working in the kitchen were trained: 
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
4.3
 Areas of training:
If yes, specify the area?
A Food stock management: | | 1= yes, 2 = No
B Health and hygiene: | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
C Nutrition: | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
D Preparing food in good sanitary conditions: | | 1= yes, 2 = No 
E Other, specify 
4.4
Based on your experience and 
observations on how SMC 
members or the canteen
personnel work, can you 
confirm whether they have 
these good health and hygiene 
practices in the kitchen?
Notes for the survey 
agent:
Show the list of possible 
responses to your 
respondent, let them choose 
the answer (s) themselves 
without making suggestions. 
Each information on the list 
must be answered with a 
"Yes" or a "No".
1
Wipe your hands by rubbing them 
against each other or using a clean 
cloth
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
10
 Use water supply and
Pump water| | 1= yes, 2 = No
2
Have nails short and clean hands 
and use a bandage in case of 
injury| | 1= yes, 2 = No 11
Keep drinking water in a clean and a 
covered container
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
3
Wash hands with soap and clean 
water (including after going to 
the toilet) | | 1= yes, 2 = 
No
12
In case of lack of drinking water, boil 
the water for 15 minutes and disinfect 
it with bleach| | 1= yes, 2 = No
4
Do not cough or blow your nose 
near food or water| | 1= yes, 
2 = No
13 Have clean clothes, clean and well￾covered hair| | 1= yes, 2 = No
5
Do not wipe hands on clothes or 
serve meals with your hands| | 
1= yes, 2 = No
14
Cut the grass regularly that grows 
around the canteen buildings and 
prune the surrounding trees| | 
1= yes, 2 = No
6
Stop working immediately in case 
of illness (diarrhea, vomiting, boil, 
wound, ulceration on the exposed 
parts of the skin) and inform 
colleagues
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
15
Collect the waste in a suitable garbage 
can and keep it at least 5-10 meters 
from the canteen. Place the waste in a 
pit at least 20 meters from the kitchen 
and from the water supply| | 
1= yes, 2 = No
7
Buy fresh milk, meat and fish on 
the day of consumption and 
keep them fresh and covered 
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
16
Clean dishes immediately after meals 
with soap and water, rinse with clean 
water and dry| | 1= yes, 2 = 
No
8
Keep food in a clean place out of 
reach of animals, insects, rodents 
and other pests| | 1= yes, 
2 = No
17 Burn waste in pits or cover them with 
sand and soil| | 1= yes, 2 = No
9
Have a regular handwashing 
station and keep the latrines 
clean| | 1= Yes, 2 = No
18
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
4.5
Based on your experience and 
observations on how SMC members 
or canteen staff, can you confirm 
whether they are complying with 
these good kitchen storage 
practices
Notes for the survey agent : 
Show the list of possible responses 
to your respondent, let them 
choose the answer (s) themselves 
without making suggestions. Each 
information on the list must be 
answered with a "Yes" or a "No".
1
Securing food from theft, fire 
and accidents| | 
1= yes, 2 = No
7
Have an appropriate space and 
prepare it prior to receiving 
food?
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
2
Ensure that there are no 
rodents or insects on a 
regular basis. If rodents or 
insects are observed, take 
measures to destroy these 
pests| | 1= yes, 2 = No
8
Make regular inventories to 
monitor stock and take the 
necessary corrective measures in 
case of deviations
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
3
Handle products with care to 
avoid damage
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
9
Limit losses by timely 
reconditioning of damaged 
supplies| | 1= yes, 2 = No
4
When stacking, allow space for 
ventilation and circulation| | 
1= yes, 2 = No
10
Make reports on stock 
management and update 
tracking documents
| | 1= yes, 2 = no
5
Stacking products on pallets by 
separating vegetables from non￾vegetables and hazardous 
products| | 1= yes, 2 = 
No
11
Stock movements are done with the 
authorization of the responsible 
person
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
6 Keep storage space and stocks 
clean and in good condition
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
12
Apply the FIFO method (meaning 
that food that comes first is used 
first) in order to ensure proper 
rotation of vegetables based on their 
expiry date.
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
4.6
Based on your experience and 
observations on how SMC members 
or canteen’s personnel work, can 
you confirm whether they comply 
with these good practices for safe 
food preparation in the kitchen?
Notes for the survey agent : 
Show the list of possible responses 
to your respondent, let them 
choose the answer (s) themselves 
without making suggestions. Each 
information on the list must be 
answered with a "Yes" or a "No".
1
The cooking area is kept clean
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
5
Never mix raw and prepared foods
| | 1= yes, 2 = no
2
Wash vegetables, fruits et other 
ingredients with potable water
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
6
Never conserve meals for consuming 
for next days
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
3
Meat, fish and offal are well 
cooked
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
7
Hot meals are served daily
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
4 Food preparation procedures are 
followed
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 5 – THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CANTEEN AND AVAILABILITY OF 
EQUIPMENT, FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION
5.1 The Canteen management system : Information are registered in book: | | 1= yes, 2 = No
5.2
Direct 
Beneficiaries of 
the canteen:
If the school canteen was in operation last month, how 
many students did you plan to give a food ration for the 
last month
| | | | | | girls 
| | | | | | boys 
The number of students that received a meal in the last 
distribution for the last month:
| | | | | | girls 
| | | | | | boys 
5.3 Availability of 
equipment and 
kitchen utensils:
A Food storage equipment : | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
B Cookware to prepare food : | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
C Cookware for cooking : | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
D Gas stove: | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
E Charcoal stove : | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
F Improved charcoal stove : | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
D Dishes and spoon (eating purpose): | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
G Drinking cups: | | 1 = not at all; 2 = few
3 = enough; 4 = well equipped
5.4. Number of days per week that students in grade 1 to 6 received a hot meal composed of four food categories, for 
last month (prior to the survey)
Notes for the 
survey agent : 
Collect necessary 
information from 
managers and service 
staff and write the 
number of days per 
week students received 
a hot meal in the 
canteen.
week 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
I
II
III
IV
Total
5.5. Number of students per week (Boys and Girls) in grade 1 to 6 that ate meals served in the canteen for the last 
month (prior to the survey)
Notes for the 
survey agent : 
Collect necessary 
information from 
managers and service 
staff and write the 
number of days per 
week students received 
a hot meal in the 
canteen.
week 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
I
II
III
IV
Total
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 7 – REASONS FOR STUDENTS ABSENCE AND SCHOOL DROP-OUTS 
Note for the survey agent: identify with the school’s principal the three main causes of student absence in the classroom. Please, do note 
these causes in order of importance according the school’s principal knowledge of the community.
7.1
What are, in your opinion, the three main 
causes of boy’s absence in the classroom?
Note: Please rank by order of importance the 
three causes based on your knowledge of the 
community.
Cause # 1 |__|
Cause # 2 |__|
Cause # 3 |__|
1 = health problem
2 = flooded river
3 = patronal feast
4 = take care of children at home when the 
mother is not at home
5 = funeral of a community leaders
6 = not able to eat in the school canteen
7 = other, specify______________________ 
What are, in your opinion, the three main 
causes of girls’ absence in the classroom?
Note: Please rank by order of importance the 
three causes based on your knowledge of the 
community.
Cause # 1 |__|
Cause # 2 |__|
Cause # 3 |__|
1 = health problem
2 = flooded river
3 = patronal feast
4 = take care of children at home 
5 = funeral of a community leaders
6 = not able to eat in the school canteen
7 = other, specify ______________________ 
Notes for the survey agent: identify with the school’s principal the three main causes of student drop-outs. Please, do note these causes in 
order of importance according the school’s principal knowledge of the community.
7.2
What are, in your opinion, the three main 
causes of school drop-out among boys?
Note: Please rank by order of importance the 
three causes based on your knowledge of the 
community
Cause # 1 |__|
Cause # 2 |__|
Cause # 3 |__|
1 = health problem/disability
2 = financial/economic problem
3 = parents migration
4 = quit to attend another school
5 = stay home to take care of other children
6 = other, specify
What are, in your opinion, the three main 
causes of school drop-out among girls?
Note: Please rank by order of importance the 
three causes based on your knowledge of the 
community
Cause # 1 |__|
Cause # 2 |__|
Cause # 3 |__|
1 = health problem/disability
2 = financial/economic problem
3 = pregnancy
4 = parents migration
5 = quit to attend another school
6 = stay home to take care of other children
7 = other, specify:_______________________
5.6
Food security and Nutrition
Note: for each food group, please indicate the 
source of supply…...>>
Supply Sources Day of the week that 
students eat these foods:
Name the 
meal
 If the 
number of 
days for 
which 
students in 
grade 1 to 6 
are provided 
with a 
balanced 
meal is > 0, 
what groups 
of food are 
served to 
students? 
Cereals (rice, wheat, corn) 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | 
1 = WFP
2 = School
 
3 = Purchase 
from parents
4 = Production 
from school
 
5 = Production 
from parents
 
6 = other
| |
1= Monday
2= Tuesday
3= Wednesday
4= Thursday
5= Friday
Roots and tubers 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Vegetables 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Dairy products 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Meat, fishes, offal 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Fruits rich in vitamin A 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Other fruits and vegetables 
| | 1: yes, 0: No | | | | 
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 8. QUESTIONS OF GENERAL INTEREST TO SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND 
TEACHERS
Category of 
respondents Questions Note 1 for yes and 0 for 
no
School’s 
principal
• Do you consider that the SMC effectively plays its role in the day-to-day 
management of school canteen operations? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Are members of the SMC effective in providing solutions to problems 
encountered in the management of the school canteen? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Do you think the canteen in the school meets students’ basic nutritional needs? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Is the quality of meal provided to children meet parents' expectations? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Do all students eat on their own plates? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you see any need for cooking tools? If yes, identify these needs | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Are you convinced that the canteen is a motivating factor for students to attend 
school?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Do you think that the canteen has a positive effect on the retention of students
at school?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Do parents contribute to the functioning of the canteen? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Do you think that the canteen has a positive impact on the overall academic 
success in your school?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
Teachers Notes for the survey agent : ask these three questions to one teacher from 
1st to 6th grade of fundamental year
Note 1 for yes and 0 
for No
1st grade 
Teachers 
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school? | | 1: yes, 0: No
2nd grade 
Teachers 
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school 
meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
3rd grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school 
meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
4th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school 
meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
5th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school 
meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
6th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that students are paying more attention in the classroom because of the 
school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students become more receptive and learn more easily because of 
the school meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you notice a significant improvement in students’ performance because of the school 
meal?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 9. QUESTIONS OF GENRAL INTERESY TO SCHOOL’S PRINCIPALS 
AND TEACHERS OF SCHOOLS IN THE CONTROL GROUPS
Category of 
respondents Questions Note 1 for yes and 
0 for No
School’s 
principal
• Do you consider that the School Council (SC), if there is any in your school, 
plays its role effectively in supporting the management of the school?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No
• If yes, are the SC members involved in the promotion of small projects 
(Gardening, Cleanliness of the school space, etc.)?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• Do you think parents and students would like to have a canteen in your school? | | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• Based on your observations, do parents adequately care for their children's food 
by sending them to school?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• Did you observe that the majority of students come to school with their lunch 
box or with pocket money to buy food at recess? | | 1: yes, 0: No 
• Did you observe that most students are attentive in the classroom or tend to 
sleep in class while the teacher is teaching? | | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• If yes, do students sleep in the classroom; do you think this is related to a 
certain deficit in their diet?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• Generally, does the food you see that students eat at school during recess meet 
their actual nutritional needs?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
• Do you consider that school performance in your school would be better if there 
was a canteen?
| | 1: yes, 0: 
No 
Teachers Notes for the survey agent : ask these three questions to one teacher from 1st
to 6th grade of fundamental year
Note 1 for yes 
and 0 for No
1st grade 
Teachers 
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
2nd grade 
Teachers 
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
3rd grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
4th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
5th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time? | | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
6th grade 
Teachers
(FY) 
• Did you observe that most students pay close attention to courses when they are in 
classroom?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• Did you observe that students are receptive and do not sleep during class time?
| | 1: yes, 0: No
• In general, do you observe that students are eating in a balanced way? | | 1: yes, 0: No
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International 
Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti » December 2016
SECTION 10 : DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ON TEACHING STAFF
1 FY
Grades LAST NAME FIRST NAME TELEPHONE 
NUMBER Gender LEVEL OF 
EDUCATION
MONTHLY SALARY 
IN HTG
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
2 FY 
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
3 FY 
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
4 FY 
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
5 FY 
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
6 FY
Grade 1 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 2 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Grade 3 | | 1: M, 2: F | |
Code for each education level >> 1 = < 3rd Secondary ; 2 = 3rd Secondary or Second ; 3 = Rheto or Philo ; 4 = CAP ; 5 = ENI ; 6 = University ; 7 = FIA ; 8 = 
CFEF ; 9 = ENS ; 10 = FSE.
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
 SECTION 1: QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS IN BENEFICIARY SCHOOLS
1.1
Code 
attributed to 
the School:
Full name of 
the school:
1.2 Identification and student’s 
profile
Last name: First name:
Grade: | | 1 = 1 FY 2 = 2 FY 3 = 3 FY 4 = 4 FY 5 = 5 FY 6 = 6 FY
Sex: | | 1 = G 2 = F Age: years
Status: | | 1 = Promoted this year; 2 = Repeated ; 3 = New
1.3 Brothers and sisters at school? | | 1 = yes
0 = No
1.4. If yes, how many brothers and sisters do you have at school? 
| | 
1.5 If no, do you have school-aged brothers and sisters? | | 1= yes, 2 = No
1.6. How many do you have? 
| |
1.7
Is there a canteen at your 
school where you regularly eat?
(if no, go to section II)
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
1.8. Do you like the meal served at school? | |1=yes, 2 =No
1.9. Do you eat every morning before going 
to school? | |1=yes, 2 =No
1.10 If no, what do you dislike the 
most? | |
1 = bad taste; 2 = type of food served; 3 = food served does not relate to 
how I usually eat at home; 4 = food is not well prepared; 5 = not being able 
to eat in my own plate.
1.11 Do you eat every time there 
is food in the school canteen? | | 1 = yes
0 = No
1.12. Do your parents pay for the food you 
are served at school? | |1= yes, 2 =No
1.13 If yes, how much? ……...... HTG 1.14. Do you prefer the food at home to 
the food you are served at school? | |
1 = Parents
2 = School
1.15
If the answer is 1 = Parents, 
what is the main reason for 
that?
| |
1 = Food is more diverse at home; 2 = Food is better prepared at home; 3 = 
Food at home has meat; 4 = Because of the bad taste of food served at 
school
1.16 What food are you served the 
most at school (cereal)? | |
1 = Wheat 2 = Rice 3 = Corn 4 = Millet
<< please, specify the food (cereal0 code
1.17 Does this food (cereal) come 
with legumes such as bean? | | 1 = yes
0 = No
1.18. Does this food (cereal) come with 
meat or salmon? | |1=yes, 2 =No
1.19
How many days per week do 
you eat in the school 
canteen?
| | days 1.20. What food served at school do you 
like the most? | | see codes in 
1.15
1.21
In your opinion, what is the 
biggest benefit that eating at 
school gives you?
| | 1 = a free hot meal; 2 = it helps me concentrate in classroom; 3 = it 
motivates me to go to school every day; 4 = it motivates me to study more.
1.22
How many times per day you 
are served at the school 
canteen?
………... times
1.23. If you are served more than 
one time, what meal do you like the 
most?
| 
|
1 = breakfast;
2 = Snack in recess.
3 = hot meal for 
lunchtime ( noon)
1.24
Based on your observations, 
are students reluctant to food 
served at school?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
1.25. Do every student eat in his/her 
own plate? | |1=yes, 2 =No
1.26. What is your GPA 
for the last academic 
year?
| 
| < 5/10 5/10 to 
7/10 7/10 and over
1.27
What is the main demand 
students make regarding the 
food served in the school 
canteen?
| | 1 = Improve the taste; 2 = Diversity in the food; 3 = Add meat in the meal; 
4 = Add vegetables and fruits; 5 = No demand
1.28
Do you know any other 
organization that provides 
assistance to your school?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No 1.29. If yes, what is the name of the organization? ___________
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
 SECTION 2: QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS IN NON-BENEFICIARIES SCHOOLS
2.1 Do you eat every morning 
before going to school? | | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.2. If no, do your parents give you a 
lunchbox or money to eat at school? | |1=yes, 2 =No
2.3
If your parents give you 
money, how much do they 
give to you per day?
……...... HTG
2.4. If you are given neither money nor a 
lunchbox, do your classmates usually share 
their food with you?
| |1=yes, 2 =No
2.5
What benefit do you think a 
school canteen would give 
you?
| | 1 = no longer being hungry during class; 2 = more motivation to come to 
school; 3 = more attention in classroom; 4 = more efforts in the study
2.6
What food would you prefer 
(cereal) the most to have in a 
school canteen?
| |
1 = Wheat 2 = Rice 3 = Corn 4 = Millet
<< please, note the food code(Cereal)
2.7
Would you like this food to 
come with vegetables, for 
example with beans?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.8. Would you like this food to come with 
meat or salmon (cereal)? | |1= yes, 2 =No
2.9
How many days per week 
would you like to eat at 
school if there was a 
canteen?
| | days 2.10. Is there a shop at school where 
students can buy food? | | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.11
Based on your observations, 
are students attentive in 
classroom?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.12. Because there is not a canteen at 
school, are students discouraged to attend 
school?
| |1= yes, 2 =No
2.13
Based on your observations, 
do students have a good 
performance despite the 
absence of a canteen at 
school?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.14. What is your GPA (grade point 
average) for the last year?
| < 5/10
| 5/10 – 7/10
| 7/10 and over
2.15
If you knew that there was a 
school nearby with a canteen, 
would you quit your school to 
attend this school instead?
| | 1 = yes
0 = No
2.16. Do you think that most of the 
students in your school would make the 
same decision?
| |1= yes, 2 =No
Notes for the survey agent: This questionnaire is intended to be administered to two students (1 girl and 1 boy) per grade 
from (3 FY to 6FY) randomly selected according to the established methodology. After each interview, thank each student for 
answering your questions.
Please note that the first section is to be administered to students from schools with a school feeding program and Section 2
I for schools that do not have a school meal program
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
Questionnaire Focus-Group
Facilitator‘s general observations IDENTIFICATION OF THE FACILITATOR
Facilitator’s name
A.1
Facilitator’s code | | | Tel :
Facilitator’s name
A.2
Facilitator’s code | | | Tel :
A.3 Interview’s date: | | | / | | | / 2016
day Month
1. B INFORMATION NOTE
It is important to explain to your main respondent the objective of 
the study prior to starting the interview and to thank all the actors 
for accepting to participate in the study. It is also necessary to 
explain
- How the school has been selected?
- How FGs participants have been identified?
« My name is [Facilitator’s name].
The World Food Program (WFP) and its national partners are 
conducting a baseline study prior to the implementation of a school 
feeding program in schools in five geographical departments. WFP 
used the technical services of Atlantis Global Vision, which I 
represent, to conduct this study.
Discussions will take approximately one hour and a half (2 hours 
at most). The information collected will remain strictly 
confidential and will not be communicated to any other person 
for any reason whatsoever. They will be used for statistical 
purposes to inform decision-making about improving the 
management of the feeding program in schools supported by 
WFP.
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
SECTION 1: IDENTIFICATION OF THE COMMUNITY-SCHOOL, NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES
1.1
School’s code: School’s complete 
name:
1.2 School’s location
Department of the school’s location: | | << Insert the code
Municipality:
Communal section:
Locality:
Address:
1.3 School’s main staff
1
School’s principal:
Telephone_1: Tlephone_2:
E-mail:
2
Administrator:
Telephone_1: Telephone_2:
E-mail:
1.4
The school’s governance 
structures: the school’s 
management committee 
(SMC)
1. Does the school have a SMC?
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
B. Is there a canteen program in 
the school?
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
C. Does the school have an 
executive bureau of the 
school management 
committee?
| | 1= yes, 2 = No
Note for the agent: please, refer 
to Focus Group attendance sheet to 
arrange separate discussion groups 
based on participant profile and 
circle P or A according to whether 
the person representing the interest 
groups numbered 1 to 6 is present 
 
circle P or A ASEC/CASEC representative:
P
1
Telephone_1: Telephone_2:
A E-mail:
circle P or A Community leader:
P
2
Telephone_1: Téléphone_2:
A E-mail:
circle P or A Local organization:
P
3
Téléphone_1: Téléphone_2:
A E-mail:
circle P or A Parents’ association:
P
4
Telephone _1: Telephone _2:
A E-mail:
circle P or A Church leader:
P
5
Telephone _1: Telephone _2:
A E-mail:
P
6
Community members:
A Telephone _1: Telephone _2:
1.5
The different level of 
primary education 
available at the school
1.6 Number of students by gender counted in the school registers in 
2016-2017.
1 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No 1FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 FY 6 FY
# of classroom
>>
2 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No
3 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No F G F G F G F G F G F G
4 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No CL1
5 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No CL2
6 FY | | 1: yes, 0: No CL3
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
SECTION 2: THE EXECUTIVE BUREAU OF THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AND DISCUSSION THEMES
1.7
The school governance structure: 
the executive office of the school 
management committee (EOSMC)
circle
P or A President :
P
1
Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
Positions 
defined within 
the SMC
Interest groups 
represented within 
SMC
A E-mail :
circle
P or A Secretary :
P
2
Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
1 President | | 01 : Administration A E-mail :
2 Secretary | | 02 : Teaching staff circle
P or A Treasurer :
3 Treasurer | | 03 : Personnel P
3
 Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
4 Storekeeper | | 04 : Students A E-mail :
5 1st Member | | 05 : Students 
Parents’ Association 
(SPA)
circle
P or A Storekeeper:
6 2nd Member | | P
4
Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
7 3rd Member | | A E-mail :
Note for the agent: please, refer to Focus 
Group attendance sheet to arrange separate 
discussion groups based on participant profile 
and circle P or A according to whether the person 
representing the positions in the EOSCM 
numbered 1 to 7 is present (P) Or absent (A) at 
the meeting. .
P
5
1st Member :
A Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
P
6
2nd Member :
A Telephone_1 : Telephone_2 :
P
7
 3rd Member :
A Telephone_1 : Telephone_1 :
Note for the Facilitator: Explain to the 
participants that you will meet them in a 
discussion group (quoting the areas of interest) 
and that they will have to answer and comment 
on a few questions related to the school and the 
functioning of the canteen in particular. Tell them 
that your role is to facilitate the discussion and 
that the floor will basically be theirs and you will 
have to take notes.
Interest 
groups 
present at 
the meeting
Discussion themes
The school’s 
direction 
• Establishment and functioning of the SMC and the 
EOSCM;
• The importance of the canteen within the School and the 
need for utensils and equipment;
• Link between the canteen and the presence in the 
classroom;
• Forms of contribution and participation of parents in the 
school canteen.
Teaching 
staff
• The canteen and students’ attention in classroom;
• The canteen, the enlightenment and students’ learning 
in classroom;
• The canteen and students’ performance.
Service staff
• Knowledge in nutrition and training needs
• Stock management, quantitative and qualitative aspects
• Composition of the meal provided to students
• Cooking energy and use of water
Students
• Students general appreciation on the food served in the 
school canteen
• Key students demands on the quality of the meal served
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
SMC 
members and 
students’ 
parents
• School meals and students increased motivation to 
attend school;
• Level of student appreciation for food offered in the 
canteen;
• Participation of parents in the canteen;
• Program governance within the school;
d 
SECTION 3: QUESTIONS FOR THE FOCUS-GROUP
Interest Groups Discussion themes Interviews questions 
The school 
management
Establishment and functioning of the 
SMC and the EOSCM
• How would you describe the contribution of the EOSMC 
in the daily management of school canteen
operations?
• What types of problems do EOSMC face in carrying out 
their duties within the school?
The importance of the canteen
within the school and the need for 
utensils and equipment
• Do you think the canteen in the school meets the basic 
nutritional needs of the students?
• Are parents' expectations met in terms of the nutrition 
of their children by considering the food provided at 
school?
• Do all students eat on their own plates or do you see 
that a certain percentage of students do not have their 
own plates?
• Did you see any need for cooking utensils and 
equipment
Link between the canteen and the 
presence in the classroom
• Are you convinced that the canteen is a motivating 
factor for students to come to school?
• Do you think that the canteen has a positive effect on 
the retention of students at school?
Forms of contribution and 
participation of parents in the 
school canteen
• What kind of contributions do parents make to the 
functioning of the canteen?
• In terms of energy used as fuel for cooking, what 
percentage of parents, based on your experience in the
community, buys: a) briquettes, propane, etc.?
Teaching staff
The canteen and students’ 
attention in classroom • Have you observed that the students pay more 
attention in classroom because of the canteen?
The canteen, the enlightenment 
and students’ learning in classroom
• Have you observed that the students become more 
receptive and they learn more easily because of the 
canteen in the school?
The canteen and students’ 
performance
• Have you observed a significant improvement of the 
students’ performance because of the canteen in the 
school?
Service staff
Knowledge in nutrition and training 
needs
• Do you know the basic rules for safe cooking?
• What do you do to maintain the canteen in a good 
state?
• What are your different uses of water?
Inventory management, 
quantitative and qualitative aspects
• How do you ensure food storage?
• What precautions have been taken to avoid food 
contamination by rodents and other pests?
• Do you have enough food storage equipment?
• How do you ensure the control of the depletion of food 
stocks?
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
Composition of the meal provided to 
the students • What types of foods do you put on student plates 
during meals?
 Cooking energy and use of water • What energy source do you use the most for cooking?
SECTION 3: QUESTIONS FOR FOCUS-GROUP
Interest groups Discussion 
themes Interview questions
Students
Students general 
appreciation on the 
food served in the 
school canteen
• How do you find the food served on students' plates in the school 
canteen?
• Are students reluctant to eat this food?
• Is each student served on his or her own plate?
• How many students are not served on their own plates during meals?
Key students 
demands on the 
quality of the 
meal provided
• What do students usually ask about the quality of food that is offered 
to them?
SMC members and 
students’ parents 
School canteens 
and students 
increased 
motivation to 
attend school
• Does the canteen appeal to your child to go to school?
• Do you have an idea of the types of meals your child is served in the 
school canteen?
• Does the canteen allow you to save money on your children's food
expenses at home?
Level of student 
appreciation for 
food served in the 
canteen
• Does your child complain about the quality of the food served on his 
plate in the canteen at the school?
• What does he usually complain about?
• Do you usually give food to your child to go to school?
Participation of 
parents in the 
canteen
• What contribution do you make to the functioning of the school 
canteen?
• Do you usually donate charcoal briquettes, propane gas for the 
kitchen to work in the school canteen?
• Do you participate in the implementation of certain projects designed 
to keep the school of your child clean and beautiful?
• Can you give us an example of a project in which you have recently 
participated?
Program 
governance within 
the school
• Transparency: Do you have access to all the necessary information 
about the school’s food management (stock, inventory flow, periodic 
reports)?
• Participation: Are you invited to meetings regarding decision￾making about the school’s food management?
• Information sharing: Is the information associated with the 
management of the feeding program within the school available at all 
times? Is this information communicated to everyone?
• Use of food: is there other uses (market sales, distribution outside 
the school for political reasons) of the food of the canteen than that 
of feeding the children?
Baseline study for the « Programme McGoven Dole International Food for 
 Education and Child Nutrition Program in Haïti »
Recommendations 
to improve program 
management
• Recommendations: what are your most important 
recommendations to improve the program management?
Note for the Agent
End the meeting: Thank each group of actors for the time they have given you to do your 
job. Reassure them that there will not be an individual treatment of the contents of the 
discussions. Tell them that their contributions to clarifying each question will help better 
coordinate, monitor and evaluate the school feeding program activities in their schools.
APPENDIX: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
No First and Last names Sector represented at 
the meeting Telephone Signatures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15